7. Protect and maintain native oak trees in the Park, according cwrent guidelines (see Appendix).
8. Reduce poison oak/baccharis bmsh patches, in Upper Park, by one third their size (see Fire Hazard Recommendations).
9. Along park perimeter. manage vegetation according to prescriptions outlined in the Fire Hazard Management element of this plan.
10. Confer with MCOSD regarding possible cooperati,·e vegetation management programs at SRP and the adjacent Preserve, as well as opportunities for cost-sharing (e.g. grazing, weed control).
11. Irrigate only to establish revegetated areas in the Park.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
558
,-l
j ¥lildlife l\lanagement
Goals
A goal of this Plan is to maintain habitats for wildlife that have historically lived in -~1 the SRP area. An objecti\'e of the plan is to suppo1t the policies of the Conservation element of the General Plan.
Options
Continue Current ~Ianagement
There \\·ill be impacts on existing \\ildlif e if the ctnTent vegetation managen1ent practices are continued. Changes in local vegetation mosaic almost invariably effect ,vildlife.
1. Habitat for wildlife species ,vill increase as slnubs invade the grasslar1d and th~ understory of the oak woodland.
- '
2.Animal species dependent on grazed grassland will decrease with the accwnulation of thatch. Consequently. there will be less prey for hawks and other raptors and their populations \\-ill also decrease C\ICOSD).
'
1 .,_J
, J
, J
3. Increase of fuels in the park increases the chances of major fire which \vill kill some smaller animals and affect wildlife species composition. -1-. Deer population will continue to be too lar·ge. resulting in severe browsing of certain plant species.
Impacts of Other Recommendations on Wildlife
1. Removal of exotic plar1ts, in general. will benefit wildlife as it will maintain native wildlife habitat and forage (see Vegetation recommnedations. ).
2. Gearing of brush in the oak woodlar1d a11d reduction of baccharis/poison oak brushlat1d will be of no benefit to wildlife
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
559
Recommendations
1. Stress the need for dog owners to closely control off-leash dogs. as they can significantly impact wildlife. Llst this recommendation on access and trailhead signs, etc .. as a condition of permitted 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 meadmvs shall be protected from livestock. horses and dogs. -1-. Trails shall not lead through springs or wet meadows.
5. Confer \Vith ~ICOSD on other "1ildlife issues, including: summer water for \Vildlife and control of the deer population.
' J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
560
l
l
l
1 j
l
rl
l
. l
. 1
I ..__j
Fire Hazard i\:lanagement
Fuel characteristics of vegetation at Sari.ch Ranch Park documented in the Site Inventory, indicate that there are significant fuel loads, \Vhich can be expected to support a fast moving intense \Vildfire in the Park. The urban/wildfire irite1face. at the perimeter of the Park. is the most critical area in tem1S of fire hazard. P01tions of the park perimeter where grassland in the pm·k is located clmvn slope of residential property are the most hazardous. In the park interior. the brnshhmds are the most hazardous native vegetation type.
The recent detailed study of the ~ ICOSD Preserve by fire hazard management specialists (~ICOSD, 1991 ), documented fire hazards over hillsides adjacent to SRP; and across ten-ain and vegetation identical to that at SRP. The study assessed munerous management options and made comprehensive recommendations for reducing fire hazard at the perimeter of the Preserve. One of the high priority recommendations \Vas:
"the District should confer with adjacent land owners of large parcels, particularly the t0\'111 of San Anselmo. Ammgements should be made to diminish fire hazard on SRP where it borders residential property".
This recommendation. to reduce the risk of spread of fire from open space to urban zones. should be at the top of the To\'1TI action plan for SRP .
Goals
The overall goal is to reduce the risk of a fire in the Park spreading to the adjacent neighborhood and to reduce fire hazard to park users.
All vegetation \'1ill btnn if a fire is hot enough. The risk of a wildfire escaping the park can never be eliminated tmless the perimeter is completely paved. However. wild.land fire hazard can be managed by three means:
- change vegetation type; e.g. replace natural grasslands with irrigated la,~n. or promote bay woodlands ..
-reduce fuel volume; e.g. mow grasslands and prune dead understory .. -change distribution of fuel; e.g. disk grassland. remove shrubs around buildings ..
The goal of a fire hazard management plan should be to maintain a fuel condition that makes the fire easy to control. In this region grassland fires are the easiest to control; so it is important to maintain grasslands. The ~ICOSD plan investigated se\'eral fire hazard /DD
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
561
management alternatives, applicable to conditions at Sorich Ranch Park: these alternatives are incorporated in the options desc1ibed belmv ..
Options
Continue Current 0.fanagement
If no actions are taken to manage vegetation the follo\'ving impacts on fire hazard can be expected (:\ICOSD). Natural conditions will lead to a continuing increase in fuels available to a fire once one begins. This fuel build up makes it ,·ery likely that e\·entually a fire, begi1ming in the Park or in the adjacent Presen·e, will travel off the park land onto p1ivate property and possibly destroy residences. Recent studies of case law regarding the question of whether the government would be liable for dmnages caused by fire that began on public property indicates, while law is not definiti\'e it is likely the Town \Vou.ld be sued. if such a fire occmTed. Recent cases in such situations have been settled out of court (1'.u\·ffi7D, 1991).
In addition to private property losses, se1ious damage to ce11ain trees and plants. particulary the oaks; would result from a hot wildfire, fueled by heavy accumulations of brush.
Fuelbreaks
Fuel breaks are areas of nanrral vegetation which are selectively thinned. mowed and maintained for their low fire spread charactelistics. Fuel breaks nmning dmvu the urban/wild.land inte1face are the most effective means of reducing the risk of fire spreading from the open space to the urban areas ( Radtke.i983). The State recommended. minimum fuel break '"idth is 100'. However, the unique combination of steep slopes and dense vegetation dictates the worth of increasing the ,vidth in certain locations around SRP.
All trees and shrubs in the fuel break. including the less fire prone. native species such as red,vood. oak. and bay should be pruned sufficiently high to prevent their ignition by ground fires: thus interupting the "fuel ladder". In the oak wood.lands at least 85% of dead materail up to 3'' in dian1eter should be removed, up to 6' from the grow1d. Leaf litter should be raked to 1" depth. In the bay \Vood.land little needs to be done except prnning the limbs up to 6' above the ground.
Bay woodlands are less prone than other woodlands. "Necessary steps should be taken to expand the bay wood.lands along the park perin1eter". No pruning of the bay woodland should occur that allows openings in the forest canopy, because bays thrive in the shade.
Jo/
- 1
J
J
I
_J
I
_J
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
562
'l
l
'l
l
l j
1 1
l
t
~
All brush species should be cleared from ,vithin 50' of the perimeter. Brush in the fuel break should be cut at least 2 years in succession, to kill it. Cut brush can be piled and safely burned in winter.
Fuel breaks should have low growing groundco\"er or grasses. less than 18" high. in order to cut dO\vn on heat output. slow the spread of fire and pre\"ent erosion. Studies show that mowing of grassland significantly reduces the rate of spread of a grass fire. The peiimeter mmving and pruning program recommended by 1ICOSD includes:
1. A 30' wide strip mO\ved around the park perin1eter
2. Grasses should be mO\ved to about ..J.'' tall . bet\'reen June 15 and July ..J., each year.
A revie\V of that part of the perimeter bordering residential areas. shows that 1200 · could be mo,ved by n-actor ( +25% slopes). Tractor mm\ing would require some impro\'ecl access to the park perimeter. The remainder. about 2100' of the perimeter, are too steep and inaccessible to trnctors . These areas would be hand mowed using weed whips.
The constrnction of fuel breaks could potentially damage sensitire plant communities. However. no such comnumities are known to exist where the fuel breaks are recommended. ~Io,ving itself will in fact promote expansion of 1mti ve perennials. which stay green longer are less fire prone.
Disking of the perimeter would break up the grassland fuel leaving patches of earth between patches of grass and thatch. However, it is not recommended for several reasons:
it is costly, promotes invasion of weeds like thistle; and its esthetically unpleasant (MCOSD,1991).
The pe1imeter strip could conceivably be irrigated, to keep the grass green in order to reduce fuel voltune. However, the cost of such a project would be prohibitive in terms of installation, maintanence and water demand (given the recent history of drought).
Interior treatment
The distribution of vegetation types in the Park interior represents a hazardous fuel situation. The invasion of poison oak :baccharis into the understory of the oak woodland and the grassland is part of the natuml process of succession. However. since the cessation of grazing and suppression of natural fires, a hazardous "ladder of fuel" has developed in the understory of the oak woodland. In the grassland, heavy loads of thatch have accumulated. Possible options for managerunent of these inte1ior areas include:
reducing sluub growth and prescribed btmung (MCOSD.1991).
Reducing the bmsh cover by one tlurd will reduce fire hazard in regards to the oaks and maintain hist01ic mosiac of plants (~lCOSD.1991). Brush could be cut and removed or bumed in winter or early spdng. during periods of low fire danger. {6~
3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
563
Prescribed bums are purposefully set fires, controlled by fire management crews. which reduce the fuel load in natural areas. There is considerable public concern and controversy regarding presc1ibed bums. However. 51 % of the respondents to the "community" questionnaire indicated that such a practiced would be appropriate at SRP.
Fire. natural or prescribed would decrease the amount of fuel and alter existing conditions. thereby increasing the chance of controlling subsequent fires in- these areas. 111e ~ 1COSD plan recommends that fire departments propose prescribed bum plans. in cooperation with local open space managers. which would be publicly re,iewed p1ior to conducting the burns.
A plan for revegetation of Lo\ver Park. in accordance \Vi th piinciples of "less-fire prone planting design", is presented in the final section of the Master Plan.
Removal of Exotics
Exotic vegetation in the Park and along the park pe1imeter usually contains low moisture levels. making them more of a fire hazard: and are of 10\v \vildlife value. All · exotic trees and slm.1bs on the Park should be removed along the Park pe1imeter . East of Sorich Ranch Park there are about 4-0 acres of eucalyptus forest, managed by MC:OSD.
The area poses a significant fire hazard. All sprouts. unhealthy trees and dead material on the SRP side of the boundary should be removed. For control methods see the appendix.
Emergencv Access and Water
Existing access points and service roads provide adequate emergency access to the Park (see Access inventory and recommendations). However, consideration should be given to a negotiated agreement. between Fire Departments and private property owners. for emergency vehicles access across the p1ivate drive\.vay at 500 San Francisco Bl Yd ..
Access for vegetation maintenace should be assured at Sacramento Ave. although vehicle access should not be necessary. ORV banicades at access points should accomoclate emergency vehicles (e.g. crash barriers) and accces for mowing, where necessary (i.e. gates or crash barriers). A redesigned parking lot should accomodate emergency vehicle access. Mo,ving. along both sides of service roads and around the parking areas for a distance of 15', would provide an improved firebreak system and protect routes of escape.
An adequate. reliable supply of water is very important factor in suppressing wilclland fires. A standpipe located in the Corporation yard is the closest ,vater c01mection to Lower Park. Improved access to the connection and installation of a hydrant should be considered by the Town, in consultation \Vith the R. V .F.D ..
ID~
I
J
I
J - J
I
I
j
I
J
I
_J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
564
i
J
l
1 l
l
i c._J
' - j
Public Education
The primary safety problem at the Park is the potential for wildfire burning residences adjacent to the Park . It is critical that the Town and the Fire Dept. "engage the neighborhood in the effo1t to make the Park perimeter a safer fire zone". TI1e public should be educated about fire hazards along the pe1imeter . Several means of engaging the public on the issue of fire hazards at SRP could include:
1. Circulate a brochure. amrnally, to all residences adjoining the park. describing hazards and measures that residents can take to decrease the hazards.
2. Hold public meetings to explore hazards and describe precautions.
3. Fire Department. TO\vn staff and trained volunteers could canvas the neighbod1oods and talk \Vith residents. and off er to conduct inspections of residences and grotmds in an effort to make lists of specific recommendations. The ~ ICOSD fire hazard management plan contains a list of sixteen items that could be included in future brochures, meetings. interviews.
4. Organize fieldtiips and meetings at the Park, lead by expe1ts or trained volunteer to explain:
existing fire hazards
current efforts being taken in the Park to diminish fire hazard fire history of the Park
fire dJ11anucs: ho\V fire spreads and how fast it tra\·els.
5.Interpretation of fire history and hazards through the actual park site design: ' -At the park entry post current fire hazard ratings. emergency phone numbers. use restrictions (e.g. no smoking season, no ground fires, no BBQ, no fireworks. no ORV)
-Identify high hazard portions of the Park perin1eter on the Park map. -Name fuel breaks, fire· roads as such, on the Park map and identify them at approp1iate sites in the park.
-Revegetate \vith less fire prone native plants.
-Identify ongoing fire hazard management practices in the park ( e.g. pruning.
IDO\Ving).
-Identify evidence of fire history in the park (e.g. burned fence posts, trees. and bulldozer scar).
-Identify less fire prone native plants in the revegetated areas of Lower Park. particularly plants that are appropriate for residential landsc-.1.pes. (64-"
':·
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
565
Brochures and public meetings should include recommendations for appropriate landscaping to reduce fire hazard at the park pedmeter and around residential property. in general. In the aftemmth of the Oakland Hills Firestonn. a lot of excellent information has been published regarding fire safe residential landscaping: much of it is applicable to situations described at SRP.
:Many expe1ts who have examined the Oak.land hills subsequent to the fire. maintain that any pl.u1t on the "fire retardant plant lists" can bum in the worst fire conditions. The plants listed in the Appendix X are generally considered suitable for fire-prone areas.
It should be emphasized in all discussions of planting for fire-prone areas that the location, an·angement. spacing, density and dryness of what is planted around the residence is probably more crncial than what species are planted. Principles of pl .. mting design for fire-prone landscapes should be include in the reconunendations. i\faintane11ce of existing landscape will be of concern to most homeowners. The fire clanger of certain trees and slm1b should be emphasized and the public should be encouraged to remove these species, along the Park perimeter and elsewhere in their gardens: these include: Monterey pine, juniper, eucalyptus. an others.
Through out California the interface between urban residential areas and public open space is an area of special fire hazard. Protection of such areas around SRP require community planning and action. The fire safety of any property hinges on conditions of neighboring property. Experts emphasize that municipalities and fire departments should "budget time and energy to educate and motivate residents to do their pa1t in making these areas less of a fire hazard. The public must do its part and can not depend on the Town to "eliminate" the risk of fire near their homes (l\ICOSD). The Town must do its part. by implimenting the fire hazard management reconunendations of this plan and working cooperatively with RVFD, MCFD, and ~ICOSD.
Adjacent Lando\v11ers
The :\ICOSD Preserve and two large, unde\·eloped parcels of prh'ate land adjoin the Park. The town should contact these private land owners and the !\.ICOSD. in order to plan to jointly address fire hazards along the shared perimeter. It is the view of the ;\fCOSD that nothing is gained by a fuel break between adjacent parcels of undeveloped land (e.g. SRP and the Presen·e or undeveloped private land). It would make more sense for the o\vner of the parcel to treat the perimeter of their parcel where it borders developed areas. It is reconunencled that the Town contact the land owners and the District to jointly address the issue in th.is maimer.
,oEi
6 l
~l
!
I
I
~]
I
I
~ !
'l
I ~-J
- _J '
!
J
I
__J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
566
l
l
'l
1 j
1 . j '
. ' 7
J
l ' - • .J
l
___.)
Recommendations
The follo\\ing prioritized list of management actions are recommended. in order to meet the goals of reducing fire hazard at the Park perimeter. protecting adjacent p1frate property. and the nahu-al resources of the Park. Some of these prescriptions are adopted from the ~ 1COSD preserve management plan, ref er to that plan· for additional discussion.
The means employed to minimize fire hazard should also benefit or at least not h."U111 the natural resources of the Park.
l.Perimeter Fuelbreak.. Mo,v high priority area shmvn on the fire hazard tre:.uuent map. annually. Adopt the mmving prescriptions of the i\lCOSD:
-use tractor mo,ver where appropriate. otherwise employ cre\vs with weed whips. -mow a 30' ,vide strip. 4" inches high.
-mow annually. between June,15 :.u1d July,-t
-mowed snip shall follo,v the p:.u·k pe1imeter. hmvever in case of steep topography strip should follmv contours in the perimeter area.
2. Remo,·e all exotic trees and shrubs located ,vi thin 50' of the P:.u·k perimeter.
3. Prune the wooded areas included on the Fire Hazard Map. as pre,·iously described in the fuelbreak. option above (1). Re-pruning may be required every 10 years.
4. ~low along both sides of the service road and around the perimeter of the p:.u·king area, 15' from the road edge. according the mowing prescription abo,·e (1).
5. Fire Hazard Brochure. The Town. in cooperation ,vith :\JCOSD, RVFD and :\ICFD. should prepare or update an existing brochme. for distlibution to residents living near the Park and Preserve. The brochure should explain means of reducing fire hazard .and include lists of plants to be used and plants to be avoided. The Tmvn should consider contacting residents adjacent to the Park, individually , in order to review specific procedures to reduce fire haz.'lfd on their property.
6.Tmvn should confer '"ith the MCOSD and owners of adjacent undeveloped private property. in order to reduce fire hazard where the park adjoins these properties.
7. ;\low second pdority areas on the Fire Hazard and :\fap, annually.
8. Reduce by one third the brnshland labeled on the Fire Hazard :\ lap. Hand prune bmsh and bum in the winter or early spring for 2 successive years. in order to get rid of the baccharis sprouts and poison oak.
9. Town should confer with ~ICOSD reg:.u·ding other methods of fire hazard reduction inc~uding: prescribed burning, and grazing.
10. Ensure the visibility and adequate access to municipal water supply at the standpipe in the Corporation yard.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
567
11. ~faintain emergency access at main entrance. and at San Francisco Blvd. access to fire road above SUBUD.(Policy 6.B.1)
12. Locate picnic sites in tow fire danger areas (e. g. Redwood grove).(Policy 6.B...:J.)
13. Establish no smoking policy through out the park.(Poticy 6.B.5)
14. Prohibit BBQ fires throughout the park.(Poticy 6.B.6)
15.Prohibit open fires throughout the park.(Policy 6.B.7)
16. Post fire hazard warnings. emergency procedures and phone numbers at all park entries and trail heads.(Policy 6.B.8)
17. Design interpretive features about fire hazard and fire history of the park.(Poticy 6.B.9)
18. Preserve burned fence posts. in place, throughout the park, as reminders of the fire history.(Policy 6.B.10)
In addition to these prescliptive management programs. the design of new trails. access and Lmver Park use areas should minimize fire hazard to park users, natural resources and nearby residents; and promote awareness of the risks of local wildfire. The following recommendtions from the of the "community goals" for the SRP project are relevant and should be adopted.
_ J
I
~-.J
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
568
1 j
l
l
. )
. l
l
~J
l Public Access i\lanagement
Goals
Public access to SRP lands is provided for recreation and enjoyment of the natural surroundings. Access is available for users \Vho walk. chive a car. ride a horse or a bicycle. The Town policies promotie park and open space access for residents: and "conununity goals" for the project recommend several specific access improvements. The goal of this Plan is to incorporate these reconunendations, in a comprehensive access improvement plan for Sorich Ranch Park .
Options
Continue Current wfanagement
One management option could be to leave access in its cmTent state. without improvements. The potential impacts of this approach include:
-~.Jany residents remain unaware that SRP is open to the public. \Vhat the pennitted and prohibited uses are. and who to contact regarding questions or emergencies. -Abuse and vandalism continue due to lack of an official entry. -Cruising, illegitimate use, and an unsafe play situation (armmd Bigrock) continue. -Trespass. destruction of natural resources and maintenance problems at user-made access points will continue due to lack of improved pedestrian access from the neighborhood
-Access by motorcycles and other vehicles and destruction of natural resources due to lack of ORV baiTicades.
-Mobility impaired park users ,vill have limited access. -Conflicts between pedestrian access and automobile access at the main entry on San Francisco Boulevardwill continue. Pedestrians wil continue to walk in the automobile traffic lane, through the Park gate.
-Conflicts between the trucks entering and leaving the Corporation yard and the automobile traffic pattern at Park entrai1ce. Two driveways converge ,vithout established right-of-way or lane markings.
/Of
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
569
-Saf e,legitimate multiple-use access to San Anselmo trail/ road. the only existing trail for equestrians or mountain bike riders. can not be assured: resulting in trespass on private property by all users, including hikers. -No added btn·den on the Towns financial and human resources Access ImprO\·ement Plan
An altemate management plan is to impro\·e all access points according to policies stated in the "community goals". Implementation of the recommendatins listed below would impro\'e access and have the follo"·ing overall impacts. -promote safe legitimate pedestrian access to the park, from town, neighborhoods and adjacent open space.
-pro,·ide safe access for equestrians and mountian bike riders, from the town and adjacent open space.
-guarrantee access for mobility impaired visitors.
-address needs and concerns of park neighbors.
-discouraged illegitimate use of the park (i.e. cruising, vandalism, ORV acce~s). -provide limited parking and safe access for automobiles and emergency vehicles. -protect natural resources.
-some added burden on tO\vns fiscal and human resources Four important elements of the recommended plan for public access improvements have significant impact on the form and function of the Park: those four elements are: safe pedestrian and auto access at the main entrance. parking, neighborhood access. and multiple-use. Recommendations for neighborhood access and multiple-use are discussed in the Trails section to follO\v. The reconm1encL.1.tions for safe access at the main entry, and parking are outlined in this section.
1. 1'.fain Entrance-San Francisco BouleYard.
Automobile access at the main entrance is dangerous and conflicts with safe pedestrian access to the Park. Pedestrians must walk in the traffic lane along San Francisco Boulevard. through the park gate and along the entrance drin to the existing use areas. In addidton,the automobile traffic pattern at the Park entrance converges with the pattern of truck traffic entering or leaving the Corporation yard.
A goal of this Plan is to provide safe park access and improve this situation.
Objectives of the San Anselmo General Plan support public access to open space I r)'ry
.1
i
- J
I
I
J
i
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
570
1 I
l
'l
l
1 -1
i
}
Fl
j
J
I _J
over pathways that ..u·e separate from roadways. as well as safe vehicular circulation throughout Town.
Options for~ Iain Entrance
la. 'Do nothing"
To do nothing regarding the main entrance. will risk the safety of park users. neighbors and Town employees. Additional impacts of continuing the current management practice are outlined in the introduction. abm·e. lb. Upgrade Existing ;\lain Entrani:e
An altemate plan would be to maintaining the existing road alignment. with the following access improvements.
-Erect bollards to separate pedestrians and automobiles at the gate area. -Install speed btm1p at the Park gate to slow traffic.
-Install a stop sign inside park gate for outgoing traffic. -Install pavement markings and ,varning signs to direct car drivers to exercise caution and direct pedestrians to walk between markings along San Francisco Bl\'d .. from the end of the sidewalk at Sacramento Ave. to the park entrance.
Impacts of these improvements are likely to include: the need to narrow the automobile entrance to 10 feet wide and reduce the traffic to one lane, in order to accommodate a sep~u-ate pedestrian path through the gate area. Pedestrians will still be forced to ,valk in the road \Vay all the way up to the parking area. unless the road is narrowed all that distance. Bollards are W1sightly in any case. ConHrging automobile traffic will continue to be a dangerous situation without: road realignment, more signage indicating "right-of-way", or pavement markings outside the Park gate. This option will require investment of resources. le. Re-aligmnent and Re-design of Park Entrance
The re-design of the Park entrance with minimal re-aligmnent of the road and entrances to the Park and Corporation yard would greatly improve safe access for l/D
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
571
pedestrians and automobiles, and \vould provide an attractive Park entrance compatible with the neighborhood. Such a plan would include the following:
-Realignment of the entrances to the Park and Cmporation yard. -Separate pedestrian entrance screened from the road.
-Safe traffic pattern and safe speed regulated by the alignment. -Right-of-way given to Corporation yard traffic.
-Attracti re landscaped Park entrance.
-Corporation yard screened from Park entrance.
Impacts of this plan are likely to include: safer pedestrian access to the Park. and from the park entrance to the existing and proposed use areas. A landscaped park entl-ance \Vould fit into the neighborhood and reduce illegitmate use of the Park. This plan would require limited use of traffic signs and pavement markings.
The Corporation yard would be adequately screened from the entrance and the current picnic areas. ~o net loss of utility space in the corpomtion yard. This option \Vill be more costly. but safer and more satisfactory in the long nm.
2. Parking
The existing conditions at the informal parking area and circle drfre. around Bigrock. create unsafe situations for parking. automobile circulation and recreational use of the Park. Popular play and pedesn·ian circulation around Bigrock conflicts \Vith automobile circulation and parking. The circle drive promotes cruising and illegitimate park use. The poorly drained asphalt drive and parking area promote erosion and consequent loss of vegetation in picnic area. The Bigrock area is central to current park use. but visually unattractive and unsafe.
The project goal is to redesign the parking area. in order to provide for: safe. adequate parking for 10-15 cars. discourage illegitimate use of the lot. minimize the lot size and visually screen it from adjacent use areas. These goals con.f onn with several TO\'vn policies: discourage through traffic on residential streets. preserve the quiet rnral character of neighborhoods, and screen all off-street parking.
II I
- J
J
l
__ J
J
l
'l
I
1 I
)
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
572
I
'.J
i
l
l
- ·1
J
~1
'
Options for Parking
2a. "Let it Be··
To do nothing will risk the safety of park users and further damage the natural resources of the Park.
2b. Upgrade Existing Parking Lot
Adequate mainta.nence of the existing parking lot would. at minimum. require the follo,ving improvements.
-Post sign to warn chilch"en off the Bigrock in center of parking area. -Block access to the circle chi.re.
-Divert drainage from eroded slopes above the picnic area. -Screen parking lot with plantings.
-Patch asphalt parking area.
In spite of proposed warnings, children will likely continue to play on the Bigrock in the parking area. Other likely impacts of this option ,vill include:
continued problems ,vith erosion and drainage across the parking lot, intrinsic value of Bigrock. a core area of Lower Park, is disrupted by the parking area. 2c. Relocate Parking Area
The community goals for SRP include a proposal to relocate parking. for 10-15 cars. to a portion of the existing public works staging area. The Bigrock area would be redesigned as the focal point of Lower Park and the gateway to the open space. The asphalt prking area and circle driYe would be removed. A new parking area would be grade for adequate drainage, pared with gravel, and screened from Park use areas.
This proposal will result in a safer play area and adequate parking. A dead-end. gra,·el parking area \\-ill discourage drire-tluuugh users and promote local. recharge of groundwater. The location of the new. screened parking area will contribute to the screening of the Corporation yard.
t lY
-·
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
573
Gradual Implimentation of the Access Improvement Plan
The gradual implimentation of a priority program of access improvements (outlined below) would reduce the major impact of these prposals-the fiscal impact. The constrnction of esthetically pleasing, low key. legitimate access imprm·ements willhelp integrate the Park into the neighborhood. Consequently. residents will be more likely to concem themselves with the use and abuse of the park. In addition. park visitors will be less likely to vandalize a well maintained public facility.
Recommendations
Gradual implimentation of the priority program of access improvements. listed belo,v. is reconm1ended. Key elements of the program below are rank.eel according to greatest potential to contribute to the "conununity goals" for access in1provements.
1. 'Maintain emergency access at main entr.mce. and to San Anselmo trail/road. (see also Neighborhood Access) Provide gates at linrited access points for rumving equipment and emergency vehicles. (Policy 6.B. l)
2. l\fake park entrances clear im·iting and legitimate (Policy 6.A.7).
3. Pro\·ide access to basic services and infom1ation for mobility impaired park users.
Designate parking for mobility impaired visitors. (Policy 4.D.3)
4.Prohibit access to the park for motorcycles and off-road vehicles. Construct adequate barricades at the follo,ving entry points. Confer ,vith \[COSD on cost sharing for these· ORV banier improvement.
Lmver Park entrance road and parking area.
San Francisco Blvd. access
Sacramento Ave access.
User-made access from Sl 'BUD parking lot
5. Provide safe pedestrian access and circulation that minimizes conflict with vehicles at:
main entr;y, parking area, and along San Francisco Blvd. on the approach to the Park.
Design pedestrian and auto entrances that are separated by plantings and realign entrance road, as abo\"e. (Policy 3.B. l)
{[!?
' I
i . ·'
-J
I
j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
574
6. Post an unobtrusive, standard sign at each official access point. Signs should state: the 'l hours that the park is open to the public. pennitted and prohibited uses. and provide emergency and information contact numbers. Minimize the use· of signs. ~fake rules. and -- 1 intended uses of park elements. evident in design of the Park. (Objective 6.A.) ~1 ;
' }
I
! : 1
l
l
,_J
.J
7. Re-design of the Park entrance with minimal re-alignment of the road and entrnnces to the Park and Corporation yard (as above). in order to improve safe access for pedestrians and automobiles. and in order to provide an attractive Park entrance that fits into the neighborhood ( Policies 2.B. l.and -t..E.4).
8. Relocate parking for 10-15 cars. to a portion of the existing public works staging area. ~-Iinimize the size of the parking area; pave it with gravel and screen it from view (as above). Occassional ove1f10,v parking. by legitimate park users. should be pemtltted in the neighborhood. Traffic impacts on the neighborhood should be monitored. (Objective
2.B.arid Policies 2.C.2 & ..J..E.4)
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
575
Trails and i\Iultiple- Use i\lanage1nent
Well designed trails play an increasingly prominent role in recreation planning for urban areas. The trails at SRP can serve a variety of purposes including:
-providing opportunities for recreational access
-creating visual anunenities
-off edng alternati\'e routes for short "commutes"
-providing opportmuties for enhanced a,Yareness and enjoyment of p:.uk resources -creating more friendly. htmi.m scale connections between conununities.
Goals
The goals of this Plan are to reconunencl trail improvements within the Park that con-espond to: trails recommended in the "conumuuty goals" for SRP and in the Town General Plan: trails required clue to current use: and trails tlmt pro,·ide access. wherever feasible, to the greatest range of trail users. All town resident should be able to enjoy a vaiiety of the pai·k resources. regardless of physical limitations of age or disability. Tlus policy also refers to multiple-use of trails. where possible and approp1iate. ~lultiple-use of trails is the combined use of a trail or road by two or more means of conveance (pedestiians. equest1iai1S or mountain bike riders). The detennination of whether multipleuse is approp1iate and the selection of such trail alignments ai·e based on the security and safety of park users. natural resources and private property.
The Towns policies provide for "n·ail access to be limited to pedestrian. nonmotorized vehicles and equestrian traffic (Open Space Element ...J.. l). "Access to fire roads ,vil.l be pro,·ided to bicycles under conditions similar to those imposed by ~~ffiTI" (Open Space Element -t..8).
Policies of the :\ f COSD provide for similar multiple-use access to open space preserves that the county manages. Bicycles are only allowed on service roads, though the Disnict can and does designate some single track trails as bicycle routes. Equestrians are allowed on all service roads, plus most single track trails. On combined use roads, bicycles must yield right of way to pedestrians and equestrians. Bicycles must not exceed 15 mph in any circmnstance. Pedesnians must yield to equestrians.
Current use of the SRP roads and trails by mountain bikers and equestiians is limited (see Character of Use). However, across Marin county and the State increasing I I~
' l
!
,)
I
J
I
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
576
l
rl nwubers of mountain bikers seek access to single track trails that previosly been used only by hikers and in some places equestrians. Bicyclists argue they have just as much right to use of the single track trails as others. In response, some hikers and equestrians argue that bike riding on single track trails creates a safety hazard. damage·s natural resources. disturbs their peace of mind; and therefore bike riding should be limited to ,vider trails and and fire roads (multipurpose trails). 111e issue of safety and resotu·ce damage are emotional and few studies exist to date. Trail management agencies throughout California are grappling with this issue. Opinion. from the SRP questionnaire regarding the question of whether or not mountain bike riding is an appropriate activity at SRP. was split (-1-611:- for. 41 % against and 13% w1committed). No consensus was reached. in public discussions. on the designation of a "specific" access or aligruuent of a combined-use trail for motmtain bike riders. A combined-use trail was designated for equestrian use. Impacts of several trail management alternatives and reconunendations are re·riewed below. . Successful management of multiple trails ,vill require an open process of discucssion and compromise by all parties.
Options
Le~we 1bings as Thev Are.
If the inf onnal. user-made trails and unofficial neighborhood access are left in their current state, with no new trails added or repairs implemented. then the impacts ,,ill be:
continued erosion. destruction of vegetation. lack of neighborhood access without trespass, risk of injury and liability. illegitimate use of the park, and reduced capacity to manage fire hazard. The existing trails at the Park are steep. thereby restricting access to most of the Park. to atheletic persons capable of climbing steep slopes. One thing is for sure given ctn-rent trends. the demand for recreational facilities in San Anselmo will continue to I increase and opportt.mities at SRP remain high.
,_)
__ j
Improved ~lultiple-Use Trails and Neighborhood Access
The following section describes several trail and access improvement options; including a Core Network of three trails, and five options for the alignment of two additional trails, which link the Core trials with a combination of multiple use trailheads and official Neighborhood Access points.
//~
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
577
SORI CH RANCH PARK
TRAIL PLAN
Streets
Fire Road~ c:11 c:::a
Exi:sting Trail - -
Propo:sed
Contour interval Io·
Scale ~.,.. ._
trail:s. 000
o· . 2so·
' l
I
/
'l
·1
l
,
' l
I
'l
' \
I
I
I
j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
578
'l
)
l
1 l
.J
'
- _, \
Impacts of construction and repair of the tr.1il network in SRP will include:
enhanced opportunities for park enjoyment. increased park safety. improved legitimate park access at entrance and neighborhood access, points. increased capacity to manage fire hazard. reduced environmental damage.and reduced trespass. Construction of new trails may have an impact on existing nantral resources and visual quality of the Park. These potential impacts should be mitigated through careful planning .. A sun·ey for sensitive plants and archaeological artifacts should be conducted prior to trail constmction. Hand cre\V construction methods should be used. in lieu of trail-making machine, in order to reduce initial visual impact of the new trail on hillsides. New trails should coincide with cwrent trail alignments and trailheads where possible. Trail route.s should be graded for adequate drainage and revegetated to aid in "healing" any scars of construction.
Core Trail Network
The core network of trails satifies the nunimum needs for access and circulation in SRP by way of: improvements to existing service roads and some user-made trails. closure of other user-made trails. construction of new trails connecting sites of cUirent use and trails on adjacent public lands.
1. LO\ver Park Loop Trail
This new trail is a relatfrely level. graded " walking trail" around Lower Park. ,,ith easy access from the main park entrance area and parking. The trail links the various aspects of the Parks natural emironn1ent, the park ammenties, the Upper park trailheacls, and the infom1al activity areas. It provides a glimpse of the variety of natural environments in the Park including: Bigrock. sUimy grasslands, shaded creek-sides, and wooded hill slopes. Recommended trail width is a 5-6 feet. '"ith access and ammenties appropriate for all park users (incuding mobility impaired users) approximately 800' of new trail construction would be required
2. Deer Rock Trail
Deer Rock trail is a proposed, ''\valking tr~ul ", which begins at a ne\V trailhead in the Lower Park and climbs through a variety of park terrain. to the current intersection "·ith the popular. Ridge Trail on the San Rafael Ridge Preserve. The steepness of the trail does not exceed 15% grade. A small bridge or stream ford is required, in order to cross East Creek-an intemuttent stream. The existing trail from the SRP parking lot to the top of San Rafael Ridge is severly eroded and extremely steep and should be closed. The old trail lf 7
7 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
579
route should be blocked to discourage use, stabilized ancl revegetated. Appro.,imately 1600' of new trail construction would be required
3. Sun Valley Trail
This user-nL.'lde trail should be improved and rerouted so that it directly links a new trail.head in the Lower Park \vith the "Sorich Park Trail"-a designated trail on the ~ICOSD Preserve. The reconunended route coincides with the existing user-made trail in SRP.
Prior to coustrnction or improvement of this trail. planners should confer with :\ ICOSD. regarding the connection. The imp1m·ed trail is designated combined-use. for walkers and equestrians: which is analogous to the designated use of the coru1ecting ~ICOSD trail (Sorich Park Trail). Approximately 500' of new trail construction would be required Additional Trails
-l San Anselmo Trail
This existing trail follows an old ranch road from the Ridge Trail on the ~iCOSD Preserve down to San Francisco Boulevard. It is steep and very popular with walkers from San .--\.nselmo. The San Anselmo trail is the only trail in the park that can currently be used. legally. by mountain bike riders. Equestrians also use the trail. In addition. the road functions as a firebreak and emergency vehicle access. Cunently, all user access to the bottom of the trail is across p1frate property (see Existing Access). The existing road surface is in need of maintenance.
Continued use and planned improvements of the San . .\nselmo Trail are most problematic of all trails. The key issues included: trespass. neighborhood park access. environmental damage, and multiple-use. Five options (-b.-lb...J.c,-t.d. and 5) for improvements were discussed in the public workshop. where consenus on some issues "-'as established. The options and their impacts are listed below. recommendations follow.
The impacts of a sixth option: that is to leave this trail, or any other trail. as it is. are outlined above( ).
4a. Discontinue Access to San Anselmo Trail
Attempts could be made to discourage access to the existing San Anselmo Trail from the neighborhood, at San Francisco Blvd. and the SUBlJD parking lot. Barricades and signs could be erected at these unofficial neighborhood access points and on the ridge //d
I
J
I
.J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
580
l
1 : 1
l - 1
l _J
at the Park/Preserve boundary. Portions of the unpaved road surface could be revegdated.
Trespass could thus be limited. However. it is likely that ,valkers would continue to use the private access, unless it was thoroughly blocked. Only access to matmtain bike riders and equestrians would be restricted by these efforts. Complete clostrre of the trail and limiting neighborhood access would run counter to Town policies and the "community" goals for SRP. The capacity to manage fire hazard would also be reduced. 4b. Impro\'e "SUBCD Access" to San Anselmo Trail
Impro\'ements could be made to upgrade the popular user-made access to S.m Anselmo Trail. at the rear of the SUBUD parking lot. The Town would first need to obtain an easement across the parking lot from Sacramento .-\ ve. to a ne,v trail head. The route of a new trail would either: leave the west end of the parking lot and climb out of the rock cut in a sedes of steps or a ramp; or continue west around the rock cut and up the slope, above the rock cut, to join the road. It is estimated that about SO' of trail construction would be required in the first case including a signifi~ant ammmt of engineered rock ,vork.
Approximately 100' of trail ,votild need to be built in the second case. In either case, appropriate multiple-use access improvements. ORV barriers and regrading of the road would also be required.
Impacts of these improvements include: a steep trail; the need to obtain an easement from SUBUD; a potentially complex and expensive engineered solution. particular)· if multiple-use is to be assured: and additional parking conflicts at SUBUD parking lot. HO\vever. popular current use ,vould be assured; multiple use goals could be met and environmental d.m1age could be mitigated.
4c. Improve "San Francisco Boulevard" Access to San Anselmo Trail Access and trail connections to the San Anselmo Trail could be established across a narrow strip of public park land, between residential lots at 405 and 500 San Francisco Boulevard. The route of a new trail would leave the street and pass bet,veen the trees. equal distance from the lot lines of each residence. to join the end of the exising trail just beyond the end of the private drive at 500 San Francisco Boulevard. It is estimated that approximately 50' of new· trail construction would be required; in addition to a short flight of ramped steps, in order to meet the grade change. The existing trail would need to be 1 regraded to eliminate drainage problems. Design of this neighborhood access and trailhead __ ) \ -~
must be integrated into the residential appearrance of the street. The trail itself would be screen from the residences ,vith plantings and privacy fence to match resdidential landscaping schemes on either side. Signs ,ORV barriers , and access improvements -·
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
581
would be located off the street in order to maitain a lO\v key appeammce and not "attract" users.
Impacts of these impro\·ements include: Potential intrusion on residential pri\·acy. particularly if multiple-use trail access is pennitted: parking conflicts ,vith on-street residential parking (county maintained road); narrow zone for multiple-use (equestrians and/or mountain bikers); and hazardous outlet to street for multiple-use. Howe\·er. these trail improvements would a.lle\·iate trespass: implin1ent use of public land for public benefit:
meet multiple use trail goals; and mitigate em·i.ronmenta.l damage. -kl. Re-routed San .-\nselmo Trail (West Creek section) The re-aligrunent of the lO\ver po1tion of the trail from the "\Yest Ridge a.long a new segment of trail. through the oak woodland to an intersection ,,.ith the Deer Rock Trail. amids the difficult neighborhood access issues outlined in the three pre\·ious options. This trail re-alignment completes a trail loop from the Lower park to the ridge and back; such a loop is currently. very popular ,vith walkers at SRP. The lower 300' of the Sm1 Anselmo Trail over the old ranch road is closed to all recreational traffic and ORV barricaded at both ends. The re-alignment requires approximately 400' of ne,v trail construction.
The re-aligned San A.nselmo Trail. from \\.,.est Ridge to Lower Park, is designated dual use for equest:Iians and hikers only, due to space limitations and safety considerations of the steep grade on the Deer Rock Trail. Therefore. unless the lower po1tion of the old road is opened to mountain bike riders and appropriate access improvements made at SUBliD or San Francisco Blvd .. the entire trail from the Park/Preserve boundary on the Ridge, must be closed to bikers. because there is no safe, legitimate outlet.
Access to the old road from the Park/Presen·e boundary would be maintained for emergency, fire and maintenance vehicles and the road SUiface adequately maintained.
These improvements to the San .-\nselmo Trail would hare the following impacts:
mountain bike riders are denied access to the Park, unless additional impro\·ements are made on lmver portion of old San Anselmo Trail. or elsewhere in the Park: increased likelil1ood of illegitimate trail use by mountain bikers; and increased construction and maintenance cost for dual-use (equestriaru1uker) segments of the San . .\nselmo and Deer Rock Trails. Positi,·e impacts include: alleviate trespass and illegitimate access; improre popular trail route: improve capacity to managed fire hazard; and mitigate enrironmental dan1age.
I J!,-0
·,
!
'
J
-- J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
582
~, r
5. Sacramento Ave Trail (Seminary Trail)
This new trail extends from the re-alignment of the San Anselmo Trail on West Ridge. through oak woodland, to the existing unimproved, official direct neighborhood access at Sacramento Arenue/Carn1el Way. Approximately 1200' of new trail construction is reqttlred along this alignment. Standard access improvements (ORV barrier, appropriate multiple-use improrements and signs) are required at the new neighborhood access and trailhead. This trail alignment connects ,,.ith the route of a Town trail to Santa Barabara ..\ \'enue. proposed in the San Anselmo General Plan: and it provides excellent "low-key". park access from the neighborhood.
From the intersection of the San . .\.nselmo Trail. the new trail route is designated for dual use of hikers and mountain bike riders. The limitations of space and the desire to minimize impact on the neighborhood preclude the design of a combined use trail for all park users (equestri.u1s, mountain bikers and hikers) along this route. TI1e new park access will iiupro\·e the capacity to manage fire hazard along th.is area of critical fire d.u1ger.
Impacts of these impro\'ements include: increased use of the park from the neighborhood access point; reduced trespass at other illegitimate access points in .the neighborhood; improved multiple-use access to the park; .uid enh.u1ced capacity to m.uiage , 1 fire hazard.
i
,J
11..- /
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
583
Recommendations
1. Establish a limited system of trails within the park that meet reasonable. multiple-use demands for recreation and safety (Policy 2.AA). A ne\v hierarchy of trails includes:
a. Exploration trails: coincident with e:dsting user made trails: maintained only to prevent erosion.
b. ·walking trails: smooth. unpaved graded trails. approximately 18" to 2-1-" wide. c. ~Iultiple purpose trails: fire roads and sen·ice roads which proride links to other trails and existing ~ICOSD roads for all users: maintained for adequate emergency access and drain~e.
d. Dual-use trails: single track trails for the dual use of hikers and equestrians. or the du.11 use of hikers and mounti.m-bikers**, as posted. minimum ,vidth -l8"). ** note: No consensus was reached on the specifics of mountain bike access. The mountain bike access policies are reconunendations of this pla1mer and not those of a conumuiity consensus.
2. Prior to construction of trails. or other disturbance or covering of a substantial amom1t of grmmd, surveys for archaeological artifact and sensitfre plants should be conducted (Policy2.D. 9).
3. Trails should be constructed within the "conidors" indicated on the Trails ~lap. Slopes should not exceed 15% ori new trails. Specific trail design plans \Vill be required for each trail. In general. trails should be designed to meet the ~ ICOSD trail standards. An excellent technical reference for trail construction. vegetation clearances, drainage and stream crossings is "A Trail :\L'Urnal for the EBRPD (Olson and Holm.1976).
4. Constrnction of the trails and neighborhood access described abore should proceed according to the following p1iority list.
a. Construct the Loop Trail: a relati,·ely flat loop trail for walkers. in Lower Park.
Proricle adequate access and negotiable grades (no greater than 8% with 5' landings each 30') on the Loop,Trail. (option 1)
b. Construct the Deer Rock Trail: a hiking trail to the riclgetop from Lower Park. through woodland and grassland. (option 2)
c. Re-route the San Anselmo Trail: a dual-use (equestiian and hiker) ti·ail from the ridge top, down West Ridge. to Lower Park. (option 4d)
cl. Discourage unofficial ti-ail access across SL'BUD parking lot. with timber rail fence and lo\\' rail ORV barricade. Post boundary bet,veen Park and pri,·ate property ,vith an official sign. Signs should be sn1.1.l.l and unobtrnsi re.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
584
~l
l
1 I
~l
e.Discourage trail access between residences on San Francisco Boulevard. with OR\' barricade. Locate the banicade beyond the first line of trees or shrubs. so as not to "draw attention" to th.is unimpro\·ed public access. Post boundary between Park and private property and remove any encroachments from public lands. f. Close the lower portion of San Anselmo trail ranch road to recreational users.
Post the road as "Official Cse Only, .No Outlet" at either. end. Maintain the access. drainage. and road surface for emergency and maintenance \'ehicle access only. g. Constmct the Sun \'alley Trail: a dual-use trail (equestrian and hiker) from Lower Park. across :\ICOSD presen·e .to Sun \'alley in S.u1 Rafael. (option 3) h. Construct the Sacran1ento A \'enue trail (SeminarY Trail): a dual use trail (mountain bikers and hikers) from Sacramento . ..\\·enue/Cannel ·way neighborhood access to San Anselmo Trail. on \\'est Ridge. Construst "low key" neighborhood access improrements including: a low rail ORV barricade and appropriate signage (option 5).
5. Limit mountain bike riding to multiple use trails and posted dual-use trails(:\ ICOSD,GP) (Policy 2.A.5)
6. Limit horseback riding to multiple purpose trails and dual-use trails as posted (GP) (Policy 2.A.6)
, 1 7. Prohibit motorcycle and off road vehicle access to the park. Construct adequate low rail , j barricades at the following entry points: Sacramento A venue. SSUBUD parking lot. private dii\'e at 500 San Francisco Boulevard. parking lot terminus. Confer with :\ICOSD on cost shaiing for this impro\·ement. (Policy 3.B.3)
8. Connect new trails with trails in TO\vn General Plan and trails on adjacent public lai1ds. (Policy 2.A. 7)
9. Post a standard sign at all trailheads in the Park and at approp1iate locations on the Pai·k perimeter where SRP trails connect with regional trails. Signs should incorporate a logo and state that the area is open for public use. permitted and prohibited uses. and provide l contact telephone numbers for emergency ai1d inf om1ation and rolunteers. Destination of ~J the trail should be indicated.
10. Standard access irnprorements at each trailhead should include: an OR\' banicade, a ,J standard sign (as above). and barriers (gates. or styles) to equestrians ai1d,.or mountain bike riders where appropriate. Nou-pennitted users should be re-directed to appropriate user I areas or access points, elsewhere. ~J
11. Plan trails through a variety of terrain, recognizing valued aspects of the Pai·k (Policy2.A. 9)
~-J
i
~-J
-:'1
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
585
12. A void impacts of trails on ecologically fragile and geologically unstable areas. (Policy2.A.10)
13. Design trail alignments to discourage "short cuts", that cause erosion and loss of vegetation.
1-t.. :Minimize impact of improvements on Park neighbors and the connmmity. (Objective3.C.)
15. Provide resting/seating places (e.g. split log benches) at trailheads and pe1iodically (approx.. 400' intervals) along walking and multi-purpose trails (Policy 2 . .-.\..11 ).
16. Provide intei'esting destination points or \'ista points periodically (approx.. -l-00') along trails.(Policy 2.A.12)
17. Pro,·ide secure bicycle parking inLo,ver Park. (Policy 2.A. 13)
18. Close and reregetate all trails that are erocling.(Policy 2.D.3) JZ'j
I •• • i ,_I
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
586
, l
'.l Proposed A1nmenities and Appropriate Use
l
Solich Ranch Park is a quiet neighborhood park. an open space and a gateway to an "urban wilderness". The Pa.rkin\·ites i11.fo1mal recreation. exploration and relaxation. The essential nature and make up of a park is defined in temis of its intrinsic values. These values are expressed in the appearrance and function of the place: they include natural aspects of the site ~u1d its relation to the adjacent conllllllllity. as well as the character of existing facilities and their relation to the needs of park users. Uses of a park that capitalize on these int:Iinsic values cont:Iibute to the enjoyment of users, the identity of the place, and appropdateness or the acti\·ities. Intrinsic values of SRP include:
-the quiet park, and a landscape of the rural past :
-an dirersity of natire plants and animals;
-\'vild woodlands at the edge of Town:
-panoramic views of Town, Ross ralley. :Mt. Tamalpais, and San Francisco Bay; -monolithic rock outcrops thrust up through steep open grasslands:
-hidden vallevs and shadv woodland rooms of natire oak and bav trees; . . . -close up views of nature; the seasonal "·ildflowers; -histoiic sites of dai11· and ranch.
-glimpses of the wildfire history,
-nick.le of water from perennial springs.
Goals
The goal of this Plan is to recommend appropriate uses and site improvments that correspond to the "community goals" and Town policies for SRP. The "community goals" I emphasize the Concept of "a quiet gateway park and open space. which captures for all '--_l
~.J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
587
townspeople the benefits of a landscape of the rural past and a natural en\'ironment of woodland h.ills. grasslands. hidden canyons. and creeks close to the heart of Town". The major goals of the Plan are:
-saf egua.rd and emphasize the intrinsic ,·alues of the Park through park management and site impro\'ements.
-promote acti\'ities that are compatible with the community Concept and the maintenance of intrinsic ,·clues.
-meet some of the park and recreation needs of townspeople. while ensming nonconsumpti \'e use of park resources. Emphasize passi ,·e recreation and provide for current use if it is appropriate.
Options
''Lea\'e things as thev a.re''
One option for the management of park use and ammenities is to continue the current practices of not inte1f ering with generally, legitimate park use and maintain the limited existing facilities. Park use CtUTently includes: hiking, walking. taking in the views and nanu·e, running. dog walking. infom1al play. moutainbike ridimg. horseback riding:
illicit campimg. "cruising", and auto maintenance (see Character of Park ese). The existing facilities include two picnic tables .a litter baffel, an inf onnal parking area. an ORV bainer. and a pai·k sign.
The impacts of continued ctment management would include the following. -continued demand for park use ai1d programs in Town
-continued deficiency of pai·k facilities and programs reported in 1989 Town general plan .
-increased conflicts between interest groups O\'er the use the more accessible areas of the Paik
-continued unsafe play conditions around Bigrock.
-limited access for mobility impaired paik users.
-liniited attraction for non-atheletic persons ai1d seniors. -continued illegitin1ate use of park
-increased soil erosion ai1d damaged to natural resources -no additional burden on To,ms immediate financial or hurnaI1 resources. ......
J
__ J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
588
'l
I
1 r
1 'l ;
l
\
~J
Appropriate Park Use
The following section describes a program of landscape improvements and defmes some policies for appropriate use of the Park. The recommended impro,·ements are smallscale. low impact. lo,v maintenance f eanrres. the majority of which are located in Lower Park. Less than four out of the total 6-J. acres of park land is impacted in the proposal and most of that is restoration of nati\'e plant and relocation of the p~u·king area. Impro,·ements in Cpper Park are limited to minimal trail de,·elopement and restoration of habitats and natural systems. Upper Park should continue to be a place to reflect on nanu·e~ walk alone or with a friend, a,vay from To,vn and other park settings. ~ Iultiple Use
~ fanagement of SRP should promote pedestrian uses. The ii cling of horses or m0tmtain bikes is approp1iate but should be limited to the posted trails or roads (see Access :ind Trail plans).
Passive Recreation
Passive recreation activities for inclividuals or small groups that draw on the intrinsic values of the Park should be promoted. The majority of conummity members polled felt that. facilities for acti re recreation, which might attract large groups or could cunently be pursued at other parks in Town. were not approp1iate for SRP. Opportunities for non-atheletic use of the Park ought to be promoted. Howe\'er, active use of the trails by hikers. walkers. runners. equestJ.ians and bike riders should be prorided for in the Plan (see Trails and Access Plan).
Doo Waiki.no ::, ::,
The oppo1tunity for responsible dog owners to exercise their dogs at SRP should be maintained. Following public cliscusion of options. among representatires of sereral interest groups and follo\\·ing the assessment of conununity opinion on the issue, a specific ._ J dog use policy was established. The recommended policy is consistent ,,-ith the cwTent i
.J
' I _J
.J
-·
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
589
official policy for dog walking on the :. ICOSD preserve that SlUTow1ds SRP, a very popular area for dog walking. The Cotmty policy states:
1.120 Dogs and other animals: Dogs and other household animals are allowed within the District. pro\'ided. however. that the owner, keeper or person exercising the animals shall keep his animal lUlder control at all times. and must not allow his animal to enter restricted areas of the District open space_ lands. and must not allow his animal to interfere with. bother. or harass open space users. or other animals or wildlife. A!arifl Couflty Open Space District Code
The reconuuended S01icl1 Ranch Park policy was agreed to in the public ,vorkshop on ~. !arch. 17. 1992 and affinued at all subsequent meetings. The policy reads:
Throughout SRP(lower and upper areas) allow dogs off-leash. but under owners control and away from wilcllife or sensitive ecological areas (e.g.spiings) . .--\i\U In Lower SRP area. require owners to remo,·e their dog's litter (feces) inunecliately.
Pooper-scoopers shall be provided in Lower Park.
The exercise of dogs in the Creek-side picnic area, around picnic tables elsewhere in the Park. and the Park entrance areas should be prohibited. Small signs to notify owners of the SRP policy should be posted at the entrances to popular use areas, at the ti:a_ilheads. the restricted areas, and at litter barrels.
"Debris Day" Activities
The bi-rumual "yard debris" day held at SRP, on the public works staging area should be phased out. It is the ,·iew of most residents. pru1icpiants in the public workshops and some committee members that the activity is inefficient and its impacts on the neighborhood and Park are unacceptable. The activity may. infact. promote illegal dumping at SRP during other times of the year. A "green cru1s "program for curbside pick-up of the yru·d debris, proposed at a ad,·isory conunittee meeting in 1992. should be implimented (see Adjacent Lruld Uses).
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
590
'l
I
1 : l
! : '
-. J
i
__ .., I
Proposed . ..\nm1enities-Site Improvements
Th.is program of site .imprO\·ements along ,,.ith the recommended i.J.npro,·ements for Access and Trails will satisfy some of the tmmet park and recreation needs of townspeople. particularly children and seniors. The recommended site .improvements will ha\·e the following additional impacts.
-address the concerns of Park neighbors.
-guarantee access for mobility impaired persons.
-make SRP im·iting and safe.
-protect Park natural resources.
-discourage .illegitimate use.
-minimize risual impact tlu·ough use of natire plants and site sensitire design. -promote risitor awareness of envi.J.·01m1ent.
-limit impacts on the conuuunity and the park neighbors by promoting low maintenance impro,·ements, use of drought tolerant plants. and implementing .improvements only at such time th 1.t .. mai.J.1tenance is arailable -additional burden on Towns immediate financial and staff resources.
Seating Areas
A rariety of opportunities for sitti.J.1g in the sun or the shade of would enhance use and enjoyment of the Park for all park users. particularly non-atheletic persons. Ideally shade should be provided by trees and large tree-shrubs. but a small. timber shade structure would be appropriate and serve the purpose until regetation matmes.
Benches of tables should be located in three general locations:
-at or near entrances and at trailheads in order to enhance social interaction. -distant from popular use areas for quiet enjoyment of the park. -adjacent to popular use area to afford the opportunity to watch activities and others. · Trial-side seating
Along trails in Upper Park benches, simple split logs. or log rounds should be provided approximately every -WO' for resting walkers. They should be located at a view pomt or focus on some object of general interest.
rZC)
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
591
Group Seating
A small group seating area \Vould serve the purpose of small groups of visitors or school children who wish to meet in the Park. An infom1al circle of log rounds or timber benches. located away from the popular use areas would be adequ.'\te. Several sites in the Park could acconunodate such a seating ring set into the contotu- of a hill or bank.
Picnic Tables
Additional seating for small groups or indiriduals should be proride with picnic tables. The t\vo existing tables in the Creek-side picnic area should be maintained. Other tables should be located in sun and shade. on the terrace and near the Bigrock (a popular area for children and their parents). All picnic tables should be located in areas of low fire danger (graded pad of compacted eai1h), and pro\·ided with litter barrels. Public opinion indicated that lai·ge group picnic areas were not appropriate for SRP . . Toilet and Drinking Water
A portable toilet ought to be prorided on a trial basis. The facility would enhance Park user comfort, possibly extend the length of Park visits, and promote legitimate Park use. The facility should be wheel-chair accessible. It could be located.temporarily. at the edge of the proposed parking lot. and should screened from direct view from popular use areas.
The installation of a drinking fountain was a popular suggestion with those people surveyed. The closest municipal water connection to the Pai·k is at the Corporation ya.rel. directly opposite the existing Creek-side picnic area. It would be feasible to extend a waterline from the ya.rd str'aight out to the picnic area. under the entry road. The facility should also be universally accessible.
Play
Todays highly strucnrred playgrounds are imprisoning our children. stifling their abilities to disco\·er and learn. The opportrmity to enhance a safe tmstructured play environment, the type expe11s agree must be reintr·oduced into the Ii res of children. is afforded in the proposal to relocate the e:dsting parking lot a,vay from the Bigrock area.
The Bigrock has intrinsic value to the Park as a landmark and popular, inf om1al play enviromnent. The proposal, detailed in the Access-parking option. \'\·ill provide a safer play ai·ea and enhance the overall value of the Bigrock.
In Lower Park. the creek and its banks are also attractive play enriromnents. In fact, the most popular elements that children \Vant in a park are sand and water. Safe play Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
592
1 )
l
1 l
'l
'l
l
- l
1 J
and the stability of the banks can be provided by focusing play activity at a particular section of the creek and limiting access elsewhere. Convenient creek access could be provide at two sites in Lower Park. near the rocks which outcrop in the existing picnic area and at the point where the proposed DeerRock trail crosses East Creek Creek banks are not steep at these sites and access is relatively safe. Openings in the creek-side vegetation. 8-10 feet \\·ide should be maintained but herbaceous ground corer should be cultivated in the area to promote stable banks in.light of potential for actin! use of the areas. Elsewhere. creek-side vegetation should be promoted to improve bank stability and deter access to steep banks.
The steep slopes of the old dump area should also be reregetated with a "banier planting" scheme of tall shrnbs and poison oak in order to discourage access and use as a play en\·iroment.
Inf onnation/Interpretation Panel
A small, low key infom1ation panel located near the peclestiian enny or main trailhead would enhance the visitors experience, promote safe and legitimate use area .. -\ta minimum the panel should provide an orientation and trail map, park rules, and emergency contact numbers. In addition space could be provided for:
-notices regarding park and open space events (e.g. town meetings, interpretive walks, voltmteer days. etc.).
-changing series of notes on Park ecology or history, Park maintenance and voltmteer progran1s.
All elements of the interpretation should be wii rersally accessible. A graphic (nonverbal). or interactive element would better engage cliildren. much like the existing Park relief map does.
Interpreted Natfre Plants
The need to reregetation of portions of the Lower Park is an e~cellent opportunity to demonstrate the vaiiety. utility. and beauty of regional native plants. 11iroughout the Lower Park some specimens of native plai1ts could be identified or keyed to ai1 interpretive brochure a\·ailable at an infonnation pmel, the Parks Departinent or the library. Emphasis should be placed on plants that tolerate drought. retard erosion, reduce fire hazai·d, and are _J appropriate for local residential lai1dscapes. A loop walk tlirough the revegetated area would provide an interesting excursion.
' _____ j
1 _J !'!?/
(
-J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
593
Environmental Exploration Trail
A self guided trail of subtle clues and guideposts would stimul::ite exploration of the Park and enable the visitor to interpret some of the natural history of the Park. Th.is and other similar interpreti,·e site improvements are described in detail in the Interpretation Plan.
Phased Implementation
Gradual implimentation of these site impro,·ements is a third management option.
The comprehensive phasing plan. included in the Appendix of this repo1t will reduce the major impact of these site improrements. the fiscal impact.
Recomm enclations
ccording to greatest likelihood of satisfying the needs ,md concerns of the Tomi and potential Park users. The improrements suggested in the "community goals" are incorporated in this list.
1. Provide a safe inforrnalplay space around Bigrock. Remove asphalt circle dri,·e around Big Rock area and revegetate the area as the main Park entry. Relocate parking to a portion of the the existing staging area. (Policy 3 . ..\. 9)
2. Pro,·ide adequate social seating opportunities for wheel chair-bow1d park users. (Policy 4.D.2)
3. Provide unfrersal access to basic sen·ices and information. (Policv 4.D.2)
4. Provide a variety of seating areas in the sun and the shade of Lower Park. Quiet areas, as well as. social seating areas near the entry, trail heads and acti.\·ity areas. Shade provided by plantings or an approp1iate timber structure. (Policy 3.A.7)
5. Pro,·ide resting/seating places (e.g. split log bench.es) at tra.ilh.eads and petiodically. at approx. 400' intervals, along ,valking and multi-purpose trails.(Policy 2.A.11)
6. Locate picnic tables at Creek-side.in lO\v fire danger areas at Bigrock area. on terrace in Lower park near view points. (Policy 3.A.8)
,:)
·~·
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
594
7.Provide an info1mation and interpretation board. A small, low key. info1mation panel, ,--, i located near the entry or gateway to trails. that proddes: 01ientation and trail map. park rules and emergency contacts. park ecology and history notes (keys to environmental clues regarding plants, wildlife. fire hazards. geology, etc.). (Policy 3.A.3)
8. Plant a natire plants "demonstration" area . .-\ small. low key, planting area that demonstrates the utility and beauty of :\I::uin nati\·e plants. Locate it on the currently. b::uTen tenace area and strncture it as a transition into the natural Upper Pa.rk:'open space.
Incoq)orate the Lower Park loop walk into the planting area. (Policy 3 .. ..\A) l 8. Provide a p011able public toilet on a nial basis. locate it at the edge of the proposed ' J parking lot and screen it from view. (Policy 3.A.10)
1 9. Pt·o\·ide a cliinking fountain in Lower park. (Policy 3.A.11)
10. Pt·m·ide a small group seating area: infonnal seating on log rmmds or timber benches. - , located away from public use areas and fit to the contour of a hillside. (Policy 3.A.5)
11. Promote opportunities for safe imaginati re play in the Lower Park at Creek-side and Bigrock. (Policy ..f..B. l)
( l
,l
l
,_J
, __ _;
__ J
12. Design a self-guided "nature" n-ail with only subtle clues to help visitors interpret the natural and environmental character of SRP. (Policy ..f..B . ..f.) The following policies regarding appropriate use of SRP are recommended. other policies pertaining to multiple-use are detailed in the Trails, Access. and Fire elements of the management Plan.
1. Pt·omote acti,·ities that ::u·e compatible with the conunwuty "Concept" ::u1d intiinsic values of the Park (e.g. trails. nature, passive recreation). (Policy l.A.2) 2 .. ..\ccomodate those ,vho walk their dogs in Cpper and Lower SRP with a policy consistent n·ith MCOSD policy Throughout SRP (Lower and Upper areas) allmv dogs off-leash. but under owners control and away from \\-ildlife or sensitive ecological areas (spiings). A~'D In Lower Park. require owners to remo\·e their dogs litter (feces).
Pooper-scoopcrs shall be provided in Lmver P::u"k. (Policy ..f..E.5)
3. Prohibit camping in the p::u"k. (Policy 6 . ...\.8)
-l. Prohibit hunting and removal of natural resources from the park.
5. Advocate for a study to re-design the "Yard Debris Day" activity at the staging area, investigate possible conummity composting at the site and curbside pich.-up of "green cans". (Policy 2.E.)
6. Promote recycling in the park. (Policy 5 .. ..\.6)
/-z;j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
595
Visual Resource i\ilanage1nent
The community of San Anselmo owes much of its special character to the visual qualities of the surrounding, undeveloped ridgetops, including SRP. Many of the Park's inninsic values are expressed in its appearrance and \·iews of it from the town. The San Anselmo General Plan establishes a conservation zone across the "Ridge Zones" smrnunding San Anselmo and states that "risual qualities and vie\v potential of both natural and manmade settings shall be of equal consideration with other features in project view".
Goals
The goal of th.is plan is to maintain and enhance the Park's dsual resources and capitalize 011 their intrinsic value. "Community goals" for SRP are incorporated in th.is Plan.
Recommendations
1. Preserve panoramic views and views of town landmarks from popular view points in the Park.
2. ~fake vie\VS toward the Corporation yard visually compatible with the Park setting by using evergreen plantings, fencing and/or removal of visually disturbing buildings. as stated in General Plan (Polic:y 2.E.2).
3. ::\·fake low impact site developements at SRP, in accordance with "Ridge Zone" policies of the General Plan.
-t Refurbish existing Corporation yard buildings with materials and a paint scheme that reduces their visual impact and reflects their historic connection to So1ich Ranch. (Policy
2.E.3)
5. Design and construct a small-scale. inviting park entry and pedestrian access at the main entrance, to visually integrate the park into the neighborhood and discourage illegitimate uses. (Policy -tE.2).
':
I
' J
I
J
i
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
596
1 1, Park and Open Space ::\Ianage1nent ,I
'l
1 1
1 1
- '
' l
i • J
Goals
CU1Tent management practice at SRP is summarized in the Site In\·entory (park management and planning). The San .-\nselmo General Plan contains sereral goals and objecti\'es. sununaiized in the ln\'entory. stating that pai"k and open space resources ai·e to be pro\'ided for the public, protected. maintained and restored to natural states if necessary.
In particular the General Plan states that:
- "open space preservation shall be coordinated to created the greatest possible benefit ai1cl the least enrironmental damage''.
- "there ai·e cun-ently (as of 1989) deficiencies in the park programs, which should be remedied by public acquisition program".
- "the town and county intend to cooperate in preserving contiguous open space area in the San Anselmo planning area and each agency should ref er any de\·elop~nent in its area to the other.
"Conunwiity goals'' for SRP. developed in this planning process, reflect these To\\·n policies. TI1e "Community goals" state that "futme design and management decisions for SRP should be based on this ~faster Plan. deri\·ed from the study of site factors. conunwuty concern. \'isual qualities land uses (Objective 2.A.). Furthem10re. in order to adch'ess the community's park and recreation needs. wluch cai1 not resonably be met at SRP. the "conummity goals" state that "a general study of San .-\nselmo p~u-k and recreation resomces be unde11aken" and a master plai1 for parks and recreation be completed.
The Town policies and "community goals" are shai·ed by the ~faster Plan for SRP.
It is a goal of the Plan to reconunend improvements in mai1agement. as well as site specific plans for enhai1ced enjo)lnent of the PJ.rk. Implementation of these recommencbtions \,ill help overcome some of the "deficiencies" by improving recreation resources at SRP and access to swTotmding cotmty open space. The Plai1 has been de\·eloped in the context of the existing system of town parks and focuses on the intrinsic values of the SRP site.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
597
Options
Continue CtUTent :\fanagement
Until recently, management of SRP has been relati\·ely passi\'e. The park and open space have been left undeveloped and ser\'e, primaiily, as a little-used neighborhood pai·k ai1d visual backdrop to the Town. Management practice has riot met some of the goals ai1d objecti Yes adopted in the re\'ised General Plan ( 1989). For the most pait. management has been reacti\·e responding to erosion problems. fire. etc .. Some possible reasons for the lack of acti re mai1agement in the past may include:
-demand for pai·k prograi11S ai1d recreational opportunities was met through existing facilities.
-lack of funding and staff to support a more acti\'e mai1agement. -open space issues had 110 active constituency or co1nn1mtity aclrocates until the orgaiuzation of the SAOSAC.
-maiw.gement and plaiming for SRP is ctUTently the joint responsibility of the Pai·ks Superindentent ai1d two citizens ad,·isory committees: Parks ai1d Recreation, and Open Space.
Open space is not a static resource, it requires active maintenai1ce just as a11y other park facility. '\'Vithout some committment of resources, the problems identified in this report will only become more serious ai1d more expensive to remedy.
The option of continuing the current mai1agement practice is not a viable option gi\'en the existing a11d potential problems outlined in this report.
Sorich Ranch Park ~faster Plan
The master plan establishes community-based goals a11d makes professional recommendations for site impro\'ements ai1d management of Sorich Rai1ch Park. A community-based effort to implement the plan will require the consideration of the issues outlined below. Tltis stage of the process should continue to pro\'ide opportunities for the community's participation in plaiming, fund-raising, construction. plai1ting, maintena11ce. interpretation and stewardship of tl1e Park (Policy 7.A.1 ). The Parks a11d Recreation and Public Works Depaitruents should continue to provide technical support to the advisory committees on the issues a11d oversee the implin1entation and maintenance. Teclmical notes on the implemention of some specific improvements or progran1S are included in tl1e Appendix.
!?Jb
I
J
J
I
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
598
1 J
l
1 j
l
l
1 ]
' ' !
'l
' l
: ' j
J
1. Cost
An estimate of the cost of the major recommendations of the Plan is beyond the scope of the original project proposal. Some of the recommendations would fall under a normal on-going maintenance program others are clearly capital improvements. ~!any of the reconunendations are for policy changes that would entail little if any fiscal impact.
Over the long term. many others would result in savings of resources and possibly. li,·es in extreme cases.
In order to reduce the direct impact of i.mplimentation of the Plan the recommendations of each element of the management plan have been prioritized and a phasing plan is included in the Appendix. Other means of keeping the costs clown include:
-promote active in,·olvement of citizens and interest groups in all aspects of the project.
-promote acti\'e coordination vdth ~ICOSD tlu·oughout implimentation of the Plan -seek outside funding and technical assistance from govenuuental agencies, nonprofit organizations. local business and individuals.
2.Committee for Sorich Ranch Park
A committee of active, interested citizens. to include members of the Parks and Recreation Conunission and Open Space A.dviso1y Committees, should be organized in order to:
-raise funds and build c0111111wlity support for the Plan. -coordinate implimentation of the Plan
-establish \Videspread opportunities for individuals, an.cl existing organizations to participate in the implimentation phase and subsequent stewardship of the Park.
This volunteer group would be known as Friends of Sorich Park.(Policies
7.AA.&5.)
3. Coordination
Towu policies state that "management of the parks and open space should be coordinated with the managment of adjacent public properties". An objective of the "community goals:" for SRP is to promote active coordination with ~ICOSD (Policy j 2.E.8). This report recommends such coordination with ~ICOSD an.cl owners of private land adjacent to the Park on almost e\'ery major m.-magement issue including: fire hazard, I J
!
J
-'
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
599
vegetation. wildlifo. erosion.and trails.~md access. Cost sharing :u.Tangements for some of these coordinated improvements should be pursued. In fact the management plan for the adjacent :'.\1COSD preserve includes some such cost sharing proposals.
4. Funding. Assistance and \' olunteers
Funding and assistance with the implimentaion of ra1ious aspects of the Plan could be obtained from a r~ui.ety of sources. .-\ conununity based project. such as th.is. may qualify for some tuiique sources of support. Grants are one source off Wlding. The San Francisco Foundation has excellent resatrrces for doing grant searches. A list off some places to tum for assistance is included in the Appendix. Local businesses and residents may be willing to donate mate1ials or assistance. Additional tecluiical assistance may be araliable from local enrir01m1ental groups and sen·ice organizations.
Volm1teer may be recruited from local service orgaiiizations including S.A. V .E ..
S . .-\. Y .. E. S., and C.L..-\. S.S., local schools. chtu-ches and youth groups. Erery effort should be made to promote participation of community members in the project. An excellent approach would be to sponsor monthly "Soii.ch R111ch Park Days", at \yliich the public could "get in touch with the park", through work projects, and interpretive events. "Conuuunity goals" for participation include:
1. Encotu-age citizen participation in planning. design, construction. planting. mainten.111ce and interpretation of the park.(Policy. 7 . .-\ 1)
2. Establish an acti\·e. volunteer conumuiity group. in order to encourage ste\vardsliip of the final plan, its implementation, and the future of the park.(Policy 7 .. -\.-+)
3. Encatir.:i.ge in,·olrement of existing conununity groups and serrice organizations in the stewardship of the park, particularly: S . .-\.V.E .. S.A.Y.E.S., C.L..-\.S.S .. San Anselmo Open Space Committee. Park and Recreation Comniission. and Historical Conmiission. as well as schools, churches and scout groups.(Policy 7.A.5)
5. Phasing and Pri01i.ties
In order to liniit the impacts of park improrements on the neighborhood and the conmmnity resources; and address the most pressing problems \Vith the available resomces. a phasing plan for implimentation of recommendations should be adopted. A suggested plan is included in the Appendix. In addition .several elements of the Management Plan also contain prioritized lists of reconm1endations.
I~
l
J
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
600
1 I
j
l
l
Cl
C 1
J
1 - )
The phasing plan is only a suggestion. as there are many variables that might alter the proposed schedule. However. the sequence of impro\'ements is sometimes critical: for example. any significant regrading or drainage problems should be dealt with. before an area is re\'egetated. Tue unphased projects are no less important than those included in the Phasing Plan. they are generally. less urgent.
Implementation Recommendations
The "community goals" for implimentation of the l\Iaster Plan included:
1. Guide impro\'ements with a phasing plan. (Policy 3.C.3)
2. Limit public promotion of the park. (Policy 3.C.1)
3. Implement impro\'ements at such time \vhen maintenance is available. (Policy 3.C.4)
4. Promote low maintenance improvements.(Policy 3.C.5).
5. Project shall not o\'erburclen the tmn1 water supply. Inigation shall only be required to establish vegetation (ma.,. 3 years after planting). (Policy 3.C. 6)
6. Implement improvements and monitor impacts ,vith assistance of conummity ~·olunteers. (Policy 3.C.7)
7. Establish a program of regular maintenance by staff and community voltmtee~. Consult ,vith local environmental groups and service organization for assistance \"\·ith implementation of planting (e.g. CNPS. and ~farin Re-Leaf). (Policy 6 .. .\.6) .-\djacent i\Iunicipal Land Uses
Portions of the Lower Park and land adjacent to it ha\'e been. and in some instances continue to be used for staging public \Vorks projects, municipal clumping. and yard debris transfer(i.e.Debris Day Activities). These municipal land issues conflict \Vith the adjacent park uses in terms of safety and esthetics. Furthennore, the public works are objected to, locally, for their perceived impacts on the neighborhood and potentially serious in1pacts on enviromental quality. The continued use of the dtunp is of particular concern for its impact on the adjacent stream. which eventually flo\VS into San Anselmo Creek at the 'Bub".
The majority of those polled in the community questionnaire and the "community goals" crafted in the public workshops state that further study of these activities should be /:Jj
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
601
undertaken and if studies wammt it. then they should be phased out at the cun-ent site adjacent to the Park. The "conununity goals" state that:
1. A study be undertaken to phase out use of current public works staging area and integrate area into plans for SRP.(Policy 2.E.4)
2. Advocate for a study to discontinue use of the dump, stabilize and revegetate the slopes of dwnp with native plants.(Policy 2.E.6)
3. Advocate for a study to re-design the "Yard Debris Day" activity at the staging area. investigate possible community composting at this site and cm·bside pickup of "green cans".Policv (2.E.7)
Acquisition
A stated objective of the Open Space element of the General Plan is to establish a program in c01~unction \'\1th the county and adjacent municipalities for the acquisition and preservation of priority open space properties. Several undeveloped parcels. adjacent to SRP, have been targeted for acquisition. This objective is reiterated in both the "community goals" (Policy 2.E.1) and the i\faster Plan.
Safety
The final goal of the management plan. adapted from the "conummity goals" is to make the Park safe. as well as inviting. for park users and nearby residents. The plan for fire hazard management addresses the critical issue for many nearby residents. Safety should also be promoted through park design and maintenance. The reconm1endations include:
1. ~lake rules and appropriateiintended use of park elements evident in design of the park.(Policy 6.A.1) Minimize the use of signs. make them unobtrnsive.(Policy 6.A.2)
2. Include enforcement codes and authority on all necessary signs.(Policy 6 . ..-\ .. 3) Post hours of legal park use, and phone numbers for assistance and emergency.(Policy 6.A.4) 3 Design of all features should reduce potential for loss due to vancL.1.lism.(Policy 6.A.5)
4. Establish program of regular maintenance by staff and conmrnn.ity roltmteers.(Policy
6.A.6)
/10
C, ~-,
1 ~I I
-~
~l
j
:1
J
l
'.J
\
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
602
'l
l
1 1 s
,
' l
' ' i
Introduction
The proposed Site Design for Sorich Ranch Park and objectins which act as a framework for the design. are presented in this section. It is the intent of the site design to match the pm·k an recreation needs of the community and potential users with the recommendations of the i\Ianagement Plan and anive at a design and spatial aiTangement of places, in which appropriate acti rities could occur. The design process was guided by the fol!O\Ving:
-a detailed assessment of site opportunities and constraints; -desc1iptions of appropriate actirity settings:
-lai1dscape architectural design principles;
-and the vision of the community who participated, throughout the planning and design process.
The objectives of the Site Design are captured in the statements of the "community goals" for SRP.
-safeguard and emphasize the intiinsic values of the site. -maintain and enhai1ce open space chai-acter.
-promote park users awareness of nature and enrironmental issues. -design low impact. landscape improrements for passi\·e recreation. in order to meet recreation needs of the townspeople. including: trails. seating. parking, safe play areas and access.
J A site design defines and shmvs graphically the general spatial arrangement of use areas. Restraint is stressed in this design: it is felt that th.is approach is best for the sensitire site and in light of the To,vn's limited resources.
The structure of a site plan and the choice of materials are important in creating a "sense of place". as well as pro\·iding order for the elements that compose the Park. _j Structure maiTies all the outdoor rooms together. The site plan is divided into six outdoor rooms. each is described in the following pai-agi-aghs and illustrations. and indicated on the Site Plan.
I
_J
i If/
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
603
The predominant materials used in the Site Design are nati,·e plants. Plants are used for the ecological restorations. defining the outdoor rooms/use areas. and pro'"iding \'atied sensory experiences. A planting plan is included in the Appendix.
Good site design should be concerned. not just ,,-ith solutions to technical problems. but also. with conummication and interpretation. This should be the case. in pruticular. for the design of public parks. Se,·eral elements of the design of SRP pro,·ide enviromuental infonnation and could enhru1ce the users awareness of the environment.
Opportunities for en\'iromnental interpretation ru·e desc1ibed in the final portion of th.is section.
Site Plan
Inspiration for giving fonu to the pru·k site comes from the existing lru1dfom1. the natural massings of nati\'e plru1ts ru1d the concept of the Park as a gateway to the urbru1 wilderness. Guiding the fom1 giving is the goal of creating an interesting. functional, and infomiative public park, which satisfies the progran1 requirements ru1d capitalizes on the intrinsic values of the site.
O\'erall. the Park is designed to accomocl"lte a \'ariety of uses and users. with a rru1ge of spaces of differing sizes.orientation and potential use. The shape of park spaces is de1frecl from the site's natural and h.istmic lru1dfo1111s. The intended uses are vruied. but basically they ru·e pedest1iru1-oriented. passive recreational activites. The fo1mality of spaces decreases from the entrance to the edges of Lower Park and the open space beyond.
A look at the heirachy of space finds. small inviting areas ·with neighborl1ood pru'k character near the entrance areas. The structure, scale and plantings are "semi-fom1al" and the appearrance is recognizably park-like ru1d maintained. Beyond the entrru1ce areas. the character of spaces is more open. and explorable, with the wild and seemingly boundless Open Space beyond The plantings provide enclosure ru1d intiicacy. as do the few structures. A simple heirarch.ical system of paths reinforces the strncture from the entrance to the open space trailheads.
Entrru1ce
The Site Plan provides a new auto and pedestrian entrance to the Park. Plantings ru1d re-alignment of the road provide a safer more inviting entry expe1ience for visitors.
The traffic pattern is simplified and automobiles are separated from pedestiians by a screen .~,
j
C J
' I
I
__ J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
604
l
l
j
'
1 and border of colo1f ul. broadleaf evergreen shrubs. The entrance itself is framed by attractive native trees and shrubs, opposite the existing redwood grove. A clearly visible park sign invites people in. to enjoy the Park. Traffic going into the Corporation yard is gi,;en the right-of-\vay in the Plan. Traffic headed into the Park must yield. so does traffic leaving the Park. Plantings at the entrance and along the Corporation ya.rd fence effectively screen the Yard from \'iew of people sitting in the Creek-side picnic area.
Creek-side
The proposed 'dg' (decomposed granite) footpath from the Park entrance brings visitors past the Creek-side picnic area, located in the shade of the existing redwood grove.
The Site Plan calls for reregetating th.is area with a rmiety of lowering sluubs and ground ,-,
.: cover that tolerates shade m1d needs the extra \Vater in the creek-side soils. Access to the creek. here, is designed to be safe and co11\·e1tlent. Steeping stones at the creek banks , r in,;ite children to play here, within \'iew of their guardians. seated at the picnic tables nearby. At the upper encl of the Creek-side area, where the trees and shrubs begin to close-in and the contour s,vings a.round, the Plan includes a small seating zing. designed to fit into the bank. Seats of split timbers are designed to encircle a log-round rostrum. The proposed seating circle faces the grassland slopes of the opposite bank and nestles into the landf onn. From the Creek-side picnic area and the Park entrance, the main footpath leads up along the old "circle d1ive" and a.round Bigrock.
;
. j
J
_j
' ' I _J
~j
I
s ! ._____,
1 I __ J
Bigrock-Park Gatewav
The formal gateway to the Park and Open Space is designed arow1d Bigrock.
People who hare dri\'en to the Park a.nive in the gateway area at the opposite side of the grass meadow in front of Bigrock. At that comer of the Bigrock/gateway area, is a .\\·ide landing, paved in "decomposed granite'' and lined ,vith native broadleaf evergreen trees.
TI1e Pia.rt calls for benches situated along the landing for those who are just clipping into thepark for a moment or are waiting for a companion. A barrier to ORV access is required at tltls location (also on the tlu·eshold of the pedestrian path at the main entrance). A simple, universally accessible gate. fashioned in the style of gates conunon around Califomia dai1ies or ranches, would be approptiate. Vehicle access for at this gate should not be necessary. A border of native slu-ubs. and flowering perennials frame the grassy area in front of Bigrock. The Bigrock area is small enclosure space designed for infom1al play around the rock. and comfortable seating along the edge of the area in the sun or the shade. The area is an ante-room to the Open space a place to meet a friend and embark on a · walk of just a place to sit at the threshold of the Park. The two footpaths. around the 145
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
605
Bi!rrock area. from the Park entrances lead the risitor oast a small infonnation kiosk. under - . the shade of large deciduous trees in the northeast comer of the area. A low key panel would provide interpretation. inf om1ation and park rnles ( described in the management plan). Notices soliciting voltmteers to participate in the next project. with the Sorich Ranch Park Volunteers should be posted here.
The trail beyond the kiosk cur\·es along the dark and shaddy edge of the oak-bay forest. On the opposite side of the path is a smmy. sloping border of nati\·e sluubs and flowedng plants. that can be gro,n1 in yards and gardens of San Anselmo. l11e trail to · Deer rock and the Ridge top branches off the main path at th.is point :md clips down across the Creek. From here. a small trail also loops around to the Creek-side picnic area. past some hidden fotmdations of an old fann building bwied in the banks of the Creek.
S01ich Ranch Tefface
The open space character of Upper Park comes do\"\'n to ,vi thin reach of all park visitors on the Te1race. From this open grassy area. the panoramic views of i\It. Tamalpais and Bald hill rise over Bigrock and the roof tops of San Anselmo. The oak studded grassland lie across the slopes behind the Te1race. The intended use this area.is for any sort of infonnal recreation. The loop walk around theTerrace traces the border of natire plants, interpreted ,periodically with a guidepost. Seating opportunities on the Terrace ta.re vmied. A timber shade structure situated at the back of the Te1race pro\·ides shade until the vegetation matmes. The architecture of west :\Iarin bmis. dairy fann outbuildings of line shacks might be appropriate analogs for its style. From the vantage point at the proposed location of the shade structure. the brow of the terrace and plantings on the slopes entirely screen the obtrnsi\•e view of the Corporation yard. The loop walk around the Terrace is designed to come full circle back to the landing at the park Gateway. However .another trail to Upper Park branches off the loop walk before it passes the parking lot. This is a dual-use trail for hikers and equestrians. which leads toward the eucalyptus gro\·e and the Stm Valley district of San Rafael.
Parking Lot
The proposed site design provides parking for 10-15 cars at the Park. A new grm·el surfaced parking area, screened by California pepper trees (Schinus molle), is located on a portion of the old public works staging area. These trees ,vere chosen for their functional approriateness in the parking lot and cultural significance. They haH been conunon trees around ranches, in the inland valleYs of California. for lOO's over vears. . - Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
606
!
i
1 !
l i
l
.J
The re-designed parking lot \\-ill discow-age d.iive throughs and enhance a popular. safe play enviromnent at SRP.
Upper Park
Site design in Upper Park is limited to minimal development of multiple use trails and access, and ecological restoration projects (see managment Plan). Trail-side seating in Upper Park calls for simple timber benches of split logs located at approximately -WO' inten·als along the trails. Seating should focus on a view of interesting element in the park landscape. The site design in Cpper Park also includes guideposts. elements of a trail-side interpretation network located periodically along some trails.
Through these modest site improvements and the implimentation of the "community goals " for management, Soricl1 Ranch Park will begin to significantly enhance and continue to contibute to the quality of life in San Anselmo.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
607
Environmental Interpretation
An interpreted environment is a place. natural or tu'banized that is intentionally designed to help users understand something about the place. The \Vays in \Vhich nanrral. enviromnents are interpreted ,·ary enom1ously: from simple labeling of features or creation of walking trails designed to tell a story of the place: to elaborate reconstruction of some past life or fonu (Southworth. 1990). Good site design is concerned with interpretation and communication. in addition to resolution of the teclmical problems. Through environmental inte1pretation the life, history and meaning of places can be communicated. in order that we can better understand the places where \'Ve lire and how to manage them more responsibly.
Objectives
Envi.rorunental interpretion can serve several objectives; it can provide recreation, heightened understanding and inspire Ii ves; foster proper use of sites; develope stewardship by users: enhance the image of management; and encourage participation. (Regvier, 1988). Ideally. designed interpretive environments communicate as directly as possible, but with the minimum of signs and text preference is given to risible objects and processes. symbols and icons. These em-ironments should be explorable and accessible:
they stimulate curiosity and offer a sense of discovery.
Recommendations
Clues. Svmbols and Signs
Se\·eral elements of the Park site design could pro,·ide environmental inf om1ation and potentially enhance visitor's awareness of the environment. Signs. symbols and subtle clues could be used to convey inf onnation. pique curiosity or focus attention on elements of the em·ironment. Objects and materials that are associated with environmental processes at the Park could also communicate inf om1ation. The following are some ideas for interpretation that could be developed.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
608
1 )
1 ,
l J
- 1
J
. J
l
J
.J
l. Native plants
Use native plants in the planting designs and restoration projects. Emphasis should be placed on plants that are drought tolerant. reduce fire hazard. and are acbptable to local residential landscapes. Some plant specimens should be identified and described on subtle guideposts erected adjacent to the plants (see Guideposts). The Park could thus function. in pa.it. as a local resource for appropriate h01ticuln1re.
2. Envirotunental Exploration Trail and Guideposts
Establish a self-guided trail of subtle guideposts. each located neai· a natural or cultural artifact, along some trails. tlu·oughout the Park. Simple. timber guideposts would utilize graphic symbols to draw attention to a paiticular element in the vicinity of the post.
Symbols could be "routered" into the post and painted. A list of possible subjects and sites is included in the Appendix. A key to the trail-side. graphic clues could be posted at the trailhead inf onnation panel, or pro\·idec.l in a take home brochure. This could be a fun. "\\l1ere's t\:"alclo" type of expetience. for everyone.
Some of the guideposts on the Exploration trail could also be paired with .identical posts located among the native plants of Lower Park where the guideposts would included additional horticultural infom1ation about the plant (e.g. name. appropriate use, etc.). The native plants guideposts in Lower Park would serve as a glossary for the graphic symbols of plants on the Exploration Trail.
3. Cornerstones of the S01ich Dairy
Partially excavate or restore portions of the foundations of the old Solich Dairy buildings and intrpret the significai1ee. F0tmdations of an outbuiding ai·e pmtially btuiecl in the stream bank in Lower Park. The old creamery building stood at the edge of the ten-ace area. on the site of the existing pm·king lot. If nothing can be reco,·ered. then strategic comers of some buildings could be marked with guideposts of concrete or stone. whitewashed in the style of dairy btrildings. Ideal comers would be those points of the old building that coincide with thresholds or intersections on the new Site Plan. Two such locations are: the enn-ancc to the Bigrock area fom1 the parking lot. and a seating m·ea nem· the proposed location of the Park infom1ation panel.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
609
4. Fire and Fuelbreaks
Identify evidence of fire history and fire hazard management practices. At the park entry. display: current fire hazard ratings. emergency phone numbers. use restrictions (e.g. no smoking season. no ground fires. no BBQ. no fireworks. no OR\'). Identify high hazard portions of the Park perimeter on the Park map. Name fuel breaks and fire roads as such. on the Park map and identify them at appropriate sites in the Park. Erect a guidepost where trails cross the fuel breaks. Identify ongoing fire hazard management practices in the Park ( e.g. pruning. mowing), encourage rnluntetT participation. Erect guideposts where burned fence posts or trees are close to trails: date them if possible as evidence of an e\'ent in fire history. Identify less fire-prone natfre plants in the revegetated areas of Lower Park, particularly plants that are appropriate for residential landscapes.
5. Soil
Emphasis the contrast in soil types. in the color of the tread of the trails that cross the zones of transition between types. Allu\'ial soils in the Park are grey-brown in color (Tacoloma soils) the shallower grassland soils are yellow-brown (Sawin soils) ..
6. Geology Wall or Guideposts
Constru~t short wing\valls and steps or ramp. along the path from Creek-side picnic area to the Bigrock. with a variety of rock types common to the Park. Outcrops in the Park should not be quanied for th.is purpose. Similar stone could be acquired else\vhere in Marin county. If sufficient quantities of a variety of types is not available. a few samples of each rock type could be collected in the Park and cemented into a wall constructed of generic local stone.
Alternately. some of the guideposts and/or the drinking fmmtain could be constrncted of stone that is conunon to the Park. Rock types in the wall or the guideposts should be labeled in Lower Park to sen·e as a glossary of rock types to be found while exploring outcrops in the Park.
7.Inf0rn1ation Kiosk
Constuct a small. low key inforn1.ation panel located near the pedestrian entry or main traill1ead in order to enhance the visitors experience, promote safe and legitimate use [ 4!3
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
610
l
-1
1 j
,---"'\
i
.ac.1. At a minimum the panel should pro\'ide an orientation and trail map. park rules. and emergency contact numbers. In addition space could be prol'ided for:
-notices regarding park and open space events (e.g'. to~n meetings. interpreti\'e walks. volunteer davs. etc.).
-changing series of notes on Park ecology or history, Park maintenance and volunteer programs.
All elements of the interpretation should be universally accessible. A graphic (non..,.erbal). or interactive element would better engage children. much like the existing Park relief map does.
~~ Programs and Activities
· 1 Enrironmental inf ommtion can also be conveyed by directly revealing the natural .- 1
1 . '
' i
' J
objects or processes through inte1pretecl experiences. Ideally, i.nte1preted experiences should be about exploration, as well as explanation.
1. Thematic Walks
Arrange interpretative walks of vegetation, wildlife. geology or history, by local enthusiasts or experts. The proposed Site Design will improve access to some of the natural resources of SRP. Ho,vever, most of the Park will remain just a place to exlplore .
2. Group Seating Area
Construct a comfortable, inf onnal seating area, ,vhere small groups of people could gather for interpreter lead presentations.
3. Participation in Restoration and Implimentation
Promote the wide range of opportunities for rnlunteer paitcipation in the environmental restoration and site design projects recommended in the ;\{anagement Plan.
There is nothing like learning from persoIU1al experience. Each phase of the plan should include a ,·ariety of opportunities to appeal to different interests.
All site ,vork and maintenance should be interpreted in at least a limited ,vay for the , park visitor and volunteer. A simple explanantion of what's happening here or there, temporarily posted on a small sign can go along way to increasing understanding.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
611
enhancing the image management,and encouraging participation. The following is a list of projects that lend themselves to volunteer participation:
restoring stream banks
cleaning-up creeks
planting native trees and shrnbs
collecting native plant seeds
cultivating native plants**
irradicating invasi ,·e plants
restoring erosion sites
maintaining fuelbreaks
building trails
painting "dairy barn"
designing guideposts
designing brochures
leading interpreti,·e walks
Site Design
Environmental infonnation at SRP is conveyed through the overall site design. in addition to the clues and intrepreted experiences described above. The designed experience attempts to appeal to all the senses. in order to enhance a,vareness of the environment.
I.Trails
The proposed alignment of trails takes the visitor through a variety of natural Park settings: sun drenched grasssland. deep shaded woodlands, ,.,,ildflmver meadows. and bay-scented forests.
2. Use .-\reas
The design of various use areas avails the park user of the seasonal variety of comfortable micro-climates in the Park (e.g. sunny in spring on the terrace, and deep swnmer shade at woodland edge or redwood grove)
l
i
j
' '
!
i
__ J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
612
1 ~l
1 !
' '
. '
'
. j
l
J
( ·-'
3.Focal Points
The intrinsic values of the Park site. the natural elements and its history. are the focal points and cornerstones of the site design: Bigrock. oak seedling plantation. redwood grm·e. and old circle drive to the dairy.
4.Vie,v Points
Trail-side rest stops focus on panoramic rie,vs or close-up \·icws of nan1re.
5.Planting
The arrangement and selection of plants in the Lower Park frame views and native plants are accented.
6.Social En\·irorunent
Finally. an awareness of conm1tulity and the social environment are promoted by the site design and the natme of this collll11unity-based process. Parks and public places are meeting places for people as well as places to explore nature or culture Opportunities for social interaction are promoted in the variety of seating arrangements. and settings. The site design is open. inviting. accessible to all potential users and reasonable uses.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
613
Appendix X.
COMMUNITY GOALS for SORICH PARK
These goals were developed from: resident interviews; community questionnaire; field study; research of the park site and four, public goal setting workshops. They reflect the agreements reached to date by project participants. (GP: is a reference to San Anselmo General Plan; MCOSD: is a reference to San Rafael Ridge management plan).
GOAL 1. PROTECT THE INTRINSIC VAL'C.JES OF SORICH RANCH PARK
A QUIET, NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND OPEN SPACE THAT
INVITES PASSiv"E RECREATION, EXPLORZ\TION AND
RELAXATION
Intrinsic values are aspects that belong to the essential nature or make-up of the park. These are expressed in the appearrance and function of the place; they include the natural aspects of the site and their relation to the
adjacent community, as well as the character of existing facilities and their relation to park user needs. Uses of the park that capatali2e on these intrinsic values
contribute the enjoyment of users, the identity of the place and appropriateness of the activities.
OBJECTIVE A. Safeguard and emphasize these unique
characteristics of the SRP site, in the park design and management:
-quiet park.
-landscape of the rural past.
-diversity of native plants and wildlife.
-wild woodlands at the edge of town.
-panoramic views of the Town, valley, Mt. Tam., and the Bay. -monolithic rock outcrops thrust up through grassland.
-hidden valleys, steep open grasslands.
-historic terraces, sites of dairy and ranch.
-glimpse of the fire history.
-trickles of water from perennial springs.
-shady woodland rooms, under canopies of native oak and bay trees. -close up views of nature.
-seasonal wildflowers.
-gateway and link to a variety of County open space lands. -visual backdrop to Town
Policy 1. Emphasize the concept of a quiet gateway park and explorable wild open space that captures, for all townspeople, the benefits of the rural past and natural environment of wooded hills, grasslands, hidden canyons and creeks close to the heart of l
~l
!
·1
I
J
- '
I
!
1 - '
I
j
- j
i
I -. _ _)
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
614
1 l
1 ~,
l
l
)
1 j
_, i
I
-·-'
San Anselmo. A refuge and resource for passive recreation at the head of the valley.
Policy 2. Promote activities that are compatible with the concept and intrinsic values of the place (e.g. trails, nature, passive recreation)
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
615
GOAL 2. MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE OPEN SPACE CHARACTER OF SORICE
RANCH PARK
Park: Public lands which contain public facilities for
active and passive recreation of residents(GP).
Open Space: Public lands with access for nature study and hiking, etc. Such lands are to be left in their natural state with little or no improvements more extensive than trails or fire breaks(GP).
OBJECTIVE A. Make future design and management decisions for SRP on the basis of this plan, derived from the
study of natural factors, community concerns, visual
qualities, and land uses; which divides the park into 3 planning units: Upp,er park, Lower park, and Trails.
Policy l. Upoer park: Maintain area in its natural state as "Open Space", with improvements no more extensive than trails or firebreaks. Area is a wild open space encompassing south facing slopes of wooded grasslands; three seasonal creeks; and a perennial spring;
a. Springs and wet meadows -- Important water source for wildlife, fragile ecology; control invasive exotic plants (e.g. pampass grass), limit trails and access.
b. Riparian woodlands -- Stabilize stream banks, control invasive exotic plants, clean-up creeks, provide increased access for interest and shade.
c. Oak-Bay woodland -- Control exotic invasive plants and poison oak, increase access for interest and shady rooms under canopy.
d .. Oak grassland and Open grassland -- Stabilize slopes, repair gullies, remove barbed wire, control exotics, assess and monitor fragile serpentine soils and rock
outcrops(knockers) for rare plants listed by CNPS
(e.g. jewel flower).
Policy 2. Leave majority of the park just as places to explore.
Policy 3. Lower park: Focus limited, low impact improvements for passive recreation in this "Park" area. The area is 4 acres of flat, accessible land near existing entry, adjacent to parking, picnic area, site of demolished ranch/dairy farm, and public works staging area.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
616
,.-- ......
I
; 1
I - )
I
-- _,
I ~_,
Policy 4. Trails: Establish a limited system of trails within the park that meet reasonable multiple-use demands for
recreation and safety. Existing trails in the park include: a very steep, informal hiking trail, leading up the grassy hillside to the ridge top; a service/fire road, leading up the ridge behind the SUBUD center; and lots of wildlife traces, some of which are used by hikers. A new hierarchy of trails includes:
a. Exploration trails: Coincident with existing trails or traces. Maintain only to prevent erosion. Close the
existing trail up nose of ridge past 'Deer Rock' to ridge. b. Walking trails: Smooth, unpaved graded trails (approx. 18" to 24" wide).Establish walking trail to ridge,and flat loop trail in lower park.
c. Multi-purpose trails: Fire rds. and service rds which link to other trails and existing MCOSD roads.
d. Combined use trails: single track trails for the dual use of hikers and equestrians, or dual use of hikers and
mountian-bikers**, as posted (width minimum 3' ).
Policy 5. Limit mountain bike riding to multi-purpose
trails and ·posted combined use trails** (MCOSD,GP)
** note: No consensus was reached on the issue of mountain bike access. Policies 4d & 5 are reconunendations. See
Access Reconunendations for options and impacts. See also policy 3.B.2 Sacramento Ave. access
Policy 6. Limit horseback riding to multi-purpose trails and combined use trails as posted (GP)
Policy 7. Connect trails with existing trails on adjacent public lands. ( MCOSD)
Policy 8. Recommend trails that correspond to trails indicated in the Town General plan, County Trail element, and Open Space plan.
Policy 9. Plan trails through a variety of terrain.
Policy 10. Limit trails in ecologically fragile and geologically unstable areas.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
617
Policy 11. Provide resting/seating places (e.g. split log benches) at trailheads and periodically (approx. 400' intervals) along walking and multi-purpose trails(GP).
Policy 12. Provide interesting destination points or vista points periodically (approx. 400') along trails.
Policy 13. Provide secure bicycle parking near main trailhead.(GP) OBJECTIVE B Preserve diversity of vegetation, with
preference given for regional native plants over other
naturalized California s:i;:ecies or exotics.
Regional native plants are plants that grow or have
historically, been known to grow in these inland valleys and hills of coastal California and Marin county.
Exotic plants are not native of this region and require special care in order to survive(e.g. irrigation,
insecticides) .
Naturalized plants are non-native plants, which flourish in the region without assistance and are adapted to the local Mediterranean climate.
Policy 1. In Lower park maintain all existing non-invasive vegetation, and revegetate with native or natural plant species.
Policy 2. Eliminate or control major populations of exotic weeds with environmentally safest control methods. Limit use of herbicides to spot applications for noxious exotics.
Policy 3. Irrigate only to establish plants in revegatated areas.
Policy 4. In Upper park manage for historic plant diversity revegetate with regional native plants only.
Policy 5. Protect and monitor the fragile and sometimes rare native plant communities on serpentine soils and outcrops.(MCOSD, CNPS)
,., i
I
, l
\
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
618
l
- 1
l
,._j
\ - •• _J
Policy 5. Confer with MCOSD and adopt recommendations compatible with vegetation management plan for MCOSD San Rafael Ridge preserve which borders the Park (including management of historic plant diversity, invasive-exotic plants, grazing, and fire hazards).
OBJECTIVE c. Maintain habitats for wildlife that have
historically lived here.
Policy 1. Remove barbed wire and limit fences to permit open range of large animals.
Policy 2. Stress need for o~mers to closely control off-leash dogs around wildlife.
Policy 3. Establish guzzlers for summer water needs of wildlife in cooperation with MCOSD.
OBJECTIVE D. Protect natural resources and restore
natural systems that have deteriorated due to past
management practices.
-These problems must be addressed or they will simply get worse, resulting in loss of resources and public access. Promote volunteer involvement in the5e project5.
Policy l. Stabilize and revegetate slopes where poorly designed roads, trails, grazing, etc. have caused hillside erosion and siltation of watercourses.
Policy 2. Control removal of any vegetation from hillsides or stream channels in order to minimize erosion and siltation.(GP) Policy 3. Close and revegetate roads and trails that are eroding.
Policy 4. Stabilize and revegate lower park terrace where trails,and bare slopes aggravate erosion and gullying. Establish a landscape planting plan for the terrace.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
619
Policy 5. Confer with MCOSD about efforts to stabilize, revegetate slopes and restore natural drainage patterns on MCOSD lands, which are aggravating erosion on SRP lands.
Policy 6. Establish a drainage plan for lower park terrace and parking area, in order to prevent gullying· and promote retention of runoff on the site.
Policy 7. Maintain and restore natural appearrance and runoff capacity off stream channels by development of small structural and landscape improvements.(GP)
Policy 8. Protect all springs and wet meadows from impacts of hikers and horses.
Policy 9. Conduct records search and field check for
archaeological sites prior to any construction.
OBJECTIVE E. Advocate for compatible management and use of the developed and remaining, undeveloped land parcels around the park.
Policy 1. Pursue acquisition of adjacent parcels according to recommendations of San Ansel.mo General Plan, Open Space element(GP).
Policy 2. Make view toward corporation yard, from lower park, visually compatible with the park setting, by using evergreen plantings, fencing and removal of obsolete and visually disturbing buildings.
Policy 3. Refurbish existing corporation yard buildings with materials and a paint scheme that reduces their visual impact and reflects the historical appearrance of the buildings adjoining the park.
Policy 4. Undertake study to phase out use of current public works staging area and integrate area into plans for SRP.
-1
i
I ._J
!
I
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
620
~l
' \
1 !
1 '
_j
' \ ---'
Policy 5. Discourage access to the unstable slope of the dump, adjoining the park with barrier planting.
Policy 6. Advocate for a study to discontinue use of the dump, stabilize and revegetate the slopes of dump with native plants.
Policy 7. Advocate for a study to re-design the "Yard Debris Day" activity at the staging area, investigate possible community composting at this site and curbside pickup of "green cans".
Policy 8. Confer with MCOSD regarding compatible management of Upper park and all proposed projects adjoining the County preserve.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
621
GOAL 3. IMPLEr-1ENT THE MAJORITY OF SUGGESTED, LOW IMPACT, LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LOWER PARK; UPPER PARK
IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO MINIMAL TRAIL
DEVELOPEMENT AND RESTORATION OF an..BITATS AND NATURAL
SYSTEMS,
OBJECTIVE A. Plan and manage the Lower Park as a unique, inviting, accessible town park for passive recreation
and a gateway to the explorable open space.
Policy 1. Leave the Upper park undeveloped to provide places to be alone and reflect on nature, away from town and other park settings.
Policy 2. Plan, design and maintain the following, new and existing, low impact features in the Lower park:
flat loop walk
revegetated terrace and slopes
grass area or equivalent for picnicing
native plants demonstration area
trailhead sign
small information/interpretation board
shaded, social seating area
picnic tables
litter barrels
pooper scoopers
automobile parking area
bike parking
entry sign
small group seating area
trail side benches
off-road vehicle barricade
corporation yard screening
recycling and litter cans
self guided nature trail
Policy 3. Information and interpretation board: small, low key, information panel, located near entry or gateway to trails, that provides: orientation and trail map, park rules and emergency contacts, park ecology and history notes (keys to environmental clues regarding plants, wildlife, fire hazards, geological hazards, etc. )
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
622
'l
I
!
l
1 rl
' I
- ' i
l __ j
__ i
I
J
Policy 4. Native plants demonstration area: small, low key, planting area that demonstrates the utility and beauty of Marin native plants. Located on the currently, barren terrace area and structured as a transition into the natural upper park/open space.
Incorporate the lower park loop walk into the demonstration planting area.
Policy 5. Small group seating area: informal group seating on log rounds or timber benches, located away from quiet public use areas and fit to the contour of a hillside.
Policy 6. Loop path: relatively level, graded loopwalk within easy access of main entry area. Incorporate a variety of sun/shade environrnnents, resting spots, and lower park activity areas.
Policy 7. Shaded seating areas: variety of opportunities for seating in the sun and the shade of the lower park. Quiet areas, as well as social seating areas near the entry, trail heads and activity areas. Shade provided by plantings or an appropriate timber structure.
Policy 8. Picnic tables: conveniently located near main entry and focal points, or along trails in Lower park, where practical.
Policy 9. Remove asphalt circle drive around Big Rock area and revegetate the area as the main Park entry, with safe informal play space, and a shaded seating area. Relocate parking to a portion of the the staging area.
Policy 10. Provide portable public toilet on a trail basis, locate at the edge of the parking lot and screen it from view. · Policy 11. Provide a drinking fountain in Lower park.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
623
P::ig.2 l ,
OBJECTIVE B. Promote safe pedestrian access to the park Policy l. Provide pedestrian access that minimizes conflict with vehicles at: main entry, parking area, and along San Francisco Blvd. on the approach to the park. (Use bollards and pavement markings, separate auto and pedestrian entrances).(GP)
Policy 2. Improve legitimate pedestrian access from the neighborhood. Official unimproved neighborhood access exists:
from Sacramento Ave. between SUBUD center and residential lots to the west; and from north side of San Francisco Blvd., between the two residential lots at 405 and 500 San Francisco Blvd.
Unofficial unimproved access exists across the SUBUD parking lot on Sacramento Ave ..
-At San Francisco Blvd. access: Clarify the public/private property boundary, No recreational access improvements are recommended at this site. Parks Dept. and Ross Valley Fire Department should confer with resident at 500 San Francisco Blvd. regarding emergency access to service road from private driveway. -At Sacramento Ave. access: Establish low key, combined use trail access for pedestrians and mountain bike users**· Or establish hikers only trail and prohibit access by mountain bike riders** to the road above, at the boundary with MCOSD preserve. ** note: No consensus was reached on the issue of mountain bike access. This policy is a recommendation. See Access Recommendations for further options and impacts. See also Trails policies 2.A.4d & 2.A.5
-At SUBUD parking lot: Clarify public and private property boundary. Discourage use of unofficial trails across private property. Maintain proper drainage across service road, above parking lot and adjacent residences.
Policy 3. Prohibit motorcycle and off road vehicle access to the park. Construct adequate barricades at all entry points. Confer with MCOSD on cost sharing for this improvement.
Policy 4. Minimize size of vehicle parking area (GP)
Policy 5. Parking should be limited to 10-15 cars on site, with a drop off.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
624
1 J
l
, __ )
__ )
_ I __;
r. :-,,·1..:. I.-. r .... ::. ...., -
Policy 6. Occassional, overflow parking by legitimate park users should be permitted and monitored in the neighborhood.
Policy 7. Landscape the parking area and screen from view.(GP) OBJECTIVE c. Limit impacts of improvements on park
neighbors and the community.
Policy 1. Limit public promotion of the park. (MCOSD)
Policy 2. Provide adequate parking and monitor traffic impacts on the neighborhood.
Policy 3. Guid~ improvements with a phasing plan.
Policy 4. Implement improvements at such time when maintenance is available.
Policy 5. Promote low maintenance improvements.
Policy 6. Project shall not overburden the town water supply.
Irrigation shall only be required to establish vegetation (max. 3 years after planting).(GP)
Policy 7. Implement improvements and monitor impacts with assistance of community volunteers.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
625
r.-,--1· ',ij ,.. :...!~ ~ ~
GOAL 4. MEET SOME OF THE PARK AND RECREATION NEEDS OF
TOWNSPEOPLE, WHILE ENSURING NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE OF
NATURAL RESOURCES AT SORICH RANCH PARK,
OBJECTIVE A. Provide inviting activities for seniors and adults.
Policy 1. Construct an easy, graded trail to the ridge top, through a variety of natural settings.
Policy 2. Construct a pleasant flat loop walk in the lower park.
Policy 3 .. Provide shaded places to sit, relax and meet friends at entry inside the park and near activity areas.(e.g. Big Rock area, Upper Terrace).
OBJECTIVE B. Provide facilities and activities for
children.
Policy 1. Provide safe informal play environment around Big Rock for school age children, and promote opportunities for safe imaginative play in the Lower Park (e.g. creekside).
Policy 2. Design small, low key, interactive-interpretive board at entry that children as well as adults can learn from (e.g. repair existing relief map, plant lists, hazards, or keys to other environmental clues).
Policy 3. Provide adequate bicycle parking in Lower Park.
Policy 4. Design a self-guided nature trail with only subtle clues to help visitors interpret
character of SRP.
the natural and environmental
OBJECTIVE c. Promote enjoyment, stewardship and
legitimate use of the park by teenage residents.
Policy 1. Encourage teenage citizen involvement in the planning, development and maintenance of SRP.
Policy 2. Encourage environmental awareness programs, oriented toward SRP, in local schools. j
I _J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
626
1 j
l
'
1 J
i
l
J
i
I
l
l
j
- j
l
_ _!
OBJECTIVE D. Guarantee access to the park for mobility
impaired park users.
Policy 1. Provide adequate access and negotiable grades on loop trails in the Lower Park.
I l ' '-r
Policy 2. Provide adequate social seating opportunities for wheel chair bound park users.
Policy 3. Provide access to basic services and information.
OBJECTIVE E. Address the needs and concerns of the
surrounding neighbors who use the park as a neighborhood park.
Policy 1. Provide and maintain a system of trails which will ensure non-intrusive access from residential areas to park.(GP) Policy 2. Permit direct access to park from adjacent residential lots, providing gates meet MCOSD specifications.
Policy 3. Construct a small scale, inviting, official entry to the park to help integrate it into the neighborhood and discourage illegitimate use of the park.
Policy 4. Redesign existing parking and entry road to discourage drive through use and cruising the park. Relocate parking on public works staging area away from Big Rock. Pave new parking with gravel for improved drainage and in order to discourage cruising.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
627
Policy 5. Accomodate those who walk their dogs in Upper and Lower SRP with a policy consistent with MCOSD policy (below) for the popular county open space adjoining SRP.
-Throughout SRP(lower and upper areas) allow dogs off-leash, but under owners control and away from wildlife or sensitive ecological areas (springs). AND In Lower SRP area, require owners to remove dog litter (feces). Pooper-scoopers shall be provided in Lower Park.
f!;i.ri11 County Open Sp:icQ DistJ:ict CodQ
1.120 Doqs and oth'i!.r animals: Dogs and othQr hous,;iliold an.im;i.ls arQ alloWQd within thQ District, providoo, hoW'.!VQr, that thQ own.;ar, kQ2p.;uo or p=son QXQrcising thQ aniroals shall kQ<ilp his animal undQr control at all tirr,Qs, and must not allow his animal to 2~tQr rQstrictQC\ arQas of thQ District Op,;!n spacQ lands, and must not allow his animal to wildlifQ.
OBJECTIVE F. Undertake a general study of San Anselmo
park and recreation resources in order to address
conununity needs, which are not meet at SRP.
Policy 1. Characterize current use of parks and determine intrinsic values of each park site.
Policy 2. Establish a master plan for each town park.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
628
.~ ,I
I
i
l
1 !
j
'l
J
- 1
I - j
J
_j
! _ _J
GOAL 5. PROMOTE VISITOR AWARENESS OF NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES SO THEY WILL ENJOY AND PROTECT THE PARK MORE
READILY (GP)
OBJECTIVE A. Establish programs that ·introduce people to the pleasures and responsibilities of using the park.
Policy 1. Design low key, interpretation and environmental clues that explain the natural processes and history of the park site (e.g. small exhibit, guide posts, self-guided tours, maps, or booklets).
Policy 2.Interpret restrictions on the use of SRP due to fire, erosion, and wildlife.
Policy 3. Design a native plants demonstration area to show the plants that tolerate drought, retard erosion and fire, enhance wildlife and are adaptable for home landscape uses.
Policy 4. Promote awareness of natural processes with a p~rk plan that enhances experience and opportunities for exploration or discovery; and draws attention to the interventions and impacts of past and current land use on the park site. Focus attention on: revegetatidn, erosion control, underbrush as habitat, stream restoration, etc. (e.g. label exotic plants; use willow watling in erosion control; name the firebreaks explicitly; interpret significance of stream culvert).
Policy 5. Encourage programs at schools to introduce students to the environment, through experiences at SRP. (e. g. Drake H.S. honors biology class).
Policy 6. Promote recycling in the park.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
629
GOAL.6. MAKE SORICH RANCH PARK SAFE AND INVITING FOR THE PARK
USERS AND NEARBY RESIDENTS
OBJECTIVE A. create a safe park and promote safe use,
through park design and maintenance.
Policy 1. Make rules and appropriate/intended use of park elements evident in design of the park.
Policy 2. Minimize the use of signs, make them unobtrusive.
Policy 3. Include enforcement codes and authority on all necessary signs.
Policy 4. Post hours of legal park use.
assistance and emergency.
Post phone numbers for
Policy 5. Design of all features should reduce potential for loss due to vandalism.
Policy 6. Establish program of regular maintenance by staff and conununity volunteers. Consult with local environmental groups and service organization for assistance with implementation of planting (e.g. CNPS, Re-Leaf),
Policy 7. Make park entrances clear and inviting and legitimate.
Policy 8. Prohibit camping in the park.
OBJECTIVE B. Design park and maintenance programs to
reduce fire hazard to park users and nearby residents.
-Critical areas for fire hazard are park perimeter, where it borders residential properties and the corporation yard.
Policy 1. Maintain emergency access at main entrance, and at San Francisco Blvd.access to £ire road above SUBUD.
Policy 2. Contact property owners of adjoining lands about reducing fire hazards on their land.
~,
I
l
I . ~
i • J
j
.. J
l
. j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
630
l
l
l
1 1
I
,
1 1
J
GOAL 7. PROMOTE VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE
SORICH RANCH PARK PROJECT
OBJECTIVE A. Offer a variety of opp::>rtunities for
citizen involvment.
Policy. 1. Encourage voluntary citizen participation in planning, design, construction, planting, maintenance and interpretation of the park.
Policy 2. Invite participation of the whole community by requesting input from individuals, leaders, and groups, including non-park users in the planning process.
Policy 3. Make the planning process open and interactive through the use of interviews, conununity questionnaires and public workshops.
Policy 4. Establish an active volunteer group (a.k.a. Sorich Park Volunteers), in order to encourage stewardship of the Plan, its implementation, and the future of the park.
Policy 5. Encourage involvement of existing conununity groups and service organizations in the stewardship of the park, particularly S.A.V.E., S.A.Y.E.S., C.L.A.S.S., San Anselmo Open Space Committee, Park and Recreation Conunission, and Historical Cornmission,as well as schools, churches and scout groups.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
631
Policy 3. consult MCOSD fire hazard reconunendations plan for San Rafael Ridge (controlled burning, grazing, eucalyptus thinning, mowing, pruning and education).
Policy 4. Locate picnic sites in low fire danger areas (e. g.
Redwood grove) .
Policy 5. Establish no smoking policy through out the park.
Policy 6. Prohibit BBQ fires throughout the park.
Policy 7. Prohibit open fires throughout the park.
Policy 8. Post fire hazard warnings, emergency procedures and phone numbers at all park entries and trail heads.
! ,;:, ! \ ....
Policy 9. Design interpretive features about fire hazard and fire history of the park.
Policy 10. Preserve burned fence posts, in place, throughout the park, as reminders of the fire history.
Policy 11. Remove all barbed wire from park, but preserve fence posts iD; place.
l
l
l
J
__ J
i
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
632
1 I \
J
l
l )
',
' ·1
i
,
.--, I
1 ' j
- '
J
, __ _)
i
_ _j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
633
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
634
1 j
~l
l J
l i
' '
~,
1 j
i
1 ' ' ;
i _ _J
, __ J
I
.J
Appendix A
Plants in the lower park area with cost estimates:
Am-Acer macrophyllum- BigieafMaple-3-CF-.67/liner,S3.10/gal,Sl 1. 75/5 g.-ccc-lg,2' Ac-Aescuius caiifornica- Calif. Buckeye-5-Ex-CF S3.10/gal-ccc-lg,2',5g Ad-Arctostaphylos densiflora,"Sent. "-Seminal manzanita-7~CF.57/1,S2. 70/gal,9. 75/5g Ah-Arctostapylos hookeri-Monterey manzanita-40-CF .55/liner,S2. 70/ gal · Ac2-Artemisia californica-Calif. sage-40-CF"canyon grey".55/li, S2.55/gal B p-Bachanis pilularis, "Pigeon Point" -Dwarf Chapp are! broom-40-CF. 50/lin,S2. 7 5/ g Bc-Baccharis pilularis, v. consanguinea-Coyote Bush-45-CF. 50/lin,S2. 40/g-ccc- lg Cc-Carpenteria califomica-Bush anemone-6-CF. 72/lin,#3 .60/g,S 10. 75/5 g Cb-Ceanothus "Blue Buttons"-2-
Cf-Ceanothus "Frosty Blue"-10-CF .55/liner, S2. 70/1 gal,S9. 75/5 gal.
Cg.-Ceanothus gloriosus v. porrectus-DwarfPt. Reyes-SO-CF .55(liner), S2.70 lg.
Cp-Ceanothus papillosus "Concha"-5-Sh.Star .69 x 49-CF.55(1iner) S2.70 l gal.,9.75/5 gal CR-Ceanothus rigidus "Snowball"-! O-CF.55/lin,S2. 70/g,S9. 75/5g Ct-Ceanothus thrysiflorus "Blue Blossom" -12-CF . 5 5/lin,S2. 70/g, S9. 7 5/5 g-ccc-t, 1 g,2' Co-Cercis occidentale-Westem Redbud-8-CF.67/liner,S3.10/g,S11.25/5 g-ccc-lg Cn-Cornis nutalli-Pacific dogwood- I-CF . 72/lin,S3. l 0/g,S:S 12. 75/5 g Cc2-Corylus cornuta-Calif. hazelnut-2-CF SJ.60/gal,S:Sl2.75/5 g Ef-Erigonum arborescens-Island buckwheat-CF .50/lin,S2.65/g EF-Erigonum fasciculatum-Calif. buckwheat-SO-CF .48/lin, S2.55/g-ccc-t Fc-Fremomodendron californicum-F1anne! Bush-CF. 72/lin,S4./g,S12. 75/Sg Ge-Garrya elliptica-Coast Silktasse!-CF(2v.) SJ.85/g,S:Sl2.25/5g Ha-heterome!es arbutifolia-Toyon-CF . 72/lin,SJ/g,Sl0.5/5g-ccc-t,d Hd-Holodiscus discolor-Cream BushId-Iris dougiasiana-Douglas iris-CF .57/lin,S2.60/g K11-Kr:1iphotfa , ..P'aria Red hot poke'" pla1u
La-Lupinus albiflorus-Silverbush lupine-CF'albifrons' . 57 /Jin, S2. 5 5/ g Li-Lupinus latifolius-Broadleaf lupineMa-Mimulus aurantiacus-Stickey monkeyrlower-SS.63 x49-ccc-c, 1 g Mc-Myrica califomica-Pacific wax myrtle-CF . 57 /lin,S2. 3/g-ccc-lg Pr-P!atanus racemosa-Western sycamore-CF .67/lin,SJ. l/g,Sl 1. 75/5g Pr-Prunus ilicifolia-Holly-leaf cherry-CF . 57 /lin,S2. 60/g-ccc-c, I g Pm-Pseudotsuga menziesii-Douglas fir-ccc-lg,5g
Qa-Quercus agrifolia-Coast live oak-CF Sl.10/g-ccc-c, lg,2',5g Qg-Quercus garryana-White oakQl-Quercus lobata-Valley oak-CF Sl.10/g-ccc-lg,2',5g Rc-Rhamnus californica-Calif. coffeeberry-CF .55/lin,S2.60/g,S10.25/5g Rs-Rib es sanguineum-Red-flowering currant-CF . 5 7 /lin,S2. 60/ g, S l O. 7 5/ 5 g Rc-Romneya coulteri-Matillija poppy-CF S4./g,S12.25/5g
SI-Salix lasiandra-Yellow willow-CFwestern black' .67/lin,S2.60/g Ss-Salvia sonomensis-Creeping sageS rn-ScbirnJ~ molle Calif r,ei,pe1 t1ee-CF .5Mine1 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
635
i
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
636
1 l
~, I
1 . l
J
I ~- - J
! ~--)
Ss2-Sequoia sempervirens-Coast redwood-CF . 72/liner,$12./Sg So-Styrax officinalis c.-Calif snowdrop bushSr-Symphocarpus rivularis-Common snoberryUc-Umbellularia califomica-Calif bay-CF .67/lin,$4./g,$12.75/Sg-ccc-lg Vo-Vacinium ovatum-Westem HuckleberryV p-Vacinium parvifolium-Red HuckleberryItem 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 637
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
638
1 1
l
'
1 J
.. 1
. J
J
l
I ~--'
__ J
II. Actions To Be Taken
The actions to be taken for this specific proposal include most of the major Sorich Ranch Park capital improvements outlined in the master plan and briefly summarized below:
TRAILHEAD
1. Big Rocle Entry Area
The Big Rock is a primary feature of Lower Sorich Park and presently is surrounded by an asphalt parking area of about 3,500 square feet. In its present condition it is unsafe for children to play on the Big Rock because of the automobile tum-around.
The area is to be restructured into an inviting, landscaped area where people will be able to sit and enjoy views of Mount Tamalpais and Bald Hill and the restored natural habitat of the park's forests and grasslands. Access for disabled persons is readily available from the parking area and the Lower Loop Trail which begins and ends in this area.
The asphalt is to be removed from around the Big Rock and the existing parking area . The area will be graded'and landscaped with native, drought-tolerant plants. Volunteers will prepare the soil for the plants and landscape the area.
2. Parldng Area
The existing parking area will be removed around the Big Rock and relocated to an area near the Terrace. The new 3,000 square foot parking lot will be graded to allow for 12 to 15 stalls. Gravel will be spread over the new parking area to reduce the visual impact on the habitat areas as much as possible .
The existing off road vehicle barrier will be moved to the end of the new parking lot. The new barrier will be 50 feet long with posts set 4 feet on center. A 15 foot cable will allow for access by authorized vehicles.
3. Vegetation and Native Habitat Restoration
A volunteer crew will remove and clear out all non-native plant materials in the Entry area and replant the area with native plants. The selected plant list is attached in the appendix.
4. Terrace
The Terrace is presently a 1500 square foot wide open area near the entrance to the park.
A large depression in the center of the area results in poor drainage This area will be graded and contoured lo allow for the water to drain into the adjacent creek.
5. Drainage / Footbridges
A drainage ditch runs from the Sun Valley trailhead to the Deer Rock Creek providing control of runoff from an area known as the Terrace and hillside. · The ditch will be graded 2 feet wide and 2 feet deep along its 650 foot course. The last 40 feet will be lined with natural rock where it joins Deer Rock Creek to control erosion and slow the water as it joins the Creek.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
639
i
J
i
I
J
I
\ ___ .)
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
640
1 i
1 '
i
1 . !
, 1
Two footbridges will be constructed over the drainage ditch to provide for access from the parking lot and from the Big Rock picnic area. These will accommodate disabled persons and be part of the Lower Loop trail system.
In some places Deer Rock Creek is filled with concrete rubble, steel pipe and other construction debris left over from the previous use of the land as a ranch. This debris needs to be removed in order to restore it to its natural state. the creek bed will be shaped where needed to 5 feet (width) and 2 feet deep. Volunteers will plant willow trees along its course to provide erosion control.
TRAILS
All trails in the project area begin at the trailhead and connect the Town with Marin Open Space District (MCOSD) lands. All trail construction will be in conformance with MCOSD trail standards (42" wide with a grade of less than 10% and with a 10 foot clearance. A donated trail machine can build trails in the lower areas. Trail crews will be required to construct trails in the upper areas of the Park. Based on past experience, a trail crew of 8 can build 50 feet of trail in one day. We estimate a 50 foot section of trail to cost $1,000.
1 Sun Valley Trail
The trail connecting Sorich Ranch Park and the San Rafael/ Sleepy Hollow Divide Open Space will be relaid above the Sun Valley Creek. It will pass over two feeder ditches that accommodate runoff from the steep hillside to the Creek. Two footbridges will be built over these feeder runoff ditches. These ditches will feed into an incercep that will be graded 5 feet wide and 2 feet deep. The Sun Valley Creek Trail will be graded 10 feet wide and 5 feet deep along the base of the hill. Approximately ~~~w tf_ail construction will be required.
2. Lower Loop Trail
This trail will be a relatively level, graded "walking trail" around Lower Park, with easy access from the main park entrance area and parking. The trail links the various aspects of the Park's natural environment, the park amenities, and the Upper Park trailheads. It provides a glimpse of the variety of natural environments in the Park including: Big R,ock, sunny grasslands, shaded creeks, and wooded hill slopes. Approximately 800 feet of new trail construction will be required. -
3. San Anselmo Trail
This existing trail follows an old ranch road from the Ridge Trail on the MCOSD Preserve down to San Francisco Boulevard, and the Lower Trailhead area. It is steep and very popular with walkers from San Anselmo. The major improvement needed on this trail is the construction of 5.Qfo.et of ste~ in its steepest section.
4. Existing user trail up face to Deer Rock
The existing trail from the parking lot to the top of the San Rafael Ridge is severely eroded and extremely steep. The plan recommends closing it. The trail will be elirnioaled by using jute netting and native grass seed to re-vegetate land. A sign will be placed at both ends to encourage use of other trails.
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
641
I
I
_J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
642
~l 9. COST ESTIMATE l
Item Description Amount L'nics Cose Toe.ii
l
PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURE
Design trnilhe::id. trnils . .ind l:lndsc::iping l 000 ls l . lJO l .000 ~l 2 Engmeer grnding ::ind drninnge 1200 ls 1.00 l,200 3 Project Inspection 600 ls 1.00 600
4 Grant nc!minisrr::icion 1528 ls I.OU 1.528 ,---1
BlG ROCK TRAILHEAD
5 Remove ::isphalt from nround Big Rock 3500 sf l .00 3.500 6 Gracie nre:i :iround Big Rock 3500 sf 0.50 l.i50
7 Regrnde new parking :ire:i 3000 sf 0.50 l,500
8 Gravel--+" depth 3000 sf 1.00 3,000
1 l
9 ORV barrier -- !O-+"x4" posts4' QC with 15' ch l ls 300.00 300 TERRACE ~-l 10 Gnide terrnce- correct ponding :;ooo sf OAO l,200 DRAINAGE AND CREEK RESTO RA T!ON . 1
11 Regrnde ditch 2' x 2' 700 lf l .00 700
12 Concrete rubble lining 2'x2' 50 If 50.00 2,500
lJ Footbridge (crossing 2' ditch) 2 e:i l.000.00 2.000
14 Hnul 6' high by 12' wide pile of debris l Is 1,500.00 l.500 15 Remove broken concrete/pipe debris l ls 500.00 500
16 Regrnde ditch 5' x 2' IOU lf 2.00 200 cl
i ; ' SUN VALLEY CREEK TRAIL
17 Regrnc!e incercept to creek 5' wide x 2' deep 50 If 3.00 150 18 Regrnde ditch l O' x 5' JOO If 4.00 1,200
19 6'' Asphnlt benn 300 If 9.00 2,700
LOWER LOOP TRAlL
,. 20 Build l,000 feet of rrail with rrnil machine l day l.000.00 l,000 21 Finish trnil and spre:id decomposed grnnice l day l,000.00 1,000 22 Decomposed granite 2" depth 1000 If 0.43 430
SA.L'S ANSELMO TRAIL
i 23 Build 50 feet of stairs l day 1,000.00 l,000 ;_j 24 Rebar nnd rnilroad ties l Is 500.00 500 25 Improve Subuc! nccess l Is 3,129.00 3,129
E.,""GSTING USER TRAIL UP FACE TO DEER ROCK
26 Repair erosion Jnd re-seed with native grnsses 3 days l,000.00 3,000 2 7 Jute net and seed l Is 1,000.00 l.000
Sub-total 38,087
Contingency 15% 0.15 5,713
_J Grand Toca! 43,800
ls=lwnp swu: sf=square foot: tf=line:ir foot
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
643
-1
I
I
i
J
J
,
I . J
i
.J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
644
~
l
J
i
~-l j
j
--·:.
,1
!
- '
I , _ _)
Item
l
2 3
4 5
6 10. SOL'RCE OF FL"NDS PROVlDED BY APPLJC..\NT
Description
Friends of Sorich Ro.nch P:irk Fwuiro.iscr
Run .::md Walk for Open Space
Town of San Anselmo
Marin Community Found:uion (pending)
Town of San Anselmo engineering
Sun Anselmo Youth for Environment.ii Service
Gr.ind Total
PROJECT FUND SUMMARY
Cost estimnte
Source of funds provided by applic::int
Source of funds provided by grant
.:.\mount Units
l c:ish
l c::ish
l c:ish
l c:ish
l ink.ind
500 hours
Cose
3 AOO. 00
1.000.00
6.500.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
10.00 Total
3.-WO
l .000
6.500
3,000
3.000
5,000
21,900
-D.WO
21,900
21.900
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
645
' I
- J
\
I
j
I
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
646
1 J
q
·J
. '
~ - j
J
.J
J
!
I . __ }
CORPORATION YARD
/
./
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
647
- '
I
. 1
I
j
1 l
1 I .)
J
l
_J
I
J
J
J
I
i
I _J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
648
'l I
;
1 , ,
. \' \
I
/
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
649
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
650
: '.RICH RANCH PARK
~-J ANSELMO CALIFORNIA
~STER PLAN ..,.. ( '~ss AND TRAILS MANAGEMENT
I
>WN OF SAN ANSELMO
N SPACE ADVISORY C01-"-'1ITTEE
Y ' ANO RECREATION COMMISSION : \ ANO RECREATION DEPARTMENT ~._Jl P. HURPHY
'TERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
TERS OF LlUIDSCAf>E J\.RCHITECTURE
l"K0t>OS£0
00000
0000
TR.AI LS
Ex~locdtlon tr41ls (exb1c in(J J
IILkLIICJ/Wdlk.1ng tr:a1 l:1
ODQD llilc.L1HJ/:':quuwc.rl.1n tC'c1llt1
QOQO ll1k.i1uJ/01k111y ti:d.J.ld
CoDO
OCJD
Co11l.b111cd-u~~ tr.:a1l~
1~xi~t1n9 dual tr~ck)
Y1ru ,1~cu~~ only
(l!~iattng dual ~r4Ck)
so· 200· e::::s=-- - ==a
o· 100·
Jaal•
Coa1.o .. 1' la,a .. ••1 aa•
PROPOSED ACC!:SS
0 Of!1cia.l 4CCtU8 1,)0iOt:S
.J T:a1l-sidd seating
V Tr.il-h•ad 01gn• •
----- ~.-i:,ti11y I..L'G.&.l!S s.;: ::;l;:::1:=&=.=s,.
CJ c;Oo0 !:x1.:H.1n~ trel! 11nd .shrub · ~,.. ··
I ,., '" ,),'!'MC'\
·---"" ?!tck bounddC'/ 1 • ••
-·-·-· t"u11Ct1 lo,11utt !'i~.\~; ... ~t u~~:;,=~: .::~1:~;~'"·· -_J i-------------~---------~·------------_::.::::.:::::..:::~~~-- Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
651
l
j
I
l
1 1
~J
j
~ l
~ l
' 1
' J
J
J
J
J
J
_J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
652
Item #: 3.2
STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 3.2
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Resilience Hub Feasibility Study Presentation FROM: Sean Youra, Climate Action Coordinator
Sean Condry, Public Works and Building Director
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive the Resilience Hub Feasibility Study presentation from Sage Energy Consulting
2. Provide direction to staff on which solar PV design is preferred (i.e., Design A, B, or C)
3. Provide direction to staff on which financing option for the project is preferred (i.e., cash purchase, PPA, or lease)
4. Authorization to issue a Request for Proposal and to go to bid as a design build project.
BACKGROUND
On August 23, 2022, the Town Council authorized the Public Works Director to sign the Master Services Agreement and Task Orders with Sage Energy Consulting – an NV5 company (hereafter referred to as NV5) and approved the request for funding to cover NV5’s consulting services as specified in the Task Orders. The Task Orders included: 1) preparing and submitting an interconnection application to PG&E, and 2) completing a feasibility study for the evaluation of solar PV, battery energy storage systems (BESS), and electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) at the proposed project site that covers Town Hall, the Central Marin Police Authority (CMPA) station, and the Library.
Over the past several months, staff have been meeting with the NV5 consultants to work on the interconnection application and feasibility study. NV5 submitted the interconnection application to PG&E and received approval on October 31, 2022. This means that the project was grandfathered onto the Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0 program, which provides substantially higher value utility bill credits than the recently adopted NEM 3.0 program and ensures solar projects are more economical. 653
Item #: 3.2
The feasibility study was recently completed and NV5 has prepared a presentation and report summarizing the results of the study (Attachments 1 and 2). NV5 consultants and staff presented the findings of the feasibility study to the Climate Action Commission (CAC) on May 8, 2023 and all members were supportive of the recommendations from the study. The CAC has also identified the Resilience Hub project as a top priority in their annual action plan for this year.
DISCUSSION
The feasibility study outlines possible project scenarios and estimated outcomes including financial savings, costs, and practical technical and engineering considerations. Additionally, the study provides a foundation from which the Town can develop a request for proposal (RFP) that effectively directs bidders into preparing proposals that are intercomparable, transparent, and competitive.
Design Options
NV5 modeled three different solar PV design scenarios (i.e., Design A, B, and C) with proposed system sizing along with proposed siting and sizing of the BESS. In all of these scenarios, the solar PV system would be able to offset 100% of the future energy consumption for Town Hall and the CMPA station when factoring in the estimated reduction in energy consumption once the new HVAC renovation is complete. Based on the proposed BESS size of 100 kW/186 kWh, critical loads (e.g., HVAC, lighting, emergency alert systems) for Town Hall, the CMPA station, and the Library could be powered most of the time during short-duration (i.e., ≤ 24 hours) power outages, as shown in Table 6 of the feasibility study report (Attachment 2). For long-duration power outages in which there would not be sufficient battery capacity to support the critical loads, the diesel generator could be relied on as a backup power source. However, since the vast majority of power outages tend to be short-duration, it is expected that the BESS could provide power during most outages. The BESS could also provide backup power for future EV chargers that may be installed in the Town Hall parking lot that would be utilized for charging fleet and/or staff-owned vehicles, as shown in Table 7 of the feasibility study report.
Further resiliency could be provided if the Town were to install bidirectional EV chargers, in which fleet EVs with sufficient charge could provide power to critical building loads during an outage. However, the costs to install bidirectional chargers are currently much higher than to install regular Level 2 chargers such as the ones in the Magnolia parking lot. Furthermore, the EVs that have bidirectional charging capability are currently very limited and mainly include the Ford F-150 Lightning and Nissan Leaf.
As more affordable bidirectional chargers come to market including ones that don’t require expensive electrical upgrades, this may be an option worth pursuing in the future to provide added resiliency and potentially revenue to the Town if the electricity is fed back to the grid rather than used to power critical loads during an outage. Additional resiliency can also be achieved through implementing electrification and energy efficiency measures in municipal buildings that lower overall energy consumption such as the planned HVAC project.
654
Item #: 3.2
Out of the three design options considered for the feasibility study, staff recommends that Design B be pursued, which includes a mix of single- and double-cantilevered solar PV canopies (Figure 1). This proposed design is the least disruptive to existing buildings and would not require modification of the Magnolia parking lot as the entire array would be in the Town Hall parking lot. It is also the most cost-effective design as it utilizes double-cantilevered canopies, which optimizes the panel-to-column ratio and reduces overall steel and panel costs. The financial modeling for each design will be discussed in the next section.
Figure 1: Design B Solar Array (Orange-striped box represents the approximate BESS location; red lines represent an estimated home run route (i.e., the trenching/conduit run from the PV/BESS to the main service breaker))
Financing Options
To finance the project, NV5 modeled three different financing scenarios: Cash Purchase, Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), and Lease. Both the cash purchase and lease options are straightforward, but the PPA would involve a third party that would finance the project and own the system. The Town would have to enter into a contract with the third party to buy the electricity generated from the system at a fixed price per kWh for a set time period (e.g., 20 years). Although the Town could technically purchase the system at Fair Market Value at the expiration of the PPA contract, it would 655
Item #: 3.2
not be able to take advantage of any incentives such as the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which would go to the third party that owns the system.
Although both the PPA and lease options would require little to no upfront cost to the Town compared to the cash purchase, the lifetime cost savings and net present value (NPV) of the cash purchase option is significantly higher than the other options for all of the design scenarios discussed in the previous section (Figure 2). For Design B, which staff recommends, the NPV of just the solar PV is positive for all financing options meaning that the project would be profitable. With the BESS included, the NPV is negative for all financing options meaning it would not be profitable.
Figure 2: Lifetime NPV savings over 25 years for each design scenario broken out by the different financing options
The total estimated project cost for Design B is $1,049,000 including an estimated $66,000 in project soft costs (e.g., testing and inspection, project management, other overhead costs) listed in Table 1 of the feasibility study report. This does not account for additional consultant costs associated with future phases of the project. A more accurate estimate of the total project costs will be determined once the Town receives proposals through the RFP process discussed in the next section.
With the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, local and state governments can now take advantage of the 30% ITC for solar and energy storage projects. The exact percentage reimbursement can range from 25 - 40% depending on if tax-exempt funds are used and domestic content requirements are met. In this case, the Town would receive a reimbursement from the IRS in the subsequent tax year after the project is complete for any project-related costs. This would reduce the overall costs significantly.
Based upon an evaluation of the different financing options, staff recommends that the cash purchase option be considered for this project as it results in the greatest lifetime cost savings, would allow the Town to take advantage of available incentives such as the ITC, and is the only option that ensures the Town would own the system outright.
Furthermore, the PPA option would most likely not be viable for this project as it can be difficult to secure this type of financing for smaller solar PV projects (e.g., 100 kW).
There are a number of grants and other incentives available listed in Table 27 of the feasibility study report that the Town may be eligible for to further reduce the project 656
Item #: 3.2
costs. Staff will continue to monitor and apply for grants available for this project including for installation of future EV chargers and electrification/energy efficiency measures for municipal buildings.
Next Steps
If directed by Council to move forward with the recommended cash purchase financing option for the Design B scenario, staff would then begin preparing an RFP for the design-build of the project with NV5’s support. NV5’s estimated cost to provide RFP and vendor selection support is $42,000; further details and accurate cost estimates would be provided in a new Task Order for staff to review and sign. Once staff selects a vendor through the RFP process, staff would return to the Council for approval of the vendor’s proposal for design-build of the project.
NV5 has also included a preliminary project schedule in Figure 7 of the feasibility study report that covers all phases of the project. It should be noted that the project timeline could be extended significantly depending on how long procurement for critical materials takes such as for the BESS due to ongoing supply chain issues.
Finally, providing resilient power to Town Hall, the CMPA station, and Library through the proposed solar + BESS microgrid system represents just the first step towards creating a true Resilience Hub for the community. Other aspects of the Resilience Hub project that will be considered by staff include the services and activities that the Hub would support year-round, during disruptions (e.g., power outage), and during recovery after disruptions. Additionally, staff will need to ensure personnel and processes are in place to operate the Hub in all conditions (i.e., normal operation, disruption, and recovery), which may involve collaboration with community-based organizations and local, state, and federal agencies. Staff will seek input from the CAC and community through surveys and workshops on what features of a Resilience Hub would be most valuable to residents and assess the vulnerabilities of the community to natural hazards that are being exacerbated by climate change. By assessing these vulnerabilities and needs, we can ensure that the Resilience Hub provides an opportunity for the entire community to be more resilient and prepared for emergencies, particularly for those most vulnerable to these hazards, while improving community cohesion and public health.
FISCAL IMPACT
The total estimated project cost for the cash purchase based on the Design B scenario is $1,049,000. Staff recommends $622,397 be allocated from Measure J funds for the project over the course of FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25, with the remainder being reimbursed through the federal Investment Tax Credit in the subsequent tax year after project completion, along with other possible external funding that the Town may be eligible for. The ITC can also be used to reimburse any consultant costs that are related to the project. Staff is planning to allocate funds in the Climate Action Fund for FY 2023- 24 to cover NV5’s consultant fees for RFP process support and vendor selection, which is estimated at $42,000.
657
Item #: 3.2
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable
CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s discussion of this item is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).
The Resilience Hub project is consistent with the following measures of the adopted Climate Action Plan:
R-4: Innovative Technologies: Investigate and pursue innovative technologies such as microgrids, battery storage, and demand-response programs that will improve the electric grid’s resiliency and help to balance demand and renewable energy production.
R-5: Solar Energy Systems for Municipal Buildings: Install solar energy systems at municipal buildings and facilities where feasible. A-1: Preparation and Response: Develop local systems of food and energy production to enhance the Town's resiliency and adaptation toward localized systems. Examples include microgrids for energy and regenerative agriculture practices on Town-managed land, as well as promoting home gardens and water catchment systems.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resilience Hub Feasibility Study Presentation Attachment 2 – Resilience Hub Feasibility Study Report
658
Solar PV, BESS/Microgrid, and EVSE Project –
Feasibility Presentation
Town of San Anselmo
May 2023
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
659
Agenda
2 1. Site Info and Resiliency Results
2. Design Layouts and Preliminary
Renderings
3. Financial Analysis
4. Grant and Incentive Assistance
Preliminary Results
5. Estimated Project Schedule
6. Estimated NV5 Consultant Fees
7. Next Steps
8. Appendices (Cash Flows and Modeling Assumptions)
Item 3.1 Attachment 1 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
660
1) Site Info and
Resiliency Results
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
661
Site Historical and Expected Energy Consumption
4 Energy Loads Utility Current Tariff Post-PV Tariff Historical Energy Consumption (kWh/yr)
Historical Annual
Cost ($)
Historical Unit
Cost ($/kWh)
Energy
Consumption
Adjustment 1
Expected Energy
Consumption
(kWh/yr)
Town Hall + Police Station PG&E/MCE B10, Deep Green B6, Deep Green 160,000 $43,000 $0.27 -20% 128,000
1. The estimated energy consumption adjustment stems from the Town of San Anselmo undergoing an HVAC renovation. The new HVAC is expected to reduce the annual load by 20-30% (NV5 assumed 20% for a more conservative adjustment).
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
662
Solar PV and BESS Sizing
5 Solar PV System Sizing
Scenario PV System Size
(kWp-DC)
Yr-1 PV Production
(kWh) 1
Yr-1 Energy Offset
(%)
PV Install Cost
($/Wp)
PPA Price
($/kWh)
Design A 86.5 128,000 100% $6.77 $0.30
Design B 86.5 128,000 100% $6.77 $0.30
Design C 85.6 128,000 100% $8.99 $0.35
BESS Sizing
BESS kW BESS kWh
BESS Microgrid
Install Cost
($/kWh)
Annual Software
Fees ($)
Reserved Capacity
(kWh)
100 186 $2,100 $6,500 93
1. The PV production is modeled to offset 100% of the expected load, which includes the 20% reduction in existing load from the HVAC renovations that are expected to take place Summer 2023.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
663
Resiliency Info
6 Critical Loads Estimated Peak Critical
Load (kW) 1
Estimated Average
Critical Load (kW)
Town Hall, Police Station,
and Library Loads 48.4 15.6
Microgrid Resiliency Probability 2
Reserved Capacity
(kWh)
Minimum
Resiliency SOC (%) 4-hr Outage 6-hr Outage 24-hr Outage 93 10% 99.5% 92.2% 52.9%
186 10% 100.0% 99.9% 76.5%
1. Examples of critical loads include the electricity needed to power the HVAC, lighting, emergency alert systems, etc.
2. The above table indicates the probability of maintaining power to critical loads through the duration of the outage, given any outage occurring throughout the year.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
664
EV Capacity (Resiliency Event)
7 Electric Vehicle Miles Available (in the event of a Resiliency Event) Reserved Capacity
(kWh) Outage Duration Average Remaining BESS Capacity (kWh) EV Miles1 93 4-hr 62 160
93 6-hr 49 120
186 24-hr 82 190
1. Assuming EV efficiency of a 2021 Nissan Leaf (0.30 kWh/mi), BESS roundtrip efficiency of 93%, and EV charger conversion efficiency of 97%. • The results above are average values. The table can be interpreted as: given a reserved capacity, after serving critical loads for a chosen outage duration, the BESS would still have remaining capacity to provide a certain number of cumulative miles of EV charging.
• For example, if 93 kWh of the BESS was kept in reserve for outages and a 6-hour outage occurred, the BESS would still have enough capacity to charge electric vehicle(s) approximately 120 miles of range. • However, in the worst-case scenario, the BESS could be completely drained just by serving critical loads and have no remaining capacity for EV charging – the remaining capacity depends on the load/demand at the time of the power outage.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
665
Bidirectional Charging (V2G)
8 • Bidirectional charging currently incurs added costs, including:
• Special charging equipment (e.g., automatic transfer switches – which currently cost about $5,000) • More advanced charge management software/systems
• Added charging (in order to recoup the power discharged from electric vehicles) • Current revenue from bidirectional charging stems from:
• Energy arbitrage (i.e., charging during “off-peak” times and discharging back to the grid during “peak” times) • Emergency Load Reduction Program (ELRP) events
• Utility companies have yet to announce an official vehicle-to-grid (V2G) tariff schedule, which, when announced, may change the financials and feasibility of V2G • Currently, V2G is most effective with fleet vehicles that have routine schedules (i.e., school buses, delivery trucks, etc.) • There are no widely-available Level 2 bidirectional EV charging stations currently on the market (and bidirectional Level 3 EV charging stations are much more expensive)
• While the Town of San Anselmo could make approximately $500/year per EV (given idealized charging/discharging schedules), incorporating bidirectional charging as a revenue stream would reduce the ability for those EVs to assist in resiliency efforts should a power outage occur.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
666
2) Design Layouts and
Preliminary Renderings
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
667
• System Size: 86.5kWp DC
• Estimated Annual Production: 128,000
Design Notes
1. Single-cantilevered canopies in the main parking lot and in the Magnolia parking lot
2. Single-cantilever canopies are generally more expensive than double-cantilevered
3. Having solar PV in the Magnolia lot will require modification of the existing bioretention area as well as the current lighting
4. Orange-striped box represents the approximate BESS location (BESS could also be located adjacent to meter)
5. Red lines represent an estimated home run route (i.e., the trenching/conduit run from the PV/BESS to the main service breaker)
Single-Cantilever Canopies
Design A
10 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
668
Mix of Single- and Double-Cantilevered Canopies
Design B (recommended design)
11 • System Size: 86.5kWp DC
• Estimated Annual Production: 128,000
Design Notes
1. Located just in the main lot, no changes to Magnolia lot
2. This design is the least disruptive to existing buildings or other structures (e.g., bioretention area, lighting, and Spanish tiling on the Town Hall roof all left as is)
3. Orange-striped box represents the approximate BESS location
4. Red lines represent an estimated home run route (i.e., the trenching/conduit run from the PV/BESS to the main service breaker)
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
669
Mix of a Single-Cantilevered Canopy and a Roof
Lattice Structure
Design C
12 • System Size: 85.6kWp DC
• Estimated Annual Production: 128,000
Design Notes
1. Single-cantilevered canopy in the main parking lot and a custom design for a lattice rooftop PV system
2. Having solar PV suspended over HVAC equipment would decrease the solar footprint in the parking lot but will require substantially more effort and money as the roof would require a specialized, custom design.
3. Orange-striped box represents the approximate BESS location
4. Red lines represent an estimated home run route (i.e., the trenching/conduit run from the PV/BESS to the main service breaker)
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
670
Preliminary Solar PV Renderings
13 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
671
3) Site Financials
(PV and PV+BESS SCENARIOS)
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
672
Summary Table - Lifetime NPV Savings (25-Year)
15 Cash Purchase PPA Lease
Scenario Turnkey Project
Cost ($)
Turnkey Project
Cost, After ITC
Reimbursement
($) 2
Solar PV PV + BESS
Microgrid 3 Solar PV PV + BESS Microgrid 3 Solar PV PV + BESS Microgrid 3 Design A $1,049,000 $782,000 $393,000 ($244,000) $265,000 ($484,000) $189,000 ($386,000) Design B 1 $1,049,000 $782,000 $393,000 ($244,000) $265,000 ($485,000) $189,000 ($386,000) Design C $1,246,000 $928,000 $239,000 ($395,000) $144,000 ($603,000) ($31,000) ($603,000)
1. Design B is one of the least expensive upfront and one of the best-performing designs with respect to lifetime savings (NPV). Furthermore, while not explicitly shown here, Design A will likely be more costly after accounting for the modifications to the current bioretention area as well as a worse panel-to-column ratio compared to Design B.
2. A 25.5% ITC reimbursement was modeled rather than the full 30% since it depends on the type of funds that the Town will use to pay for the project (i.e., paying with tax-exempt funding results in a 15% penalty of the total reimbursement). If the Town pursues taxable funding and/or domestic content, the ITC reimbursement could increase to as high as 40% of eligible project costs.
3. With current battery pricing and electricity rates, the BESS/microgrid portion of the project results in negative lifetime savings for all designs.
However, the industry is constantly evolving, and we can only estimate what the financials will look like in 10 years.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
673
Additional Potential Sources of Revenue
16 1. Energy Arbitrage (from Bidirectional Charging and BESS) • Since the Town is on a Time-of-use (TOU) tariff rate, it could be possible for the Town to participate in energy arbitrage with either/both technologies
• Energy arbitrage would entail discharging EVs and the BESS back to the grid during “peak” or “super-peak” periods then recharging during “off-peak” periods during the day. • While this is an option for another revenue stream, it is not recommended at this time, especially as it conflicts with the Town’s primary purpose of increasing resiliency.
2. Selling Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)
• While the REC market currently lists each credit at ~$13/REC, the price is expected to keep decreasing until 2030 (at which point there is unlikely to be any market to sell RECs) • The Town could generate approximately $1,400 per year from the generated RECs from its installed solar PV, however, doing so mandates that the Town forfeits any claim that they are “green,” “solar powered,” or that they are benefitting from the solar PV in any way.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
674
4) Grant and Incentive
Assistance Preliminary
Results
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
675
Potentially Available Grants/Incentives
18 Program Name Eligible Project(s) Grant/Incentive Type Estimated Available Funding for San Anselmo Notes 1 Inflation Reduction Act (Investment Tax
Credit, ITC) PV, BESS, EVSE Federal tax refund/credit - 30% of project costs (exact percentage can vary) - CAPEX, soft costs, etc. (including NV5’s consultant fees) 2 Net Energy Metering (already
qualified/grandfathered) PV Utility rate schedule N/A - Grandfathered time-of-use electricity rate under NEM2.0 3 Transportation Authority of Marin
(TAM) EVSE Non-profit funds - up to $3,000 per port for EV charging stations - TAM funds come in last after all other grants/incentives 4 Marin Clean Energy (CCA) EVSE Grant - up to $3,500 per port for EV charging stations - Must be an MCE customer to qualify 5 Hybrid and Zero Emission Truck and Bus
Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) EVSE Vouchers
- $430M total
- $20M for fleets
- $48M for public transit buses
- Current round closed, new round opening soon
- Provides point-of-sale rebate to purchase medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs - Rebate amount varies by vehicle class
- May conflict with other CARB programs and regulations 6 CEC Grants EVSE State - $50M for LD
- $160M for MD and HD
- Various CEC Grant Programs aimed at promoting EVSE infrastructure development, the adoption of zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, and expanding in-state production of LCF from lowcarbon pathways - $50 million to support light-duty passenger vehicles
- $160 million to support medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in FY 2022-2023 7 Self Generation Incentive Program
(SGIP) BESS Rebate Non-residential storage equity: $0.85/Wh - Currently overallocated, the next round of funding should be released soon 8 PG&E Non-Residential Energy Efficiency
Rebates HVAC Utility rebate Will pay for part of Energy Efficiency upgrades (HVAC, lighting, etc.) - Exact funding is unclear 9 PG&E - Non-residential Energy
Efficiency Financing Program HVAC Loan Program
Government agencies may qualify for loans between
$5,000-$4,000,000 per PG&E meter with loan periods
of up to 10 years
- Provides 0% loans for energy efficiency projects. Loan funds must be used to purchase and install qualifying energy efficiency equipment.
10 California Strategic Growth Council
(CSGC) Microgrid/Resiliency Grant
- $270M
- Implementation grants range from $5-10M
- "funding...for the construction or retrofit of facilities to serve as community resilience centers that mitigate the public health impacts of extreme heat and other emergency situations exacerbated by climate change.“
- Two (2) rounds of funding – haven’t opened yet
- Round 1 Final Guidelines released in April 2023
- Eligible costs are quite broad (inclusive of preparing application, identifying site parameters, financial analysis, design, implementation, etc.)
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
676
Potentially Available Grants/Incentives
19 1. The best incentive currently available is the ITC reimbursement from the Inflation Reduction Act (30-40% of eligible project costs)
2. There are multiple EV/EVSE grants and incentives available, such as MCE and TAM, which would pay for part of the Town’s installed Level 2 EV charging stations costs.
3. There are some Microgrid/BESS grants currently available, and there are more to come (new rounds of funding should be opening soon)
4. There are some HVAC/Energy Efficiency programs, as well.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
677
Investment Tax Credit - Sample Timeline
20 Before EOY 2024:
Projects Achieve Permission to Operate
(PTO) – meaning they are interconnected
and generating power
Q1-Q2 2025:
Town of San Anselmo Files Taxes for 2023
and Claims Tax Credit(s)
(even though the Town is a non-taxable
entity)
Q3 2025:
IRS Will Issue Tax Refunds to the Town for
XX% of Project Costs
Note: This timeline assumes that the projects achieve PTO in FY2024. The ITC Refund operates on both a site-by-site and projectspecific basis, so for example, if the solar PV is completed, but the BESS is delayed until 2025, the Town could still file to receive ITC tax refund for the solar PV and wait to file the BESS until the next tax year.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
678
5) Estimated Project
Schedule
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
679
Preliminary Project Schedule
(subject to change)
2023 2024
Today
Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Feb Mar Apr
May 20 – July 31 RFP Development and Bidding
Aug 1 – Aug 31 Vendor Selection
Contracting
Nov 1 - Feb 1 Design
DSA Permitting 1
Apr 15 - May 15 Construction
May 15 - June 15 Closeout
Feb 1 – Apr 15 Procurement 2
NTP for Construction
Apr 12
RFP Out to Bid
July
2024 May
Sep 1 - Nov 1
June
1. For DSA permitting, approval timeline will depend on the type of solar PV design selected:
• If the vendor/developer has a Pre-Check design that works for San Anselmo, the process could be as quick as a week (over-the-counter approval – OTC) • If it requires a full DSA Review, the process could take ~3 months
2. For procurement, long lead time items such as batteries and steel could significantly extend the timeline
Item 3.1 Attachment 1 Item 3.1 Attachment 1
680
6) Estimated NV5
Consultant Fees
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
681
NV5 Estimated Project Consultant Fee
24 1. These are preliminary estimates; fees are subject to change before a contract is agreed upon
2. Typical total consultant fees are ~10-15% of project cost
3. As mentioned in previous slides, these fees are indeed eligible for the ITC reimbursement Task Start Date End Date Total Fees
1 RFP Process Support 5/21/2023 8/20/2023 $25,000
2 Vendor Selection 8/21/2023 9/20/2023 $17,000
3 Contracting Support 9/21/2023 11/20/2023 $15,000
4 Design Review 11/21/2023 12/20/2023 $14,000
5 Technical Construction Support/Management 12/21/2023 3/20/2024 $21,000 6 Commissioning Verification and Oversight 3/21/2024 5/20/2024 $15,000 7 Project Closeout 5/21/2024 6/20/2024 $14,000
Total: $121,000
8 As-Needed Contingency (10%) N/A N/A $12,000
Total (with Contingency): $132,000
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
682
7) Next Steps
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
683
Next Steps
26 1. Review of Feasibility Study/Memo
2. Town of San Anselmo project budgeting
3. Council/Committee presentations
4. Solicit competitive proposals through an RFP
5. Evaluate proposals and rank vendors
6. Contract negotiations with top-ranked vendor
7. Design, procurement, construction, and commissioning Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
684
Thank You
© COPYRIGHT 2022
SAGE ENERGY CONSULTING
SAGERENEW.COM
Gavi Emunah
Project Manager
415-223-3632
[email protected]
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
685
8) Appendices
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
686
Appendix A:
Design A - Info, Financial
Results, Cash Flows
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
687
Design A
30 Project, Electricity Usage, and Financial Information Project Information
Number of Sites Sites 1
Solar PV System Size kW-DC 86.50
Solar PV Year 1 Production kWh 128,000
Solar PV Yield kWh/kW/Year 1,480
Energy Storage System Size kW/kWh 100kW/186kWh
Modeled System Lifetime Years 25
Solar PV Lifetime Production kWh 2,919,000
Electricity Usage Information
Annual Electricity Consumption kWh 128,000
Annual Electricity Cost $, Current Tariffs $45,000
Average Cost of Electricity $/kWh $0.3516
Financial Information
EPC Install Project Cost $ $983,000
Project Soft Costs $ $66,000
Annual Utility Inflation Rate % 3.00%
NPV Discount Rate % 2.00%
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
688
Design A
31 Cash Purchase Financial Results
Cash Purchase Financial Results
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 11.2
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $645,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $393,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar + Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years >25 Years
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$80,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$244,000
Note: The cash flow graphs on the right have “Optimistic” and “Conservative” estimates as well as the “Expected” results. The optimistic and conservative estimates are based on the rate at which the utility (i.e., PG&E) raises its electricity rates annually. The greater the utility escalation rate, the greater the Town’s resulting project cash flow will be – as a result of saving more money.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
689
Design A
32 PPA Financial Results
PPA Financial Results
PPA Price, PV $/kWh $0.3000
PPA Price Adder, BESS $/kWh $0.3292
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 4.3
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $365,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $265,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar + Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years >25 Years
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$585,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$484,000
Note: The cash flow graphs on the right have “Optimistic” and “Conservative” estimates as well as the “Expected” results. The optimistic and conservative estimates are based on the rate at which the utility (i.e., PG&E) raises its electricity rates annually. The greater the utility escalation rate, the greater the Town’s resulting project cash flow will be – as a result of saving more money.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
690
Design A
33 Lease Financial Results
Lease/Debt Financial Results
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 17.9
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $309,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $189,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar + Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years <1
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$406,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$386,000
Note: The cash flow graphs on the right have “Optimistic” and “Conservative” estimates as well as the “Expected” results. The optimistic and conservative estimates are based on the rate at which the utility (i.e., PG&E) raises its electricity rates annually. The greater the utility escalation rate, the greater the Town’s resulting project cash flow will be – as a result of saving more money.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
691
34 Note: The cumulative savings shown above are in nominal dollars Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
692
Appendix B:
Design B - Info, Financial
Results, Cash Flows
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
693
Design B
36 Project, Electricity Usage, and Financial Information Project Information
Number of Sites Sites 1
Solar PV System Size kW-DC 86.50
Solar PV Year 1 Production kWh 128,000
Solar PV Yield kWh/kW/Year 1,480
Energy Storage System Size kW/kWh 100kW/186kWh
Modeled System Lifetime Years 25
Solar PV Lifetime Production kWh 2,921,000
Electricity Usage Information
Annual Electricity Consumption kWh 128,000
Annual Electricity Cost $, Current Tariffs $42,000
Average Cost of Electricity $/kWh $0.3282
Financial Information
EPC Install Project Cost $ $983,000
Project Soft Costs $ $66,000
Annual Utility Inflation Rate % 3.00%
NPV Discount Rate % 2.00%
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
694
Design B
37 Cash Purchase Financial Results
Cash Purchase Financial Results
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 11.2
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $645,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $393,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar +
Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years >25 Years
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$80,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$244,000
Note: The cash flow graphs on the right have “Optimistic” and “Conservative” estimates as well as the “Expected” results. The optimistic and conservative estimates are based on the rate at which the utility (i.e., PG&E) raises its electricity rates annually. The greater the utility escalation rate, the greater the Town’s resulting project cash flow will be – as a result of saving more money.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
695
Design B
38 PPA Financial Results
PPA Financial Results
PPA Price, PV $/kWh $0.3
PPA Price Adder, BESS $/kWh $0.3289
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 4.4
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $364,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $265,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar +
Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years >25 Years
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$586,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$485,000
Note: The cash flow graphs on the right have “Optimistic” and “Conservative” estimates as well as the “Expected” results. The optimistic and conservative estimates are based on the rate at which the utility (i.e., PG&E) raises its electricity rates annually. The greater the utility escalation rate, the greater the Town’s resulting project cash flow will be – as a result of saving more money.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
696
Design B
39 Lease Financial Results
Lease/Debt Financial Results
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 17.9
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $309,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $189,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar +
Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years <1
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$406,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$386,000
Note: The cash flow graphs on the right have “Optimistic” and “Conservative” estimates as well as the “Expected” results. The optimistic and conservative estimates are based on the rate at which the utility (i.e., PG&E) raises its electricity rates annually. The greater the utility escalation rate, the greater the Town’s resulting project cash flow will be – as a result of saving more money.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
697
40 Note: The cumulative savings shown above are in nominal dollars Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
698
Appendix C:
Design C - Info, Financial
Results, Cash Flows
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
699
Design C
42 Project, Electricity Usage, and Financial Information Project Information
Number of Sites Sites 1
Solar PV System Size kW-DC 85.60
Solar PV Year 1 Production kWh 128,000
Solar PV Yield kWh/kW/Year 1,495
Energy Storage System Size kW/kWh 100kW/186kWh
Modeled System Lifetime Years 25
Solar PV Lifetime Production kWh 2,919,000
Electricity Usage Information
Annual Electricity Consumption kWh 128,000
Annual Electricity Cost $, Current Tariffs $42,000
Average Cost of Electricity $/kWh $0.3282
Financial Information
Turnkey Project Cost $ $1,167,000
Project Soft Costs $ $79,000
Annual Utility Inflation Rate % 3.00%
NPV Discount Rate % 2.00%
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
700
Design C
43 Cash Purchase Financial Results
Cash Purchase Financial Results
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 14.4
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $490,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $239,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar +
Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years >25 Years
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$231,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$395,000
Note: The cash flow graphs on the right have “Optimistic” and “Conservative” estimates as well as the “Expected” results. The optimistic and conservative estimates are based on the rate at which the utility (i.e., PG&E) raises its electricity rates annually. The greater the utility escalation rate, the greater the Town’s resulting project cash flow will be – as a result of saving more money.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
701
Design C
44 PPA Financial Results
PPA Financial Results
PPA Price, PV $/kWh $0.35
PPA Price Adder, BESS $/kWh $0.3292
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 10.3
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $211,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $144,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar +
Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years >25 Years
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$734,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$603,000
Note: The cash flow graphs on the right have “Optimistic” and “Conservative” estimates as well as the “Expected” results. The optimistic and conservative estimates are based on the rate at which the utility (i.e., PG&E) raises its electricity rates annually. The greater the utility escalation rate, the greater the Town’s resulting project cash flow will be – as a result of saving more money.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
702
Design C
45 Lease Financial Results
Lease/Debt Financial Results
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 23.6
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $47,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ -$31,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar +
Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years <1
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$664,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$603,000
Note: The cash flow graphs on the right have “Optimistic” and “Conservative” estimates as well as the “Expected” results. The optimistic and conservative estimates are based on the rate at which the utility (i.e., PG&E) raises its electricity rates annually. The greater the utility escalation rate, the greater the Town’s resulting project cash flow will be – as a result of saving more money.
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
703
46 Note: The cumulative savings shown above are in nominal dollars Item 3.1 Attachment 1
Item 3.1 Attachment 1
704
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility
Study Report
Solar Photovoltaic System paired
with Battery Energy Storage
May 15, 2023
Sage Energy Consulting, Inc.
101 Lucas Valley Road, Suite 302
San Rafael, CA 94903
(415) 663-9914 | www.sagerenew.com
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
705
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility
Study Report
5/15/2023 Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................i Figures ....................................................................................................................................................i Tables......................................................................................................................................................i
1. Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................1 Key Findings.............................................................................................................................................................1 Next Steps.................................................................................................................................................................8
2. Project Modeling Results..............................................................................................................8
3. Approach......................................................................................................................................12 Feasibility Study Steps....................................................................................................................................... 12 Key Assumptions and Modeling Inputs ..................................................................................................... 12
4. Project Modeling Cash Flows and Graphs.................................................................................14
5. Grants and Incentives..................................................................................................................33
6. Preliminary Project Schedule .....................................................................................................34 Figures
Figure 1: Design A Solar PV Array.......................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2: Design B Solar PV Array .......................................................................................................................................3 Figure 3: Design C Solar PV Array.......................................................................................................................................4 Figure 4: Preliminary Solar PV Rendering – Wooden Shade Structure ................................................................5 Figure 5: Preliminary Solar PV Rendering – Standard Steel Canopy .....................................................................5 Figure 6: Estimated Investment Tax Credit Reimbursement Timeline............................................................... 33 Figure 7: Preliminary Project Schedule/Timeline........................................................................................................ 34 Tables
Table 1: Overview and Key Assumptions .........................................................................................................................8 Table 2: Summary Table of Lifetime NPV Savings for Each Design.......................................................................9 Table 3: Financial Results – Cash Purchase......................................................................................................................9 Table 4: Financial Results - PPA........................................................................................................................................ 10 Table 5: Financial Results - Lease..................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 6: Microgrid Resiliency Probability...................................................................................................................... 11 Table 7: Electric Vehicle Miles Available During a Resiliency Event.................................................................... 11 Table 8: Key Assumptions and Modeling Inputs........................................................................................................ 13 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
706
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study
Report
5/15/2023
Table 9: Design A - Cash Purchase, Solar PV Only .................................................................................................... 15 Table 10: Design A - Cash Purchase, Solar PV + BESS............................................................................................. 16 Table 11: Design A - PPA Financing, Solar PV Only .................................................................................................. 17 Table 12: Design A - PPA Financing, Solar PV + BESS ............................................................................................. 18 Table 13: Design A - Lease, Solar PV Only.................................................................................................................... 19 Table 14: Design A - Lease, Solar PV + BESS............................................................................................................... 20 Table 15: Design B - Cash Purchase, Solar PV Only .................................................................................................. 21 Table 16: Design B - Cash Purchase, Solar PV + BESS ............................................................................................. 22 Table 17: Design B - PPA Financing, Solar PV Only .................................................................................................. 23 Table 18: Design B - PPA Financing, Solar PV + BESS.............................................................................................. 24 Table 19: Design B - Lease, Solar PV Only.................................................................................................................... 25 Table 20: Design B - Lease, Solar PV + BESS ............................................................................................................... 26 Table 21: Design C - Cash Purchase, Solar PV Only.................................................................................................. 27 Table 22: Design C - Cash Purchase, Solar PV + BESS............................................................................................. 28 Table 23: Design C - PPA Financing, Solar PV Only .................................................................................................. 29 Table 24: Design C - PPA Financing, Solar PV + BESS ............................................................................................. 30 Table 25: Design C - Lease, Solar PV Only.................................................................................................................... 31 Table 26: Design C - Lease, Solar PV + BESS............................................................................................................... 32 Table 27: Grants and Incentives Short-List................................................................................................................... 33 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
707
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 1
1. Executive Summary
Introduction
The Town of San Anselmo (Town) is considering developing a solar photovoltaic (PV) system paired with a battery energy storage system (BESS) at the Town Hall, Police Station, and Library to reduce energy costs and environmental impact. In pursuit of that objective, the Town of San Anselmo engaged Sage Energy Consulting – an NV5 company (NV5) to analyze various project options/scenarios and produce this feasibility study. This study outlines possible project scenarios and estimated outcomes including financial savings, costs, and practical technical and engineering matters. In addition, this study provides a foundation from which the Town of San Anselmo can develop a request for proposals (RFP) that effectively directs responders/bidders into preparing proposals that are intercomparable, transparent, and competitive.
The Town requested different financing options for the PV & BESS microgrid system to compare the capital costs associated with development of the project. NV5 modeled three (3) different financial scenarios: Cash Purchase, Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), and Lease Financing for the combined PV+BESS project.
Key Findings
Site Energy Usage and Cost
Electrical meter and usage – There is one main electrical meter on the Town site. NV5 evaluated the historical energy usage to create an annual interval energy usage profile for the meter.
Electricity cost – NV5 evaluated electrical energy costs using energy tariffs from PG&E.
Future energy cost escalation – NV5 evaluated both the energy (kWh) and demand (kW) trends for the CA market to inform forward pricing assumptions. The industry norm is to model escalation as compound annual growth rate (CAGR), which somewhat understates energy costs/value over time compared to linear escalation. Due to this, as well as some overall upward pressure on energy prices in the mid-term, NV5 used a blended escalation rate of 3% CAGR for this modeling.
PV System Siting and Sizing
PV array location – The Town of San Anselmo prefers to site the PV system in the main parking lot.
The lot is oriented appropriately and appears suitable for construction of long-span and/or cantilever shade canopy structures (pending geotechnical and underground utility-location surveys).
Shading of PV arrays – There is minimal shading from trees or buildings in the vicinity of the proposed designs. However, there are trees along the eastern side of the parking lot, where it abuts Imagination Park. If the solar PV designs change to incorporate that side of the parking lot, further analysis would need to be conducted to determine feasibility as shading adversely impacts the energy production and financial savings of the project. The Town has indicated that none of these trees may be removed.
Electrical meter and PV system sizes – There is one main electrical meter at the Town site. PG&E’s interconnection policy limits the PV system size to less than 1,000 kilowatts AC generating capacity.
This should not pose a problem for the Town of San Anselmo as the current PV system sizes being modeled and designed are less than 100 kW AC.
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
708
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 2
Solar PV system design scenarios modeled – Based on the above Findings and Assumptions, three PV system designs were evaluated (see Figures 1-3):
a. Design A limits the PV system size to 86.5 kW DC and is interconnected at the Town of San Anselmo utility meter. This design consists solely of single-cantilevered, 4-up canopies. One canopy resides in the main parking lot, while the second canopy would span part of the Magnolia Parking Lot across the street. Additionally, the second array would cover a portion of the existing bioretention area and electric vehicle charging stations. b. Design B limits the PV system size to 86.5 kW DC and is interconnected at the Town of San Anselmo utility meter. This design consists of one single-cantilevered, 4-up canopy and one double-cantilevered, 6-up canopy. From a logistical standpoint, this design eliminates the need to modify the Magnolia Parking Lot while providing more shade coverage in the main parking lot.
c. Design C limits the PV system size to 85.6 kW DC and is interconnected at the Town of San Anselmo utility meter. This design consists of one single-cantilevered, 4-up canopy and one custom rooftop array that would be suspended on a steel lattice structure above the Town Hall’s heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
Figure 1: Design A Solar PV Array
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
709
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 3
Figure 2: Design B Solar PV Array
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
710
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 4
Figure 3: Design C Solar PV Array
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
711
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 5
Figure 4: Preliminary Solar PV Rendering – Wooden Shade Structure Figure 5: Preliminary Solar PV Rendering – Standard Steel Canopy Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
712
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 6
Solar PV system energy production - Designs A, B, and C will offset approximately 100% of the electricity usage at The Town’s meter, or 128,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh).
BESS System Siting and Sizing
BESS siting – The BESS system is will likely be sited near The Town of San Anselmo’s main utility meter or under the solar PV canopy to reduce trenching and wiring costs.
BESS system sizing - NV5 considered a range of BESS size capacities. Energy cost savings from demand response and demand management were also considered. Based on this analysis, NV5 recommends a BESS size of 100 kW/186 kWh for the Town’s PV-BESS project to optimize resiliency and financial returns.
Project Incentives, Incentive Uncertainty, Tax Treatment Project incentives considered – NV5 considered a broad range of incentives that would be applicable to this project.
a. Federal ITC – The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). See ITC tax incentive treatment below.
b. State taxes – reductions due to ITC treatment.
c. Curtailment Demand Response – NV5 used historical site responsiveness and demand response (DR) values in our financial modeling.
d. Storage Demand Response – This uses BESS to respond to DR events. Value of this incentive is impossible to predict. NV5 used vendor assumptions in our financial modeling. e. Various Other Grants and Incentives – See Table 27 in Section 5 for more details.
ITC tax incentive treatment – The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is a federal tax credit based on the installed costs of a solar PV system. BESS systems installed with a solar PV system are also eligible for the ITC if they are charged from energy produced by the paired PV system. The ITC is currently 30% for 2023. Depending on how the Town of San Anselmo finances the PV+BESS system, the ITC reimbursement will fluctuate. For example, as a tax-exempt entity, if the Town also uses tax-exempt money to purchase the system, there is a 15% reduction of the 30% standard ITC (i.e., the reimbursement would be 25.5% rather than 30%). There are also adders (+10% reimbursement) for certain project-related practices, such as procuring the solar panels, inverters, steel, etc. from domestic sources, that could increase the total ITC reimbursement for the Town. See Figure 4 in Section 5: Grants and Incentives, for an estimated timeline of the ITC tax reimbursement.
Financing Approach, Estimated Financial Savings, and Uncertainties Affecting Estimated Savings Financing types evaluated - NV5 considered three financing scenarios: Cash Purchase, PPA, and Lease.
Cash Purchase appears to be the most advantageous financing approach as it produces significantly greater expected savings than any other option. While PPA and lease financing requires negligible up-front costs when compared to the cash purchase, the lifetime savings of those models were significantly lower than the direct purchase approach.
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
713
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 7
Table 1 provides a detailed summary of the key assumptions and financial modeling results for the financing approaches.
Privately financed PPA by local individuals/friends of the Town – It is possible to develop local private financing for cash or PPA projects from accredited investors, an idea the Town staff put forward. In this scenario, interested individual investors with ITC-eligible tax appetite pool their funding and act as the tax-equity investors, typically in a limited liability partnership (LLP) with the project developer.
The tax-equity investors own ~95% of the project and associated tax benefits and cash flow through at least the first 6-10 years of the project until investment returns targets are realized. If the tax-equity investors then want to exit the partnership, a “partnership flip” is performed allowing the project developer to buyout the tax-equity investors for ~5% of the project value. Furthermore, if an investor or donor of the Town of San Anselmo wants to contribute to the direct cash purchase of the project, that could be another source of project funding.
Lifetime expected project cash flows – Project cash flows are illustrated in Tables 9 through Table 26 for Designs A, B, and C with PV+BESS for the Cash Purchase, PPA contract, and Lease scenarios, respectively.
Project financial risk analysis – Estimated ranges of uncertainty are indicated as “Optimistic” and “Conservative” projections and are shown below in the cash flow graphs associated with Tables 9 through Table 26. NV5 was unable to gain enough visibility into the demand-response (DR) programs to produce a reliable estimate of DR-associated uncertainty. DR and other project incentives can be refined through the project procurement (RFP). RFP documents can be designed so that offers are fully transparent on the DR offerings.
Bidirectional Charging (Vehicle-to-Grid) Preliminary Feasibility Bidirectional charging is still quite a nascent technology, with much of the infrastructure and policies still being worked out.
There are added costs to participating in bidirectional charging, such as:
a. Additional charging needed to recoup the power discharged from the electric vehicle(s) b. A more complex charge management system
c. Special charging equipment (e.g., automatic transfer switches) d. Upgrading from Level 2 charging stations to Level 3 charging stations (bidirectional Level 2 charging stations have yet to be widely-available on the market) Utility companies have yet to announce an official vehicle-to-grid (V2G) tariff schedule, which when announced, may change the financial feasibility of bidirectional charging Current revenue streams from bidirectional charging stem from energy arbitrage and emergency load reduction program (ELRP) events – both of which result in negligible savings when considering the added cost of electricity and the higher rate of battery degradation V2G is currently most effective, and profitable, with fleet vehicles that operate on routine schedules (e.g., school buses, delivery trucks/vans, etc.) as set schedules enable optimized charging schedules.
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
714
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 8
Next Steps
Next steps towards development of The Town of San Anselmo’s project include the following.
1. Finalize review of this report and release of the final report by NV5 addressing all comments.
2. The Town of San Anselmo determines whether to move forward with the project, the preferred approaches to project design and project financing, the general project scope and timeframe, and the target RFP issue date.
3. The Town of San Anselmo may optionally engage with NV5 to develop RFP documents based on this Feasibility Study and NV5’s highly-vetted procurement document set, to assist with proposal review and selection, and assist with contract review and negotiations.
If a project is contracted, further steps include final project design and permitting; project construction; PVBESS system commissioning and grid interconnection; and project closeout.
2. Project Modeling Results
The following tables (Tables 1-5) show the project modeling results for Designs A, B, and C, and cash, PPA, and lease scenarios. This modeling is based on the PG&E B10 and B6 Deep Green tariffs. Additionally, Table 6 and 7 illustrate the predicted resiliency results depending on how much BESS capacity is left in reserve.
Table 1: Overview and Key Assumptions
Project Information Design A Design B Design C
Number of Sites Sites 1 1 1
Solar PV System Size kW-DC 86.50 86.50 85.60
Solar PV Year 1 Production kWh 128,000 128,000 128,000
Solar PV Yield kWh/kW/Year 1,480 1,480 1,495
Energy Storage System Size kW/kWh 100kW/186kWh 100kW/186kWh 100kW/186kWh Modeled System Lifetime Years 25 25 25
Solar PV Lifetime Production kWh 2,919,000 2,921,000 2,919,000 Electricity Usage Information
Annual Electricity Consumption kWh 128,000 128,000 128,000 Annual Electricity Cost $, Current Tariffs $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 Average Cost of Electricity $/kWh $0.3516 $0.3282 $0.3282 Financial Information
Turnkey Project Cost $ $983,000 $983,000 $1,167,000
Project Soft Costs $ $66,000 $66,000 $79,000
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
715
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 9
Annual Utility Inflation Rate % 3.00% 3.00% 3.00%
NPV Discount Rate % 2.00% 2.00% 2.00%
Table 2: Summary Table of Lifetime NPV Savings for Each Design Cash Purchase PPA Lease
Scenario
Turnkey
Project Cost
($)
Turnkey Project
Cost, After ITC
Reimbursement
($) 2
Solar PV
PV + BESS
Microgrid 3 Solar PV
PV + BESS
Microgrid 3 Solar PV
PV + BESS
Microgrid 3
Design A $1,049,000 $782,000 $393,000 ($244,000) $265,000 ($484,000) $189,000 ($386,000) Design B 1$1,049,000 $782,000 $393,000 ($244,000) $265,000 ($485,000) $189,000 ($386,000) Design C $1,246,000 $928,000 $239,000 ($395,000) $144,000 ($603,000) ($31,000) ($603,000)
1. Design B is one of the least expensive upfront and one of the best-performing designs with respect to lifetime savings (NPV). Furthermore, while not explicitly shown here, Design A will likely be more costly after accounting for the modifications to the current bioretention area as well as a worse panel-to-column ratio compared to Design B.
2. A 25.5% ITC reimbursement was modeled rather than the full 30% since it depends on the type of funds that the Town will use to pay for the project (i.e., paying with tax-exempt funding results in a 15% penalty of the total reimbursement). If the Town pursues taxable funding and/or domestic content, the ITC reimbursement could increase to as high as 40% of eligible project costs.
3. With current battery pricing and electricity rates, the BESS/microgrid portion of the project results in negative lifetime savings for all designs. However, the industry is constantly evolving, and we can only estimate what the financials will look like in 10 years.
Table 3: Financial Results – Cash Purchase
Cash Purchase Financial Results Design A Design B Design C 25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 11.2 11.2 14.4
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $645,000 $645,000 $490,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $393,000 $393,000 $239,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar + Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years >25 Years >25 Years >25 Years Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$80,000 -$80,000 -$231,000 NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$244,000 -$244,000 -$395,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
716
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 10
Table 4: Financial Results - PPA
PPA Financial Results Design A Design B Design C
PPA Price, PV $/kWh $0.3000 $0.3000 $0.3500
PPA Price Adder, BESS $/kWh $0.3292 $0.3289 $0.3292
25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 4.3 4.4 10.3
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $365,000 $364,000 $211,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $265,000 $265,000 $144,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar + Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years >25 Years >25 Years >25 Years Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$585,000 -$586,000 -$734,000 NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$484,000 -$485,000 -$603,000 Table 5: Financial Results - Lease
Lease/Debt Financial Results Design A Design B Design C 25-year P50 Results, Solar PV
Simple Payback, Solar Years 17.9 17.9 23.6
Nominal Returns, Solar $ $309,000 $309,000 $47,000
NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar $ $189,000 $189,000 -$31,000
25-year P50 Results, Solar + Storage
Simple Payback, Solar + Storage Years <1 <1 <1
Nominal Returns, Solar + Storage $ -$406,000 -$406,000 -$664,000 NPV Returns, 2% DR, Solar + Storage $ -$386,000 -$386,000 -$603,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
717
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 11
Table 6: Microgrid Resiliency Probability
BESS Reserved Capacity
(kWh)
Minimum Resiliency
SOC (%) 4-hr Outage 6-hr Outage 24-hr Outage
93 10% 99.5% 92.2% 52.9%
186 10% 100.0% 99.9% 76.5%
The above table indicates the probability of maintaining power to critical loads through the duration of the outage, given any outage occurring throughout the year.
Table 7: Electric Vehicle Miles Available During a Resiliency Event Reserved Capacity (kWh) Outage Duration Average Remaining BESS Capacity (kWh) EV Miles1
93 4-hr 62 160
93 6-hr 49 120
186 24-hr 82 190
1. Assuming EV efficiency of a 2021 Nissan Leaf (0.30 kWh/mi), BESS roundtrip efficiency of 93%, and EV charger conversion efficiency of 97%.
Table 6, above, can be most effectively understood reading from left to right (i.e., given an assumed reserved capacity and an outage duration, there will be a certain capacity remaining in the BESS to charge an electric vehicle a certain number of miles).
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
718
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 12
3. Approach
Feasibility Study Steps
Steps of NV5’s feasibility study process are summarized as follows.
Scope & Goals Met and corresponded with The Town of San Anselmo staff to assess the scope, constraints, and goals of the potential project.
Data Collection Obtained historical electricity consumption data for the electric services and obtained further information about the site facilities (drawings and specifications).
Conceptual Design
Established conceptual system designs and generated simulated solar PV production data using industry-standard solar design software, Helioscope. Reviewed conceptual designs with The Town of San Anselmo staff input.
Tariff Modeling
Modeled system performances under different tariff scenarios and alternative BESS sizings using industry-standard software, Energy Tool Base, to optimize system sizings and cost offsets. Modeling considered projected electricity consumption, demandresponse programs, BESS charge-discharge strategies, and simulated PV production from conceptual designs.
Financial Modeling Performed financial and sensitivity analyses, including lifecycle cost analysis.
Key Assumptions and Modeling Inputs
NV5 uses conservative pricing assumptions based on market knowledge from similar projects, current industry trends, and utility escalation rates based on historical averages over the past thirty years. If utility rates increase more over time in the future in response to regulations, demand, and finite resources, the financial performance of the systems will be positively affected. Conversely, if rates increase more slowly than historical averages, the financial performance will be negatively affected. Modeling assumptions account for risks associated with utility rate changes that are proposed by the utility or expected based on NV5’s understanding of historical trends and forecasts.
To assess the impacts of key project variables on the economic outcomes of projects, NV5 conducts both a sensitivity analysis and a probability distribution risk analysis. The sensitivity analysis identifies which variables have the most significant impact on the financial performance of the project. NV5 then performs a multivariable Monte Carlo analysis to establish a 90 percent probability envelope for financial performance over the lifetime of the project. Due to uncertainties related to the DR programs and their support by potential project partners, NV5 did not include DR incentives in the project risk analysis.
The key project variables that are included in the financial analysis for the three financing scenarios modeled are listed in Table 8, including the risk of changing utility tariffs, which tends to lower the value of solar energy produced and impact financial returns from PV projects.
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
719
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 13
Table 8: Key Assumptions and Modeling Inputs.
Utility Information
Annual Electric Consumption Approximately 128,000 kWh/year – inclusive of the HVAC renovations that will be taking place Summer 2023
Annual Electric Cost Approximately $43,000 (historically) Utility and Tariff PG&E, B10 tariff, CA
Utility Energy Cost Escalation 3.0% blended annual average, CAGR Solar PV Production Modeling
Solar Insolation Data National Solar Radiation Database, 1991- 2005 Update: Typical Meteorological Year 3, NAPA CO. AIRPORT, (Class II)
Shading Assumption Minimal, based information provided by The Town of San Anselmo staff, gained from site photos, and as affected by siting choices Soiling Assumption Moderate, seasonal soiling – 2.0%
PV Modules used in Helioscope LR4-72HPH-460M (Longi Solar) Inverters used in Helioscope CPS SC20KTL-DO (Shanghai Chint Power Systems) Installation type Varies depending on design – elevated shade canopies and/or fixed tilt rooftop
Inverter Lifetime 12 years
PV System Lifetime 25 years
BESS Modeling Characteristics
BESS Technology Li Ion, AC coupled
BESS Lifetime 12.5 years, replaced
Charging/Discharging Constraints Keeping a certain SOC in reserve for resiliency BESS Degradation Rate 1% per year
BESS Round-Trip Energy Delivery
Efficiency 90%
Financial Assumptions
Turnkey Project Cost* $6.77-$8.99/kWp installed PV; and $2,100/kWh installed BESS Microgrid PPA Price $0.30-$0.35 per kWh base price; $0.3292/kWh BESS price adjustment PPA Price Escalator 0%
PPA Term 20 Years
Project Development Soft Costs 6.8% of project installed cost PV & BESS O&M $6,000/year, 3% annual escalation (ownership scenarios only) Decommissioning Ownership scenarios only: Cash and PPA with Buyout scenarios, $75/kW Incentives See Section 2, Financial Results Overview table * Cost of construction is estimated conservatively. Cost for parking shade canopies is typically 30% to 60% of built cost, based on historical project data.
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
720
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 14
4. Project Modeling Cash Flows and Graphs
The following cash flows and graphs are based on NV5’s project modeling tools and assumptions as described above. Two cash flows and two graphs are shown for each financing scenario as follows:
• Project Cash Flow table, PV-only – 20-year cash flow showing important project parameters. • Project Cash Flow graph, PV-only – Expected (P-50) values are represented in the blue bars. Optimistic (P-90) results are shown with green lines on the graphs, Conservative (P-90) results are shown with red lines.
• Project Cash Flow table, PV+BESS – 20-year cash flow showing important project parameters. • Project Cash Flow graph, PV+BESS – Expected (P-50) values are represented in the blue bars.
Optimistic (P-90) results are shown with green lines on the graphs, Conservative (P-90) results are shown with red lines.
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
721
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 15
Table 9: Design A - Cash Purchase, Solar PV Only
Savings Analysis of Solar Cash Purchase, PV Only
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV
A B C D E F G H
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/ PV
PV Operating
Costs Incentives Net Annual Savings
Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($625,000) ($625,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $3,000 $6,000 ($159,000) $196,000 ($430,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $37,000 ($393,000)
3 128,000 $47,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $38,000 ($355,000)
4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $6,000 $ - $38,000 ($317,000)
5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $39,000 ($277,000)
6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $43,000 ($234,000)
7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $44,000 ($191,000)
8 128,000 $55,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $45,000 ($146,000)
9 128,000 $57,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $45,000 ($101,000)
10 128,000 $58,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $46,000 ($55,000)
11 128,000 $60,000 $9,000 $4,000 $ - $47,000 ($8,000)
12 128,000 $62,000 $10,000 $13,000 $ - $39,000 $32,000
13 128,000 $64,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $49,000 $81,000
14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $50,000 $131,000
15 128,000 $67,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $51,000 $181,000
16 128,000 $70,000 $13,000 $5,000 $ - $52,000 $233,000
17 128,000 $72,000 $14,000 $5,000 $ - $53,000 $286,000
18 128,000 $74,000 $15,000 $5,000 $ - $54,000 $339,000
19 128,000 $76,000 $16,000 $5,000 $ - $55,000 $394,000
20 128,000 $78,000 $17,000 $6,000 $ - $56,000 $450,000
21 128,000 $81,000 $34,000 $6,000 $ - $41,000 $491,000
22 128,000 $83,000 $35,000 $6,000 $ - $42,000 $533,000
23 128,000 $85,000 $36,000 $6,000 $ - $43,000 $575,000
24 128,000 $88,000 $38,000 $14,000 $ - $36,000 $611,000 25 128,000 $91,000 $40,000 $17,000 $ - $34,000 $645,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
722
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 16
Table 10: Design A - Cash Purchase, Solar PV + BESS
Savings Analysis of Solar Cash Purchase, PV & BESS
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV & BESS
A B C D E F G H
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/ PV &
BESS
PV & BESS
Operating Costs Incentives Net Annual
Savings
Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($1,049,000) ($1,049,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $2,000 $13,000 ($261,000) $291,000 ($758,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $2,000 $13,000 $ - $31,000 ($727,000) 3 128,000 $47,000 $2,000 $13,000 $ - $32,000 ($696,000) 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $13,000 $ - $33,000 ($663,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $13,000 $ - $33,000 ($630,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $10,000 $ - $37,000 ($593,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $10,000 $ - $38,000 ($555,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $6,000 $10,000 $ - $39,000 ($516,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $7,000 $11,000 $ - $40,000 ($476,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $7,000 $11,000 $ - $40,000 ($436,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $8,000 $11,000 $ - $41,000 ($394,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $9,000 $19,000 $ - $34,000 ($361,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $10,000 $270,000 $ - ($216,000) ($577,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $11,000 $ - $44,000 ($533,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $10,000 $11,000 $ - $45,000 ($487,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $12,000 $12,000 $ - $46,000 ($441,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $13,000 $12,000 $ - $47,000 ($394,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $14,000 $12,000 $ - $48,000 ($346,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $15,000 $12,000 $ - $49,000 ($297,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $16,000 $12,000 $ - $50,000 ($247,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $33,000 $12,000 $ - $35,000 ($211,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $34,000 $12,000 $ - $36,000 ($175,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $35,000 $13,000 $ - $37,000 ($138,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $37,000 $20,000 $ - $30,000 ($108,000) 25 128,000 $91,000 $39,000 $23,000 $ - $28,000 ($80,000) Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
723
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 17
Table 11: Design A - PPA Financing, Solar PV Only
Cash Flow Analysis of Solar PPA, PV Only
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV
A B C D E F G H I
Year
Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual Estimated
Utility Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy Cost
w/ PV PV Operating Costs Incentives PPA Payments Net Annual Savings Cumulative Project Cash Flow 0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($13,000) ($13,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $3,000 $3,000 $ - $38,000 $1,000 ($12,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $3,000 $3,000 $ - $38,000 $2,000 ($10,000) 3 128,000 $47,000 $3,000 $3,000 $ - $38,000 $3,000 ($6,000) 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $37,000 $4,000 ($2,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $37,000 $6,000 $4,000 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $37,000 $10,000 $13,000 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $37,000 $11,000 $24,000 8 128,000 $55,000 $7,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $12,000 $37,000 9 128,000 $57,000 $8,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $13,000 $50,000 10 128,000 $58,000 $8,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $15,000 $64,000 11 128,000 $60,000 $9,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $16,000 $80,000 12 128,000 $62,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $35,000 $17,000 $97,000 13 128,000 $64,000 $11,000 $ - $ - $35,000 $18,000 $116,000 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $ - $ - $35,000 $20,000 $136,000 15 128,000 $67,000 $11,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $21,000 $157,000 16 128,000 $70,000 $13,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $22,000 $179,000 17 128,000 $72,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $24,000 $203,000 18 128,000 $74,000 $15,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $25,000 $228,000 19 128,000 $76,000 $16,000 $ - $ - $33,000 $27,000 $255,000 20 128,000 $78,000 $17,000 $ - $ - $33,000 $28,000 $283,000 21 128,000 $81,000 $34,000 $ - $ - $33,000 $14,000 $297,000 22 128,000 $83,000 $35,000 $ - $ - $33,000 $15,000 $312,000 23 128,000 $85,000 $36,000 $ - $ - $32,000 $16,000 $328,000 24 128,000 $88,000 $38,000 $ - $ - $32,000 $17,000 $346,000 25 128,000 $91,000 $40,000 $ - $ - $32,000 $19,000 $365,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
724
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 18
Table 12: Design A - PPA Financing, Solar PV + BESS
Cash Flow Analysis of Solar PPA, PV & BESS
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV & BESS
A B C D E F G H I
Year
Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual Estimated
Utility Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy Cost
w/ PV & BESS
PV & BESS
Operating Costs
Incentives PPA Payments Net Annual Savings Cumulative Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($22,000) ($22,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $2,000 $3,000 $ - $80,000 ($40,000) ($62,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $2,000 $3,000 $ - $80,000 ($39,000) ($101,000) 3 128,000 $47,000 $2,000 $3,000 $ - $79,000 ($37,000) ($138,000) 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $78,000 ($36,000) ($174,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $78,000 ($34,000) ($209,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $77,000 ($30,000) ($239,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $77,000 ($29,000) ($267,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $76,000 ($27,000) ($294,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $7,000 $ - $ - $76,000 ($25,000) ($320,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $7,000 $ - $ - $75,000 ($24,000) ($344,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $8,000 $ - $ - $74,000 ($22,000) ($366,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $9,000 $ - $ - $74,000 ($21,000) ($387,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $73,000 ($19,000) ($406,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $ - $ - $73,000 ($17,000) ($423,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $72,000 ($16,000) ($439,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $12,000 $ - $ - $72,000 ($14,000) ($453,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $13,000 $ - $ - $71,000 ($12,000) ($465,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $71,000 ($11,000) ($476,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $15,000 $ - $ - $70,000 ($9,000) ($485,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $16,000 $ - $ - $70,000 ($7,000) ($492,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $33,000 $ - $ - $69,000 ($21,000) ($514,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $34,000 $ - $ - $69,000 ($20,000) ($534,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $35,000 $ - $ - $68,000 ($19,000) ($552,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $37,000 $ - $ - $68,000 ($17,000) ($569,000) 25 128,000 $91,000 $39,000 $ - $ - $67,000 ($16,000) ($585,000) Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
725
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 19
Table 13: Design A - Lease, Solar PV Only
Savings Analysis of Solar Lease, PV Only
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV
A B C D E F G H I
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/PV
PV Operating
Costs Incentives Loan Payments Net Annual Savings
Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($40,000) ($40,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $3,000 $6,000 ($156,000) $61,000 $131,000 $92,000 2 128,000 $46,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $61,000 ($24,000) $67,000 3 128,000 $47,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $61,000 ($24,000) $44,000 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $6,000 $ - $61,000 ($23,000) $21,000 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $61,000 ($22,000) ($1,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($18,000) ($19,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($17,000) ($37,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($17,000) ($53,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($16,000) ($69,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($15,000) ($84,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $9,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($14,000) ($98,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $10,000 $13,000 $ - $61,000 ($22,000) ($120,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $61,000 ($12,000) ($132,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $61,000 ($11,000) ($144,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $61,000 ($10,000) ($154,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $13,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $52,000 ($103,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $14,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $53,000 ($50,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $15,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $54,000 $4,000 19 128,000 $76,000 $16,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $55,000 $58,000 20 128,000 $78,000 $17,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $56,000 $114,000 21 128,000 $81,000 $34,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $41,000 $155,000 22 128,000 $83,000 $35,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $42,000 $197,000 23 128,000 $85,000 $36,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $43,000 $240,000 24 128,000 $88,000 $38,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $276,000 25 128,000 $91,000 $40,000 $17,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $309,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
726
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 20
Table 14: Design A - Lease, Solar PV + BESS
Savings Analysis of Solar Lease, PV & BESS
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV & BESS
A B C D E F G H I
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/PV &
BESS
PV & BESS
Operating Costs Incentives Loan Payments Net Annual Savings Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($66,000) ($66,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $2,000 $6,000 ($330,000) $103,000 $264,000 $198,000 2 128,000 $46,000 $2,000 $6,000 $ - $103,000 ($65,000) $133,000 3 128,000 $47,000 $2,000 $6,000 $ - $103,000 ($64,000) $68,000 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $6,000 $ - $103,000 ($64,000) $5,000 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $103,000 ($63,000) ($58,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($59,000) ($117,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($58,000) ($176,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $6,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($57,000) ($233,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($57,000) ($290,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($56,000) ($346,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($55,000) ($400,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $9,000 $13,000 $ - $103,000 ($63,000) ($463,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $10,000 $264,000 $ - $103,000 ($312,000) ($775,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $103,000 ($52,000) ($827,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $10,000 $5,000 $ - $103,000 ($51,000) ($878,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $12,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $53,000 ($826,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $13,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $54,000 ($772,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $14,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $55,000 ($717,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $15,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $56,000 ($662,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $16,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $57,000 ($605,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $33,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $42,000 ($563,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $34,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $43,000 ($520,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $35,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $43,000 ($477,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $37,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $37,000 ($440,000) 25 128,000 $91,000 $39,000 $17,000 $ - $ - $35,000 ($406,000) Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
727
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 21
Table 15: Design B - Cash Purchase, Solar PV Only
Savings Analysis of Solar Cash Purchase, PV Only
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV
A B C D E F G H
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/ PV
PV Operating
Costs Incentives Net Annual Savings
Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($625,000) ($625,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $3,000 $6,000 ($159,000) $196,000 ($430,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $37,000 ($393,000)
3 128,000 $47,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $38,000 ($355,000)
4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $6,000 $ - $38,000 ($317,000)
5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $39,000 ($277,000)
6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $43,000 ($234,000)
7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $44,000 ($191,000)
8 128,000 $55,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $45,000 ($146,000)
9 128,000 $57,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $45,000 ($101,000)
10 128,000 $58,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $46,000 ($55,000)
11 128,000 $60,000 $9,000 $4,000 $ - $47,000 ($8,000)
12 128,000 $62,000 $10,000 $13,000 $ - $39,000 $32,000
13 128,000 $64,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $49,000 $81,000
14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $50,000 $131,000
15 128,000 $67,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $51,000 $181,000
16 128,000 $70,000 $13,000 $5,000 $ - $52,000 $233,000
17 128,000 $72,000 $14,000 $5,000 $ - $53,000 $286,000
18 128,000 $74,000 $15,000 $5,000 $ - $54,000 $339,000
19 128,000 $76,000 $16,000 $5,000 $ - $55,000 $394,000
20 128,000 $78,000 $17,000 $6,000 $ - $56,000 $450,000
21 128,000 $81,000 $34,000 $6,000 $ - $41,000 $491,000
22 128,000 $83,000 $35,000 $6,000 $ - $42,000 $533,000
23 128,000 $85,000 $36,000 $6,000 $ - $43,000 $575,000
24 128,000 $88,000 $38,000 $14,000 $ - $36,000 $611,000 25 128,000 $91,000 $40,000 $17,000 $ - $34,000 $645,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
728
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 22
Table 16: Design B - Cash Purchase, Solar PV + BESS
Savings Analysis of Solar Cash Purchase, PV & BESS
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV & BESS
A B C D E F G H
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/ PV &
BESS
PV & BESS
Operating Costs Incentives Net Annual
Savings
Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($1,049,000) ($1,049,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $2,000 $13,000 ($261,000) $291,000 ($758,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $2,000 $13,000 $ - $31,000 ($727,000) 3 128,000 $47,000 $2,000 $13,000 $ - $32,000 ($696,000) 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $13,000 $ - $33,000 ($663,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $13,000 $ - $33,000 ($630,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $10,000 $ - $37,000 ($593,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $10,000 $ - $38,000 ($555,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $6,000 $10,000 $ - $39,000 ($516,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $7,000 $11,000 $ - $40,000 ($476,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $7,000 $11,000 $ - $40,000 ($436,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $8,000 $11,000 $ - $41,000 ($394,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $9,000 $19,000 $ - $34,000 ($361,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $10,000 $270,000 $ - ($216,000) ($577,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $11,000 $ - $44,000 ($533,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $10,000 $11,000 $ - $45,000 ($487,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $12,000 $12,000 $ - $46,000 ($441,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $13,000 $12,000 $ - $47,000 ($394,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $14,000 $12,000 $ - $48,000 ($346,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $15,000 $12,000 $ - $49,000 ($297,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $16,000 $12,000 $ - $50,000 ($247,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $33,000 $12,000 $ - $35,000 ($211,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $34,000 $12,000 $ - $36,000 ($175,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $35,000 $13,000 $ - $37,000 ($138,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $37,000 $20,000 $ - $30,000 ($108,000) 25 128,000 $91,000 $39,000 $23,000 $ - $28,000 ($80,000) Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
729
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 23
Table 17: Design B - PPA Financing, Solar PV Only
Cash Flow Analysis of Solar PPA, PV Only
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV
A B C D E F G H I
Year
Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual Estimated
Utility Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy Cost
w/ PV PV Operating Costs Incentives PPA Payments Net Annual Savings Cumulative Project Cash Flow 0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($13,000) ($13,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $3,000 $3,000 $ - $38,000 $1,000 ($12,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $3,000 $3,000 $ - $38,000 $2,000 ($10,000) 3 128,000 $47,000 $3,000 $3,000 $ - $38,000 $3,000 ($6,000) 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $37,000 $4,000 ($2,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $37,000 $6,000 $4,000 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $37,000 $10,000 $13,000 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $37,000 $11,000 $24,000 8 128,000 $55,000 $7,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $12,000 $36,000 9 128,000 $57,000 $8,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $13,000 $50,000 10 128,000 $58,000 $8,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $15,000 $64,000 11 128,000 $60,000 $9,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $16,000 $80,000 12 128,000 $62,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $35,000 $17,000 $97,000 13 128,000 $64,000 $11,000 $ - $ - $35,000 $18,000 $116,000 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $ - $ - $35,000 $20,000 $135,000 15 128,000 $67,000 $11,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $21,000 $156,000 16 128,000 $70,000 $13,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $22,000 $179,000 17 128,000 $72,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $24,000 $203,000 18 128,000 $74,000 $15,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $25,000 $228,000 19 128,000 $76,000 $16,000 $ - $ - $33,000 $27,000 $254,000 20 128,000 $78,000 $17,000 $ - $ - $33,000 $28,000 $283,000 21 128,000 $81,000 $34,000 $ - $ - $33,000 $14,000 $296,000 22 128,000 $83,000 $35,000 $ - $ - $33,000 $15,000 $312,000 23 128,000 $85,000 $36,000 $ - $ - $32,000 $16,000 $328,000 24 128,000 $88,000 $38,000 $ - $ - $32,000 $17,000 $345,000 25 128,000 $91,000 $40,000 $ - $ - $32,000 $19,000 $364,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
730
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 24
Table 18: Design B - PPA Financing, Solar PV + BESS
Cash Flow Analysis of Solar PPA, PV & BESS
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV & BESS
A B C D E F G H I
Year
Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual Estimated
Utility Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy Cost
w/ PV & BESS
PV & BESS
Operating Costs
Incentives PPA Payments Net Annual Savings Cumulative Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($22,000) ($22,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $2,000 $3,000 $ - $80,000 ($40,000) ($62,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $2,000 $3,000 $ - $80,000 ($39,000) ($101,000) 3 128,000 $47,000 $2,000 $3,000 $ - $79,000 ($37,000) ($138,000) 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $79,000 ($36,000) ($174,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $78,000 ($34,000) ($209,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $77,000 ($30,000) ($239,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $77,000 ($29,000) ($267,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $76,000 ($27,000) ($294,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $7,000 $ - $ - $76,000 ($25,000) ($320,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $7,000 $ - $ - $75,000 ($24,000) ($344,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $8,000 $ - $ - $74,000 ($22,000) ($366,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $9,000 $ - $ - $74,000 ($21,000) ($387,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $73,000 ($19,000) ($406,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $ - $ - $73,000 ($17,000) ($423,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $72,000 ($16,000) ($439,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $12,000 $ - $ - $72,000 ($14,000) ($453,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $13,000 $ - $ - $71,000 ($12,000) ($466,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $71,000 ($11,000) ($477,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $15,000 $ - $ - $70,000 ($9,000) ($486,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $16,000 $ - $ - $70,000 ($7,000) ($493,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $33,000 $ - $ - $69,000 ($21,000) ($514,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $34,000 $ - $ - $69,000 ($20,000) ($534,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $35,000 $ - $ - $68,000 ($19,000) ($553,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $37,000 $ - $ - $68,000 ($17,000) ($570,000) 25 128,000 $91,000 $39,000 $ - $ - $67,000 ($16,000) ($586,000) Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
731
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 25
Table 19: Design B - Lease, Solar PV Only
Savings Analysis of Solar Lease, PV Only
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV
A B C D E F G H I
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/PV
PV Operating
Costs Incentives Loan Payments Net Annual Savings
Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($40,000) ($40,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $3,000 $6,000 ($156,000) $61,000 $131,000 $92,000 2 128,000 $46,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $61,000 ($24,000) $67,000 3 128,000 $47,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $61,000 ($24,000) $44,000 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $6,000 $ - $61,000 ($23,000) $21,000 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $61,000 ($22,000) ($1,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($18,000) ($19,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($17,000) ($37,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($17,000) ($53,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($16,000) ($69,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($15,000) ($84,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $9,000 $4,000 $ - $61,000 ($14,000) ($98,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $10,000 $13,000 $ - $61,000 ($22,000) ($120,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $61,000 ($12,000) ($132,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $61,000 ($11,000) ($144,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $61,000 ($10,000) ($154,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $13,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $52,000 ($103,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $14,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $53,000 ($50,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $15,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $54,000 $4,000 19 128,000 $76,000 $16,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $55,000 $58,000 20 128,000 $78,000 $17,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $56,000 $114,000 21 128,000 $81,000 $34,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $41,000 $155,000 22 128,000 $83,000 $35,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $42,000 $197,000 23 128,000 $85,000 $36,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $43,000 $240,000 24 128,000 $88,000 $38,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $36,000 $276,000 25 128,000 $91,000 $40,000 $17,000 $ - $ - $34,000 $309,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
732
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 26
Table 20: Design B - Lease, Solar PV + BESS
Savings Analysis of Solar Lease, PV & BESS
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV & BESS
A B C D E F G H I
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/PV &
BESS
PV & BESS
Operating Costs Incentives Loan Payments Net Annual Savings Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($66,000) ($66,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $2,000 $6,000 ($330,000) $103,000 $264,000 $198,000 2 128,000 $46,000 $2,000 $6,000 $ - $103,000 ($65,000) $133,000 3 128,000 $47,000 $2,000 $6,000 $ - $103,000 ($64,000) $68,000 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $6,000 $ - $103,000 ($64,000) $5,000 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $103,000 ($63,000) ($58,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($59,000) ($117,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($58,000) ($176,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $6,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($57,000) ($233,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($57,000) ($290,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($56,000) ($346,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $103,000 ($55,000) ($400,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $9,000 $13,000 $ - $103,000 ($63,000) ($463,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $10,000 $264,000 $ - $103,000 ($312,000) ($775,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $103,000 ($52,000) ($827,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $10,000 $5,000 $ - $103,000 ($51,000) ($878,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $12,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $53,000 ($826,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $13,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $54,000 ($772,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $14,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $55,000 ($717,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $15,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $56,000 ($662,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $16,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $57,000 ($605,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $33,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $42,000 ($563,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $34,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $43,000 ($520,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $35,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $43,000 ($477,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $37,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $37,000 ($440,000) 25 128,000 $91,000 $39,000 $17,000 $ - $ - $35,000 ($406,000) Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
733
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 27
Table 21: Design C - Cash Purchase, Solar PV Only
Savings Analysis of Solar Cash Purchase, PV Only
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV
A B C D E F G H
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/ PV
PV Operating
Costs Incentives Net Annual Savings
Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($821,000) ($821,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $3,000 $6,000 ($209,000) $245,000 ($576,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $37,000 ($539,000)
3 128,000 $47,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $37,000 ($502,000)
4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $38,000 ($464,000)
5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $39,000 ($425,000)
6 128,000 $52,000 $6,000 $4,000 $ - $43,000 ($382,000)
7 128,000 $53,000 $6,000 $4,000 $ - $43,000 ($339,000)
8 128,000 $55,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $44,000 ($295,000)
9 128,000 $57,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $45,000 ($250,000)
10 128,000 $58,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $46,000 ($204,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $9,000 $5,000 $ - $47,000 ($157,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $10,000 $13,000 $ - $39,000 ($118,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $49,000 ($70,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $12,000 $5,000 $ - $49,000 ($20,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $12,000 $5,000 $ - $50,000 $30,000
16 128,000 $70,000 $13,000 $5,000 $ - $51,000 $82,000
17 128,000 $72,000 $14,000 $5,000 $ - $52,000 $134,000
18 128,000 $74,000 $15,000 $6,000 $ - $53,000 $187,000
19 128,000 $76,000 $16,000 $6,000 $ - $54,000 $241,000
20 128,000 $78,000 $17,000 $6,000 $ - $55,000 $296,000
21 128,000 $81,000 $34,000 $6,000 $ - $41,000 $337,000
22 128,000 $83,000 $35,000 $6,000 $ - $41,000 $379,000
23 128,000 $85,000 $36,000 $6,000 $ - $42,000 $421,000
24 128,000 $88,000 $38,000 $14,000 $ - $35,000 $456,000 25 128,000 $91,000 $40,000 $17,000 $ - $33,000 $490,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
734
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 28
Table 22: Design C - Cash Purchase, Solar PV + BESS
Savings Analysis of Solar Cash Purchase, PV & BESS
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV & BESS
A B C D E F G H
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/ PV &
BESS
PV & BESS
Operating Costs Incentives Net Annual
Savings
Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($1,246,000) ($1,246,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $2,000 $13,000 ($311,000) $341,000 ($905,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $2,000 $13,000 $ - $31,000 ($874,000) 3 128,000 $47,000 $2,000 $13,000 $ - $32,000 ($842,000) 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $13,000 $ - $32,000 ($810,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $13,000 $ - $33,000 ($777,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $10,000 $ - $37,000 ($740,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $11,000 $ - $38,000 ($702,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $6,000 $11,000 $ - $39,000 ($663,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $7,000 $11,000 $ - $39,000 ($624,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $7,000 $11,000 $ - $40,000 ($584,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $8,000 $11,000 $ - $41,000 ($543,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $9,000 $20,000 $ - $34,000 ($509,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $10,000 $271,000 $ - ($216,000) ($725,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $10,000 $11,000 $ - $44,000 ($681,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $10,000 $12,000 $ - $45,000 ($636,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $12,000 $12,000 $ - $46,000 ($590,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $13,000 $12,000 $ - $47,000 ($543,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $14,000 $12,000 $ - $48,000 ($495,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $15,000 $12,000 $ - $49,000 ($446,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $16,000 $12,000 $ - $50,000 ($396,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $33,000 $13,000 $ - $35,000 ($361,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $34,000 $13,000 $ - $36,000 ($325,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $35,000 $13,000 $ - $37,000 ($289,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $37,000 $21,000 $ - $30,000 ($259,000) 25 128,000 $91,000 $39,000 $24,000 $ - $28,000 ($231,000) Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
735
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 29
Table 23: Design C - PPA Financing, Solar PV Only
Cash Flow Analysis of Solar PPA, PV Only
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV
A B C D E F G H I
Year
Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual Estimated
Utility Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy Cost
w/ PV PV Operating Costs Incentives PPA Payments Net Annual Savings Cumulative Project Cash Flow 0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($17,000) ($17,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $3,000 $3,000 $ - $45,000 ($5,000) ($22,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $3,000 $3,000 $ - $44,000 ($4,000) ($27,000) 3 128,000 $47,000 $3,000 $3,000 $ - $44,000 ($3,000) ($30,000) 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $44,000 ($2,000) ($32,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $43,000 ($1,000) ($32,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $43,000 $3,000 ($29,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $43,000 $5,000 ($24,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $7,000 $ - $ - $42,000 $6,000 ($18,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $8,000 $ - $ - $42,000 $7,000 ($11,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $8,000 $ - $ - $42,000 $8,000 ($3,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $9,000 $ - $ - $41,000 $10,000 $7,000 12 128,000 $62,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $41,000 $11,000 $18,000 13 128,000 $64,000 $11,000 $ - $ - $41,000 $12,000 $31,000 14 128,000 $66,000 $12,000 $ - $ - $40,000 $14,000 $45,000 15 128,000 $67,000 $12,000 $ - $ - $40,000 $15,000 $60,000 16 128,000 $70,000 $13,000 $ - $ - $40,000 $17,000 $76,000 17 128,000 $72,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $40,000 $18,000 $94,000 18 128,000 $74,000 $15,000 $ - $ - $39,000 $19,000 $114,000 19 128,000 $76,000 $16,000 $ - $ - $39,000 $21,000 $135,000 20 128,000 $78,000 $17,000 $ - $ - $39,000 $22,000 $157,000 21 128,000 $81,000 $34,000 $ - $ - $38,000 $8,000 $165,000 22 128,000 $83,000 $35,000 $ - $ - $38,000 $10,000 $175,000 23 128,000 $85,000 $36,000 $ - $ - $38,000 $11,000 $186,000 24 128,000 $88,000 $38,000 $ - $ - $38,000 $12,000 $198,000 25 128,000 $91,000 $40,000 $ - $ - $37,000 $13,000 $211,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
736
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 30
Table 24: Design C - PPA Financing, Solar PV + BESS
Cash Flow Analysis of Solar PPA, PV & BESS
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV & BESS
A B C D E F G H I
Year
Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual Estimated
Utility Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy Cost
w/ PV & BESS
PV & BESS
Operating Costs
Incentives PPA Payments Net Annual Savings Cumulative Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($26,000) ($26,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $2,000 $3,000 $ - $87,000 ($47,000) ($72,000) 2 128,000 $46,000 $2,000 $3,000 $ - $86,000 ($45,000) ($118,000) 3 128,000 $47,000 $2,000 $3,000 $ - $85,000 ($44,000) ($161,000) 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $85,000 ($42,000) ($203,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $3,000 $ - $84,000 ($41,000) ($244,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $83,000 ($36,000) ($280,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $83,000 ($35,000) ($315,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $82,000 ($33,000) ($348,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $7,000 $ - $ - $82,000 ($31,000) ($379,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $7,000 $ - $ - $81,000 ($30,000) ($409,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $8,000 $ - $ - $80,000 ($28,000) ($437,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $9,000 $ - $ - $80,000 ($27,000) ($464,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $79,000 ($25,000) ($489,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $79,000 ($23,000) ($512,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $10,000 $ - $ - $78,000 ($21,000) ($534,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $12,000 $ - $ - $77,000 ($20,000) ($553,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $13,000 $ - $ - $77,000 ($18,000) ($571,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $76,000 ($16,000) ($588,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $15,000 $ - $ - $76,000 ($15,000) ($602,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $16,000 $ - $ - $75,000 ($13,000) ($615,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $33,000 $ - $ - $75,000 ($27,000) ($642,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $34,000 $ - $ - $74,000 ($25,000) ($667,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $35,000 $ - $ - $73,000 ($24,000) ($691,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $37,000 $ - $ - $73,000 ($22,000) ($713,000) 25 128,000 $91,000 $39,000 $ - $ - $72,000 ($21,000) ($734,000) Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
737
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 31
Table 25: Design C - Lease, Solar PV Only
Savings Analysis of Solar Lease, PV Only
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV
A B C D E F G H I
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/PV
PV Operating
Costs Incentives Loan Payments Net Annual Savings
Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($52,000) ($52,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $3,000 $6,000 ($203,000) $80,000 $159,000 $107,000 2 128,000 $46,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $80,000 ($44,000) $63,000 3 128,000 $47,000 $3,000 $6,000 $ - $80,000 ($43,000) $20,000 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $80,000 ($42,000) ($23,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $80,000 ($42,000) ($64,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $6,000 $4,000 $ - $80,000 ($38,000) ($102,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $6,000 $4,000 $ - $80,000 ($37,000) ($139,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $80,000 ($36,000) ($175,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $80,000 ($35,000) ($211,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $8,000 $4,000 $ - $80,000 ($35,000) ($245,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $9,000 $5,000 $ - $80,000 ($34,000) ($279,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $10,000 $13,000 $ - $80,000 ($41,000) ($320,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $11,000 $5,000 $ - $80,000 ($32,000) ($352,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $12,000 $5,000 $ - $80,000 ($31,000) ($383,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $12,000 $5,000 $ - $80,000 ($30,000) ($413,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $13,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $51,000 ($362,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $14,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $52,000 ($309,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $15,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $53,000 ($256,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $16,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $54,000 ($202,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $17,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $55,000 ($147,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $34,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $41,000 ($106,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $35,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $41,000 ($64,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $36,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $42,000 ($22,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $38,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $35,000 $13,000 25 128,000 $91,000 $40,000 $17,000 $ - $ - $33,000 $47,000 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
738
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 32
Table 26: Design C - Lease, Solar PV + BESS
Savings Analysis of Solar Lease, PV & BESS
Town of San Anselmo, 1 Sites, April 11 2023
PV & BESS
A B C D E F G H I
Year Estimated Utility
Usage (kWh)
Annual
Estimated Utility
Cost w/o PV
Utility Energy
Cost w/PV &
BESS
PV & BESS
Operating Costs Incentives Loan Payments Net Annual Savings Cumulative
Project Cash Flow
0 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ($79,000) ($79,000)
1 128,000 $45,000 $2,000 $6,000 ($377,000) $122,000 $292,000 $213,000 2 128,000 $46,000 $2,000 $6,000 $ - $122,000 ($85,000) $129,000 3 128,000 $47,000 $2,000 $6,000 $ - $122,000 ($84,000) $45,000 4 128,000 $49,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $122,000 ($83,000) ($38,000) 5 128,000 $50,000 $4,000 $7,000 $ - $122,000 ($82,000) ($121,000) 6 128,000 $52,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $122,000 ($79,000) ($199,000) 7 128,000 $53,000 $5,000 $4,000 $ - $122,000 ($78,000) ($277,000) 8 128,000 $55,000 $6,000 $4,000 $ - $122,000 ($77,000) ($354,000) 9 128,000 $57,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $122,000 ($76,000) ($430,000) 10 128,000 $58,000 $7,000 $4,000 $ - $122,000 ($75,000) ($505,000) 11 128,000 $60,000 $8,000 $5,000 $ - $122,000 ($74,000) ($579,000) 12 128,000 $62,000 $9,000 $13,000 $ - $122,000 ($82,000) ($661,000) 13 128,000 $64,000 $10,000 $264,000 $ - $122,000 ($332,000) ($993,000) 14 128,000 $66,000 $10,000 $5,000 $ - $122,000 ($71,000) ($1,064,000) 15 128,000 $67,000 $10,000 $5,000 $ - $122,000 ($70,000) ($1,135,000) 16 128,000 $70,000 $12,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $52,000 ($1,082,000) 17 128,000 $72,000 $13,000 $5,000 $ - $ - $53,000 ($1,029,000) 18 128,000 $74,000 $14,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $54,000 ($974,000) 19 128,000 $76,000 $15,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $55,000 ($919,000) 20 128,000 $78,000 $16,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $56,000 ($862,000) 21 128,000 $81,000 $33,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $42,000 ($821,000) 22 128,000 $83,000 $34,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $42,000 ($778,000) 23 128,000 $85,000 $35,000 $6,000 $ - $ - $43,000 ($735,000) 24 128,000 $88,000 $37,000 $14,000 $ - $ - $36,000 ($699,000) 25 128,000 $91,000 $39,000 $17,000 $ - $ - $34,000 ($664,000) Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
739
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 33
5. Grants and Incentives
See Table 27 below for more details on eligible, or soon-to-be eligible grants and incentives that the Town of San Anselmo could choose to pursue in order to assist with project funding.
Table 27: Grants and Incentives Short-List
Figure 6: Estimated Investment Tax Credit Reimbursement Timeline Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
740
Town of San Anselmo Feasibility Study Report
5/15/2023 Page 34
6. Preliminary Project Schedule
As the Town is still in the early stages of this project, it is highly likely that the project schedule shifts and changes. A couple of milestones in the project are of particular import, including:
(1) DSA Permitting – depending on the solar PV design, geotechnical survey results, and other jurisdiction requirements, the DSA Review could range from two weeks to over three months. (2) Procurement – some materials are especially prone to long lead times, such as batteries and steel. As such, those long-lead time items could substantially delay the procurement and construction phases of the project.
Figure 7: Preliminary Project Schedule/Timeline
Item # 3.2- Attachment 2 Item # 3.2- Attachment 2
741
Item #: 3.3
STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 3.3
MEETING DATE: May 25, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Consider appointing (3) three applicants to the Economic Development Committee
FROM: Serge Avila, Chief Town Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: For Council to consider appointing (3) three applicants to the Economic Development Committee Ryan Olson, Ginny Svigals, and Michael Fine.
BACKGROUND
The Flood Committee has a membership of ten seats. There are five seats available.
Ryan Olson, Ginny Svigals, and Michael Fine were interviewed earlier today and their applications are attached to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
There would be no direct fiscal impact to the Town to approve this item.
CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed decision is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under the “common sense” exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant negative effect on the environment. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15061).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1- Ryan Olson- Application no Resume
Attachment 2- Ginny Svigals- Application w/Resume
Attachment 3- Michael Fine- Application no Resume
742
Print
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO A SAN ANSELMO BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE To: San Anselmo Town Council
Date*
5/17/23
I wish to apply for an
appointment to a term/balance*
Name*
Ryan Olson
Home Address*
200 Bolinas Rd Apt 37 / Fairfax, CA 94930
Occupation*
General Manager
Employer's Address
510 San Anselmo Ave
Home Phone*
4155169747
Work Phone
Boards, Committees and Commissions Application - Submission #1883 Date Submitted: 5/17/2023
Economic Development Committee
743
Cell Phone
4155169747
E-Mail*
[email protected]
Number of years as resident of San Anselmo*
.5
Number of years as a resident in Marin*
1 Education Level Achieved*
Name and phone numbers of three San Anselmo residents who can be contacted for referral information about me:
1.) Name*
Donna Seymour
1.) Phone*
4153781435
2.) Name*
Georgianna Barker
2.) Phone*
6282378035
3.) Name*
awaiting permission
3.) Phone*
will provide if interviewed
YES
NO
I would be able to regularly attend the meetings of this Board/Commission/Committee.* YES
NO
I would be available to attend additional meetings when they are necessary.* College/University Degree (Major)
744
YES
NO
I am familiar with the responsibilities and functions of this Board/Commission/Committee.* YES
NO
I have attended meetings of the Board/Commission/Committee as a member of the public.* List briefly, previous experience serving the public office, and/or civic commissions,boards, or committees.* The closest experience I have to serving on a civic commission is managing a polling location in the 2008 election cycle in San Francisco. In the private sector, I represented union workers on the Operations Safety Board at UPS in South San Francisco in 2003.
Reasons for this appointment.*
I help run day to day operations at a local institution where many of our neighbors frequently gather.
What are your qualifications for this appointment.*
I have 15 years of business management experience, including 2 years as a business owner of Phlox Commons Kitchen and Draught House (what a name) in San Francisco.
Briefly, what do you consider to be the most important, one or two current issues facing this Board/Commission/Committee? *
We are seeing a fresh wave of entrepreneurs on the Avenue, bringing a broader range of services and products to San Anselmo that cater to a more diverse clientele. A vibrant commercial district strengthens community and helps keeps the town relevant. We need to find ways to make it easier for would-be small business owners to set up shop and succeed in San Anselmo.
YES
NO
I understand that I and all other applicants will be personally interviewed by the Town Council as part of the selection process for this appointment. I also understand that my application material will be a public document and available on the Town's website. Sensitive materials that you don't wish to be posted on the website should not be included with the application.*
Other Boards/Commissions/Committees on which you would be interested in serving if not appointed to this seat?* You may attach personal resumes or other information which you believe would be helpful to the Council in its selection process.
Choose File No file chosen
Thank you for your interest in serving the Town of San
Anselmo and its citizens. For further information, please contact the Town Clerk, at
[email protected] or 415-258-4660.
Open Space Committee
745
746
file:///C/Tyler_Scans/1873%20-%20Ginny%20Svigals.htm[5/11/2023 1:47:43 PM] Print
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO A SAN ANSELMO BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE To: San Anselmo Town Council
Date*
I wish to apply for an
appointment to a term/balance*
Economic Development Committee
Name*
Home Address*
Occupation*
Employer's Address
Boards, Committees and Commissions Application - Submission #1873 Date Submitted: 5/9/2023
747
file:///C/Tyler_Scans/1873%20-%20Ginny%20Svigals.htm[5/11/2023 1:47:43 PM] Home Phone*
Work Phone
Cell Phone
E-Mail*
Number of years as resident of San Anselmo*
Number of years as a resident in Marin*
Education Level Achieved*
748
file:///C/Tyler_Scans/1873%20-%20Ginny%20Svigals.htm[5/11/2023 1:47:43 PM] Graduate Degree (Major)
Name and phone numbers of three San Anselmo residents who can be contacted for referral information about me:
1.) Name* 1.) Phone*
2.) Name* 2.) Phone*
3.) Name* 3.) Phone*
YES
NO
I would be able to regularly attend the meetings of this Board/Commission/Committee.* YES
NO
I would be available to attend additional meetings when they are necessary.* YES
NO
I am familiar with the responsibilities and functions of this Board/Commission/Committee.* YES
NO
I have attended meetings of the Board/Commission/Committee as a member of the public.* List briefly, previous experience serving the public office, and/or civic commissions,boards, or committees.* 749
file:///C/Tyler_Scans/1873%20-%20Ginny%20Svigals.htm[5/11/2023 1:47:43 PM] Reasons for this appointment.*
What are your qualifications for this appointment.*
Briefly, what do you consider to be the most important, one or two current issues facing this Board/Commission/Committee?* I understand that I and all other applicants will be personally interviewed by the Town Council as part of the selection 750
file:///C/Tyler_Scans/1873%20-%20Ginny%20Svigals.htm[5/11/2023 1:47:43 PM] YES
NO
process for this appointment. I also understand that my application material will be a public document and available on the Town's website. Sensitive materials that you don't wish to be posted on the website should not be included with the application.*
Other Boards/Commissions/Committees on which you would be interested in serving if not appointed to this seat?* None
You may attach personal resumes or other information which you believe would be helpful to the Council in its selection process. 2023 Ginny Svigals Resume.pdf
Thank you for your interest in serving the Town of San
Anselmo and its citizens. For further information, please contact the Town Clerk, at [email protected] or 415-258-4660.
751
GINNY SVIGALS
919 770 6954 | [email protected]
PROFILE
A highly skilled and experienced Registered Nurse with Primary, Critical Care, Public Health, and health education experience. Passionate about improving reproductive health equity through education, relationship building, and providing access to high quality health care. Interested in shifting my career focus back to direct patient care. Eager to work directly within my community and impact the lives of people along their reproductive health journeys.
HIGHLIGHTS
● Advanced experience delivering clinical care, performing assessments, and creating individual care plans
● Experienced health educator for women and teens across the primary and sexual health spectrum
● Skilled in program/project design, public speaking, and creating health\wellness promotional content ● Excell at managing multiple tasks, working independently, organization, and collaborating across complex teams
● Confident in ability to learn new skills, take initiative, and know when to ask for help ● Outstanding communication skills and a history of building warm, strong relationships with clients/patients.
● Focused on creating an upliftingt, energetic, and collaborative work environment for both patients and collegues.
EDUCATION
University of California San Francisco | Global Health Institute ● Master of Science: Global Health | 2017 – 2018
East Carolina University
● Bachelor of Science: Nursing | 2004 - 2009
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
SFUSD School District Registered Nurse | 2019-2022
John O’Connell High School
● Primary health care provider and health educator for 120 Staff and 600 Students ● Provided first aid and emergency management, alongside facilitating emergency support staff training ● Created, managed, and documented all Individual Care Plans ● Experience with program design and project management through community health outreach, school body engagement, small group sessions, and collaborative opportunities for outside community health workers.
● Created virtual student facing content for health awareness and wellness education topics. ● Extensive experience building relationships to creat trust, ensure understanding, and solve problems. 752
University of California San Francisco | Master of Science in Global Health | 2017-2018 Graduate Thesis: Estimating the Prevalence and Risks Associated of Chlamydia Trachomatis Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Females in Suva, Fiji
● Developed and managed a women’s reproductive health quantitative research study, as well as piloted a novel rapid diagnostic device for Chlamydia trachomatis diagnosis. ● Designed strategies for data collection, managed teams of volunteers, and organized on-site training
● Completed the studies formal analysis, methodology, and project administration. ● Experience with public speaking and dissemination of results, data, and program layouts.
Registered Nurse
Adult Healthcare, Intensive Care Unit (ICU), Interventional Radiology | 2009 - 2015 The Medical University of South Carolina | Charleston, SC ● Employeed in Adult Medical ICU, Surgical and Neurological Trauma ICU, Emergency Room, Interventional Radiology
● Trained in delivery of conscious sedation
● Created patient care plans individually and through team collaboration for patient care plans ● Extensive experience with health assessments, patient education, procedure followup, and documentation via EMR
Madaktari Africa | Tanzania | 2009-2011
Nursing Lead and Coordinator
● Served on nonprofit program team designing fundamental CPR skill training program for hospital staff, sustainable solutions through protocol management, and facilitating health provider training.
PUBLICATIONS
Svigals, V., Blair, A., Dean, D. (2020). “Hyperendemic Chlamydia trachomatis sexually transmitted infections among females represent a high burden of asymptomatic disease and health disparity among Pacific Islanders in Fiji”. PLoS Negl Trop Dis.
LICENSURE/SKILLS
● Active RN License through the State of California Board of Nursing (licensure number upon request) ● ACLS/BLS Certified
● Proficient in Google Suite, MS Office, Adobe Acrobat, ScientificWriting ● Experience using Electronic Medical Records, R code, DocuSign 753
file:///C/Tyler_Scans/1866%20-%20Michael%20Fine%20-%20Economic%20Development%20Committee.htm[5/1/2023 1:39:25 PM] Print
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO A SAN ANSELMO BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE To: San Anselmo Town Council
Date*
I wish to apply for an
appointment to a term/balance*
Economic Development Committee
Name*
Home Address*
Occupation*
Employer's Address
Boards, Committees and Commissions Application - Submission #1866 Date Submitted: 5/1/2023
754
file:///C/Tyler_Scans/1866%20-%20Michael%20Fine%20-%20Economic%20Development%20Committee.htm[5/1/2023 1:39:25 PM] Home Phone*
Work Phone
Cell Phone
E-Mail*
Number of years as resident of San Anselmo*
Number of years as a resident in Marin*
Education Level Achieved*
755
file:///C/Tyler_Scans/1866%20-%20Michael%20Fine%20-%20Economic%20Development%20Committee.htm[5/1/2023 1:39:25 PM] College/University Degree (Major)
Name and phone numbers of three San Anselmo residents who can be contacted for referral information about me:
1.) Name* 1.) Phone*
2.) Name* 2.) Phone*
3.) Name* 3.) Phone*
YES
NO
I would be able to regularly attend the meetings of this Board/Commission/Committee.* YES
NO
I would be available to attend additional meetings when they are necessary.* YES
NO
I am familiar with the responsibilities and functions of this Board/Commission/Committee.* YES
NO
I have attended meetings of the Board/Commission/Committee as a member of the public.* List briefly, previous experience serving the public office, and/or civic commissions,boards, or committees.* 756
file:///C/Tyler_Scans/1866%20-%20Michael%20Fine%20-%20Economic%20Development%20Committee.htm[5/1/2023 1:39:25 PM] Reasons for this appointment.*
What are your qualifications for this appointment.*
Briefly, what do you consider to be the most important, one or two current issues facing this Board/Commission/Committee?* YES
NO
I understand that I and all other applicants will be personally interviewed by the Town Council as part of the selection process for this appointment. I also understand that my application material will be a public document and available on the Town's website. Sensitive materials that you don't wish to be posted on the website should not be included with the application.*
Other Boards/Commissions/Committees on which you would be interested in serving if not appointed to this seat?* None
You may attach personal resumes or other information which you believe would be helpful to the Council in its selection process. no file selected
Thank you for your interest in serving the Town of San
Anselmo and its citizens. For further information, please contact the Town Clerk, at [email protected] or 415-258-4660.
757