San Anselmo City Council
December 12, 2023

Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal agricultural work. In many parts of Marin County, agriculture production is an important contribution to local economies. However, the Town of San Anselmo has no agricultural zone or uses. While 30 residents are employed in the agriculture and natural resources industry, all employed residents hold managerial, sales, or office positions. There is no documented need for farmworker housing in San Anselmo. Regardless, the Town will update the Zoning Code, as 36 17
4 0 0 0
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Home of Parent
/Family /Guardian
Independent
/Supported Living
Community Care
Facility
Other Foster /Family
Home
Intermediate Care
Facility
Population
Population with Developmental Disabilities by
Residence
091 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
294
88 needed, to comply with the State Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8 (Action 5.8c).

People Experiencing Homelessness
In June 2019, numerous stakeholders across the county, including the Marin Continuum of Care (CoC), referred to as the Homeless Policy Steering Committee (HPSC) during the planning process, participated in the visioning and drafting of the A Response to Homelessness in Marin County:

Assessing the Need and Taking Action Plan. The plan analyzes trends regarding the population of people experiencing homelessness in Marin County, uncovers gaps in Countywide resources for the homeless population, and offers solutions to respond to homelessness. Its four goals are:
1) end chronic and veteran homelessness in Marin County by 2022; 2) create additional permanent housing opportunities to address needs of the most vulnerable; 3) maintain and enhance fidelity to the principles of housing first and improve, and 4) expand data sharing capacity to provide comprehensive, coordinated care to persons experiencing homelessness. These goals established a strategic direction for the provision of homeless services and represented a broad, creative effort addressing homelessness and homelessness prevention.

Table 3.24: Marin County 2022 Point in Time Homeless Count Unsheltered Homeless Individuals 830
Sheltered Homeless Individuals 291
Total Individuals Experiencing Homelessness 1,121
Source: MTC/ABAG Data Needs Workbook for Town of San Anselmo; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
While the Marin CoC serves a crucial role in the coordination and provision of services and housing in the county, the Marin County Department of Health and Human Services oversees the annual CoC application to receive funding from HUD for homeless services to conduct an annual pointin-time count of people experiencing homelessness.

The Marin County 2022 Point-in-Time Homelessness Count (PIT) estimates the daily average number of people experiencing homelessness in the county. The 2022 PIT was conducted by the Marin County CoC in conjunction with Applied Survey Research, a social research firm, on the night of February 17, 2022. The 2022 PIT counted persons experiencing homelessness who are unsheltered (those living on the streets) and those who were sheltered (living in emergency shelters and transitional housing and other housing). Table 3.24 above shows the count identified 1,121 people experiencing homelessness in the county, 830 of whom met the HUD definition of unsheltered and in immediate need of housing. The total number of people experiencing homelessness accounted for less than one percent of the county’s total population. In 2020, 161,548 people in California were experiencing homelessness, which was less than one percent of the total population. In addition to the HUD-defined sheltered and unsheltered categories, Marin Health and Human Services identifies people experiencing homelessness in other settings not recognized by HUD, such as motels, jail, hospitals, and temporary residence with friends or family.

The one-day count does not include a breakdown of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness by jurisdiction, so it has become countywide practice to calculate the number of unsheltered people experiencing homelessness by jurisdiction proportional to each jurisdiction's share of the county-wide population. A homeless survey was not done in San Anselmo specifically, and there is not a known homeless contingency in San Anselmo due to the town’s limited transit routes and isolation from social service agencies that provide aid to people experiencing homelessness.

In order to identify the need for homeless services in the community, each Marin County jurisdictions agreed to plan for their per-capita share of the county-wide population of people experiencing homelessness, as determined by the PIT count. Based on San Anselmo’s population, the Town needs to plan for 54 unsheltered people experiencing homelessness. However, Marin County only has one emergency shelter located in Sa Rafael.

To address the needs of this population, the Town has included Program 7.4 and Program 7.5, and Action 5.8d in the Policies, Programs, and Actions section of this Housing Element. In addition, Actions 7.1a, 7.1b, 7.1c, 7.4a, 7.4b, 7.5a, 7.5b, 7.5c, and 7.5d enact the Town to support rehousing of people experiencing homelessness, work with surrounding jurisdictions to support long-term solutions for people experiencing homelessness and assist service providers in linking people experiencing homelessness with supportive services.

The Housing Element includes an inventory of the homeless housing resources available within the community, including emergency shelters, transitional housing and supportive housing. There are currently no supportive housing beds in San Anselmo. In the past, congregations throughout Marin County, including churches in San Anselmo, participated in a rotational, winter emergency shelter program, known as the Rotating Emergency Shelter Team (REST). REST provided temporary housing during winter months to individuals experiencing homelessness. Funding 092 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
295
89 for that program was re-allocated to housing-first strategies. Marin County, in partnership with local jurisdictions and non-profits, launched the Coordinated Entry system, where participants are connected to available housing and homeless services based on their needs. In addition, Homeward Bound of Marin, a local nonprofit, provides emergency shelters, supportive housing, and mental health services in Marin County. Other resources that serve Marin County are noted in Chapter 5, Housing Resources.

Assisted Rental Housing “At Risk” of Conversion
Government Code Section 65583(a)(9) requires each city and county to conduct an analysis and identify programs for preserving assisted housing developments. The analysis is required to identify any low-income units which are at risk of losing subsidies over the next 10 years (2023-2033).

In 1989, a 22-unit condominium project (Sohner Court) was approved and built. Two of the 22 units were required to be sold as below market rate units. These units were placed under a 30-year agreement, with another 30-year roll over option, administered by the Marin Housing Authority. In 1994, Oak Hill Apartments received approval to construct 14 units in San Anselmo. Thirteen of the units housed very low-income developmentally disabled persons and a moderate-income unit was provided for the project manager. Funding sources included a Section 811 Capital Grant from HUD for the developmentally disabled, CDBG, HOME funds administered through CDBG, and private matching funds. Because of HUD requirements, the project must be used for people with developmental disabilities for 40 years. Upon approval of this project by the Town, the Town Council imposed a condition to ensure continued use for the developmentally disabled even after the 40 years has elapsed.

Other developments, such as Isabel Cook, Tam House I, and Tam House II have controls through ownership. There are no affordable units that are at risk of conversion to market rate housing in San Anselmo in the next ten years. There are however, 13 units in the Oak Hill Apartment complex that are at risk of conversion in 2037. Since the units are designated under the Section 811/PRAC program through HUD to serve developmentally disabled residents they are deemed at low risk for conversion. 093 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
296
90 This page left intentionally blank
094 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
297
91 HOUSING 4

CONSTRAINTS
095 Item 2.5 - Attachment
2 298
92 Housing Constraints
Non-Governmental Housing Constraints
Government Code Section 65583(a)(5) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of potential and actual constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels. Identification of these constraints helps the Town to create policies, programs, and actions that address these concerns and reduce impediments to housing production.

Cost of Land
Many factors determine the price of land in San Anselmo, including allowable density, housing type, the availability of public services and utilities, and the quality of nearby existing development. According to Zillow, there was one single-family lot for sale in San Anselmo according to a search completed in October 2022. The vacant lot, approximately 0.22 acres in area, was priced at $399,000 ($1,813,636 per acre). The price per acre is comparable to vacant lots for sale in other Marin County communities. San Rafael had two vacant lots for sale in October 2022, both zoned as single-family residential. One lot was 0.75 acres and priced at $699,000 ($932,000 per acre) and the other was 0.22 acres and priced at $350,000 ($1,590,909 per acre). There was only one vacant lot for sale in Larkspur zoned as low-density residential. The property was 2.9 acres and priced at $765,000 ($263,793 per acre). In Tiburon, there were two vacant lots for sale, both zoned as residential open. One lot was 0.26 acres and priced at $650,000 ($2,500,000 per acre) and the other was 3.32 acres and priced at $1,390,000 ($418,674 per acre). In Belvedere, there were two vacant lots for sale, both zoned as single-family residential. One lot was 0.21 acres and priced at $4,995,000 ($23,785,714 per acre) and the other was

0.62 acres and priced at $7,700,000 ($12,419,355 per acre).

However, the land cost per-unit in a multifamily development is less than the land cost per unit for single-family due to economies of scale resulting from the parcel costs split across many units. A recent multifamily project at 1 Lincoln Road in San Anselmo was approved on a 0.62-acre vacant parcel for $840,759 ($1,356,063 per acre), and another multifamily project at 600 Red Hill Avenue was approved on a 1.61-acre parcel that was purchased for $780,912 ($485,039 per acre). Based on a recent multifamily project in nearby Corte Madera, the estimated value of land zoned for multifamily housing was $3,300,000 per acre.

Construction Costs
Multifamily Developments
Construction costs include hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, such as architectural and engineering services, development fees, and insurance. According to local developers, hard construction costs (including site improvements) for a typical two- or three-story multifamily development average approximately $200 per square foot in Marin County. A 25-unit development with a gross building area of 21,000 square feet would have hard construction costs of approximately $4.2 million, or about $168,000 per unit. Soft costs typically add 45 to 50 percent to this base cost, yielding a per unit total construction cost of approximately $252,000. Projects receiving public subsidies, such as affordable housing developments, often must pay prevailing wages. This requirement can add 10 to 15 percent onto the hard costs of construction.

Single-Family Homes
According to local contractors and realtors, hard costs for single-family homes in Marin County vary between $200 and $250 per square foot for average construction but may exceed $500 per square foot for a high-end, custom-built single-family house. Soft costs typically increase these estimates by 35 to 40 percent. Construction costs can be higher if lots require substantial site work due to steep slopes, unstable soils, waterways, and other environmental concerns, which are factors impacting many San Anselmo neighborhoods. 096 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
299
93 Financing
Mortgage rates for conventional 30-year fixed rate loans in January 2023 are at their highest levels since the Great Recession. These conforming loans, which are backed by the federal government through the Federal Housing Administration and the Government Sponsored Entities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are generally available to home buyers with good credit histories and adequate down payments.

Interest rates on non-conforming loans (also known as “jumbo” loans) for loan amounts over $625,500 (in Marin County) are about onequarter percentage point higher than conforming loan rates and are more difficult to secure. Tighter lending standards have made it harder to get a home loan, especially for those with poor credit scores, and it is rare for a borrower with undocumented income to obtain a home loan.

Small changes in the interest rate for home purchases significantly affect affordability. A 30-year home loan for $500,000 at three percent interest has monthly payments of roughly $2,108. The same loan at seven percent interest has monthly payments of approximately $3,326.

Rental developments tend to be easier to finance than for-sale developments, as there are more sources of funding available.

Affordable housing developments face additional constraints in financing. Though public funding is available, it is allocated on a highly competitive basis and developments must meet multiple qualifying criteria, often including the requirement to pay prevailing wages. Smaller developments have higher per-unit costs by nature. As a result, higher per-unit development costs result in a sales price above the affordability levels set by many programs. Additionally, smaller projects often require significant developer time and resources. Since smaller development budgets are more limited and fees are based on a percentage of total costs, the projects are often not feasible.

Community Resistance to New Housing
Community resistance to new development is another common constraint to housing production in Marin County. Several concerns are often expressed at meetings, including 1) new developments will cause increased traffic, 2) additional housing or density will adversely affect the community character, 3) affordable housing will impact property values, and 4) valuable open space will be lost. Regardless of the factual basis of the concern, vociferous opposition can slow or stop development.

Additionally, community resistance conflicts with community support to provide certain groups (such as nurses, teachers, or law enforcement) with preferential access to local affordable housing. In many cases, it is not possible to set aside housing, outside of groups with special housing needs, based on occupation or domicile. These concerns are often expressed during project review processes and can present significant political barriers to development. To address community resistance, the Housing Element includes Program 2.2 to encourage public engagement and facilitate building support for development.

To minimize community opposition and encourage the creation of new housing, it is important to identify sites for special needs and affordable housing that fit with community character and result in minimal impacts to existing conditions. Design plays a critical role in creating new developments that blend into the existing neighborhood, especially in higher density developments that might otherwise starkly contrast with the existing community character. Quality design can help ensure that high density developments are not bulky or out-of-scale. Using contextsensitive design, a building’s perceived bulk can be significantly reduced to create a development that blends with the existing character of the neighborhood. To clearly communicate Town design expectations to the development community, to streamline the development approval process, and to reduce costs, the Housing Element includes Action 3.2a related to the adoption of objective development design standards, Action 3.1c for the adoption of pre-approved missing middle housing plan, and Program 6.1 related to the adoption of pre-approved Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) plans.

Environmental Constraints
San Anselmo’s ability to grow outwards is constrained by environmental boundaries surrounding the town. San Anselmo has little remaining vacant land available for development, and existing vacant sites in the community are severely constrained by fire hazards, flood risks, and landslide hazards. Many areas are subject to the increased risk of multi-hazard phenomena such as earthquake-triggered landslides or increased runoff causing flooding following wildfires. Environmental constraints expected to affect future development in San Anselmo include:
097 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
300
94 • Geologic Hazards (Steep Hillsides, Landslides, Earthquake) • Flood Hazards (Storm Drainage, Dam Inundation)
• Wildfire
Due to these environmental constraints, most new housing in San Anselmo will be provided through infill development such as ADUs or redevelopment of existing properties at higher densities. The housing opportunity sites in the Housing Element were evaluated for potential environmental significance and natural hazard risks. The housing opportunity sites identified are most suitable for new housing given these environmental constraints and include non-vacant sites with redevelopment potential over sites with high environmental risks to prioritize human health and safety. In addition, mitigation strategies included in the Safety Element intend to reduce potential environmental impacts on existing and new developments in the town. The Town also has adopted several regulatory tools to minimize the risk to life posed by these hazards. The San Anselmo Municipal Code contains public safety regulations that address disaster response and fire safety (Title 3 – Public Safety), flood safety (Title 7, Chapter 11 Protection of Flood Hazard Areas), and earthquake safety (Title 9 – Building Regulations). Critical disaster and emergency planning and mitigation programs and actions are coordinated under the 2018 Marin County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). As of 2023, the Town and other Marin County jurisdictions are coordinating an update to the MJHMP.

The following subsections summarize the constraints evaluated as part of the housing opportunity sites inventory. For a detailed discussion of environmental hazards and mitigation resources and strategies, please refer to the Safety Element.

Geologic Hazards
The primary geologic hazards in San Anselmo are earthquakes and landslides. Similar to other Bay Area communities, San Anselmo is at risk of suffering structural damage and loss of life during a significant earthquake. The town is located within 15 miles of four major faults, the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Rodgers Creek faults (all capable of generating a 7.0 earthquake or larger). While fault rupture is not a concern within the town, the presence of these faults close to the community indicates that strong seismic shaking poses an impact to existing and future development. The greatest concerns would be potential loss of life, damage to structures, destruction and/or interruptions to utilities infrastructure, interruption of evacuation routes, and the possible impediment of emergency vehicles and personnel. Structures with unreinforced masonry, soft-story, or non-ductile concrete construction that are located within the community are most vulnerable to seismic impacts. All development and major redevelopment is required to meet the minimum structural design requirements as stated in Chapter 16 of the California Building Code, whose provisions are incorporated into the Town’s Municipal Code under Title 9 – Building Regulations.

In addition, liquefaction risks are higher near the major creeks in Ross Valley, including the San Anselmo Creek and Sleepy Hollow Creek in San Anselmo. Roadways or structures located in or adjacent to these areas are at greater risk of liquefaction damage triggered by a large seismic shaking event.

According to the California Geological Survey (CGS), San Anselmo is also highly susceptible to landslides. Landslide susceptibility and slope stability are generally based on the steepness of slopes, type and density of vegetation, and strength of the underlying soils and rock formations.

CGS maps indicate that most of San Anselmo is designated as highly susceptible to deep-seated landslides. Seismic activity can also induce soil creep and shallow slope failure, particularly following heavy rain. Steep hillsides, creek beds, and drainage areas are at greatest risk of landslides where fast-moving water could erode or undermine properties and infrastructure.

Wildfire
San Anselmo is prone to wildfire hazards due to its proximity to the natural environment. Steep hillsides tend to promote increased wildfire risk, since vegetation management in these areas may be difficult and the vegetation types located within these areas may be highly flammable.

Fire suppression efforts tend to require more resources and increase response times due to sloped topography. In addition, high wind conditions during the dry summer months can propagate wildfires over longer distances.

Much of the town is located with the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), where residences (i.e., homes and structures) are adjacent to or intermixed with open space and wildland vegetation. The term “WUI” is not a designation of potential wildfire severity, but a defined description of an area 098 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
301
95 where urban development meets undeveloped lands at risk of wildfires. The WUI designation indicates that the town is highly susceptible to wildfires. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) identifies Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones immediately adjacent to the town limits in State Responsibility Areas, further compounding the danger of wildfire spreading into San Anselmo from other parts of Marin County. Development within WUI requires careful consideration, as vegetation, topography, and ember movement may increase the risk of wildfires. Despite the wildfire risk in some areas of San Anselmo, almost all housing opportunity sites are located outside the WUI and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, minimizing wildfire risks. A portion of land available for residential development in San Anselmo is located within the WUI, and California Building Code and Fire Code regulations require fire-safe designs for new construction in that area.

Flood Hazards
Flooding is a constraint that has the potential to affect existing and new development. FEMA flood hazard zones are located along the urbanized valleys and creek beds, and the topography of the community can cause localized flooding conditions. Most of San Anselmo lies within the Ross Valley Watershed which flows into San Francisco Bay. The principal waterway within the town is San Anselmo Creek, which periodically floods during rain events. According to historic records, heavy rains have caused San Anselmo Creek to flood up to four feet. Major floods of record were in 1925, 1940, 1963, 1982, and 2005, with the worst storm of record in 1982. During these flooding events, San Anselmo Creek will overflow and saturate the town’s main transportation corridor, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. The Town continues to cooperate with downstream communities (Marin County, adjacent jurisdictions, and individual homeowners) to mitigate flood hazards.

As development within the watershed intensifies, an increase in impervious surfaces may occur, increasing water runoff. Without proper mitigation, increased runoff could flood downstream areas and cause erosion. Two major evacuation routes, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and Center Boulevard, have multiple creek crossings, and flooding could impede evacuation efforts. New development in the town, especially if located adjacent to potential flood zones, is required to mitigate new project-induced runoff. In addition, dam inundation from the failure of Phoenix Lake Dam could affect a small southern part of San Anselmo where Ross Creek meets Corte Madera Creek. The Marin County MJHMP states that the current structures within this area include small commercial buildings and apartments.

The Town requires that all new housing be constructed above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) identified by FEMA to ensure that all new residential uses are protected from flood risk.

Working with Non-Profit Housing Developers
The key to the success of non-profit developers lies in three areas: (1) their ability to draw upon an array of funding sources and mechanisms to make their developments financially feasible; (2) their commitment to working cooperatively and constructively with the local community; and (3) their long-term commitment to ensuring excellence in design, construction, and management of the development, creating an asset that is valued by the development residents and their neighbors. The Housing Element includes Program 1.1 and corresponding Actions

1.1a-1.1c. to ensure the Town takes a proactive leadership role in working with community groups, other jurisdictions and public agencies, non-profit housing sponsors, and the building and real estate industry.

Infrastructure Capacity
The capacity of infrastructure can constrain development potential. The proximity, availability, and capacity of infrastructure helps to determine the suitability of water, sewer, dry utilities, and other services available to accommodate the housing needs during the planning period. In San Anselmo, development plans are coordinated with the Planning Department, Public Works Department, Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), and Ross Valley Sanitary District (RVSD).

Water
MMWD covers approximately 147 square miles and has approximately 61,700 active service connections in eastern Marin County. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), MMWD’s potable and raw water system includes 886 miles of water mains, 94 pump stations, and 121 treated water storage tanks with a storage capacity of 74.96 million gallons (MG) of water. Water is sourced from local 099 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
302
96 surface water stored at seven reservoirs throughout Marin County (which is the primary water supply), Sonoma County Water Agency, and recycled water. MMWD treats water at its three treatment plants: the Bon Tempe Treatment Plant in the Town of Ross, the San Geronimo Treatment Plant in unincorporated Marin County, and the Ignacio treatment facility in the City of Novato. MMWD’s treatment plants have a design capacity of 71 million gallons per day (MGD). In 2019, the total production of the district’s plants averaged 22.8 MGD. The daily average maximum flow is approximately 22.5 MGD.

MMWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projects treated water demands out through 2045. Using these projections, MMWD prepared the 2023 Strategic Water Supply Assessment (SWSA) to anticipate four potential water scenarios and explore a range of plausible drought conditions derived from past and future climate information: current trends, short and severe drought, beyond drought of record, and abrupt distributions. All four scenarios resulted in a water supply deficit during extreme drought periods, but the 2023 SWSA provides water management strategies, which include a mix of short-term water supply strategies with pre-design work to support medium- and longer-term options, to mitigate dry period conditions for future population needs. Through adherence to the road map provided in the 2023 SWSA, MMWD anticipates meeting the population’s water supply needs through 2045.

Sewer
Ross Valley Sanitary District (RVSD) provides wastewater collection, treatment, and export for San Anselmo and the greater Ross Valley area.

RVSD maintains approximately 196 miles of mainline and trunk line sewers and 7.9 miles of force main pipelines, which convey wastewater to the Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA) wastewater treatment plant in San Rafael. In addition, RVSD owns and operates five major pump stations and 14 minor pump stations and lift stations. Sewer laterals are owned and maintained by individual private property owners.

All the sites identified to meet the RHNA are within RVSD’s service areas and are readily served by RVSD wastewater infrastructure. Newly constructed residential units are charged connection fees and inspection fees to ensure wastewater systems are installed safely and operate properly.

The 2017 Facilities Master Plan from CSMA identifies that the current average dry weather flow (ADWF) is 6.5 MGD for the combined population of San Rafael, Larkspur, Fairfax, San Anselmo, Ross, Kentfield, and Greenbrae. Influent flows and loads are anticipated to have a one percent annual growth rate over the next 25 years, resulting in an estimated ADWF of 8.34 MGD. CSMA’s wastewater treatment plan was designed in 1981 with an ADWF capacity of 10.0 MGD and a corresponding sustained peak secondary treatment capacity of 30.0 MGD. Since 1981, CSMA has continued to construct infrastructure improvements to improve efficiency of treatment during wet weather flows and upgrade existing systems. The system improvements planned for construction in the 2017 Facilities Master Plan will provide reliable wastewater treatment, plan for future regulations, and develop a prioritized and comprehensive Capital Improvement Program that addresses CSMA’s current and future needs. Given current system capacity and growth projections, CSMA has capacity to meet the needs of the projected population during the 6th cycle housing element planning period.

Electricity and Internet Service
The town is primarily served by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Marin Clean Energy (MCE) for electricity, and residents have many choices for internet providers, with main options including AT&T and Xfinity. Future housing development is anticipated in an area currently served or adjacent to areas served by electricity and internet service. Therefore, utility providers have the planning and capacity to serve future growth in the area.

Governmental Housing Constraints
The Town’s development standards and requirements are intended to protect the long-term health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Town charges fees and has several procedures and regulations that developers are required to follow. There are many locally imposed land use and building requirements that can affect the type, appearance, and cost of housing built in San Anselmo.

These local requirements are evaluated as potential constraints based on an analysis of zoning regulations, development fees, parking requirements, subdivision design standards, and permitting processes. 100 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
303
97 Land Use Regulations
San Anselmo’s land use regulations, including the subdivision ordinance and Zoning Code, are located in Title 10, Chapters 2 and 3 of the Municipal Code. Current zoning standards are displayed in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 on the following pages. Lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, and allowable density all play an important role in enabling housing development.

Lot Coverage is the amount of lot surface area that can be developed on. Lot coverage can be an impediment to housing if the allowable surface available to develop on makes it infeasible to build higher density housing, however lot coverage also coincides with building height, floor area ratio, and allowable density. In San Anselmo, lot coverage for high and medium density housing is not an impediment to housing because the allowable densities can be optimized under the current standards.

Floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the total lot area to the total area yielded from each floor of the building developed. Floor area ratio can be an impediment to housing as it can limit the size of the building relative to the lot, minimizing unit potential. In San Anselmo, FAR is not an impediment to housing as it is not applied to high and medium density housing. As part of Action 5.2b, the Town will increase the maximum FAR or remove the FAR requirements in the C-1, C-L, and C-3 zones to encourage development of housing in mixed-use and entirely residential projects.

Building height is the maximum vertical distance of a structure’s elevation from finish grade to the highest point. Building height can be an impediment to fair housing as it can limit the number of stories a structure can use to optimize its allowable density. If there are limitations to lot coverage and setbacks, restricting building heights may not be able to maximize the various Zoning Districts maximum floor area ratio. In San Anselmo, building heights for high and medium density housing are not an impediment to housing because the allowable densities can be optimized under the current standards. The Town currently allows 3 story buildings (up to 35 feet tall) in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones on properties with a building footprint average slope at or greater than 25% to support housing development on steeper lots. As part of Action

5.2b, the Town will increase the maximum height limit to 3 stories (up to 35 feet) in the C-L and C-3 zone to encourage the development of housing within walking distance of the Town's transportation corridors with access to nearby transit stops and amenities. Furthermore, the Affordable Housing Overlay District planned in Action 5.3a and the objective design and development standards listed in Action 3.1b will provide more flexible development standards, such as increased building height limits, for multifamily residential development. This overlay zone will be applied in addition to the rezonings proposed for the housing opportunity sites as stipulated under Action 5.7a, and it is not necessary to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Rather, the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone will serve as an additional tool to enhance the development of affordable housing in San Anselmo.

Allowable density is the number of dwelling units that can be constructed on a lot. Allowable density can be an impediment to housing as it can significantly impact the number of units being constructed. While allowable densities for high and medium density housing are not an impediment to housing as a standard, the lack of land zoned for high and medium density is. This results in most of the land zoned as singlefamily residential, yielding a maximum of one unit for very low and conservation single-family, and six units for single-family residential. 101 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
304
98 Table 4.1: Existing Residential Zones
Development Standards
Zone R-1-H R-1-C R-1 R-2 R-3
Classification Very Low
Density
Residenti
al
Single- Family Residential- Conservation
Single- Family
Residenti
al
Medium
Density
Residential
High Density Residential
Minimum Lot
Area (Sq. Ft.) 43,560 43,560 7,500 7,500 7,500
Minimum Lot
Width (Feet) 60 60 60 60 75
Maximum
Density
(Units/Acre)1
1 1 6 12 20
Maximum Lot
Coverage N/A N/A 35% 35% 50%
Minimum Front
Setback (Feet) 20 20 20 20 20
Minimum Side
Setback (Feet)2 8/12 8/12 8/12 8/12 8/12
Minimum Rear
Setback (Feet) 20 20 20 20 20
Maximum Floor
Area Ratio
(FAR)
See
Note See Note See
Note N/A N/A
Building Height
(Feet)3 30/35/18 30/35/18 30/35/18 30/35 30/35
Note: Residential properties located above 150’ Mean Sea Level have variable standards for maximum dwelling size (adjusted FAR) based on lot size. 1 As part of Program 5.7, the Town will amend the Zoning Code to adopt minimum densities for each residential zone, consistent with the minimum densities listed in the General Plan Land Use Element. 2 The setback depends on whether the property line fronts a street or another property. 3 The different values in the building height represent the maximum building height outside primary and secondary ridge zone for different slopes or locations above average grade. Residential properties on slopes above 25 percent have higher height limits to facilitate development. 102 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
305
99 Table 4.2: Existing Commercial and Professional Zones Development Standards
Zone P C-1 C-2 C-L C-3
Classification Professional Neighborhood
Commercial
Downtown
Commercial
Limited
Commercial
District
Commercial
District
Minimum Lot
Area (Sq. Ft.) 5,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Minimum Lot
Width (Feet) 45 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Maximum
Density
(Units/Acre)
20 20 20 20 20
Maximum
Lot
Coverage
50% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Minimum
Front
Setback
(Feet)
20 0 0 0 0
Minimum
Side Setback
(Feet) 1
0/0/5/5/0 0/8/0/0 N/A N/A N/A
Minimum
Rear Setback
(Feet)
20 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Maximum
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) 2
N/A 0.65 2 1 1
Building
Height (Feet) 30 30 30 30 30
1 The different values in the minimum side setback row represent minimum interior side and minimum street side for residential developments, and minimum interior side, minimum street side, minimum adjacent to “R” districts, minimum adjacent to “P” districts and minimum adjacent to “C” districts commercial developments.
2 As part of Program 5.7, the Town will amend the Zoning Code to remove or increase the maximum FARs in the C-L and C-3 zones in order to provide development flexibility. 103 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
306
100
The following is description of each zoning district that permits or conditionally permits housing.

1. R-1-H Very Low-Density Residential District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Very Low Density Residential," which allows a maximum density of one residential unit for each gross acre of land. This District is generally applied to the primary ridges and ridge zone land areas of the Town as identified by the General Plan Land Use and Open Space Elements. The purpose of this District is to preserve and maintain the natural landforms and vegetation of the Town's primary ridges and ridge zone areas by limiting development as defined by the Town's General Plan, to further the Town's open space objectives as described in the General Plan, and to recognize and work in concert with the environmental opportunities and constraints of these unique and sensitive areas.

2. R-1-C Single-Family Residential-Conservation District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Low Density Residential Conservation," which allows a maximum density of one residential unit for each gross acre of land. This District is generally applied to those developed and undeveloped lots ranging from one to two acres in size and located at or above one hundred fifty (150) feet above Mean Sea Level (see map under Available Land inventory) and excepting those areas designated as "Very Low Density Residential" by the General Plan Land Use Element. The purpose of this District is to (1) require design review for most exterior improvements; (2) limit the over- all density within the district to a maximum of one (1) residential dwelling unit per acre of land; and (3) maintain and enhance the natural land forms and vegetation of the Town's secondary ridgelines and hillside areas by limiting development density and through the careful review of architectural design and site development characteristics for new development on undeveloped land, for certain reconstruction of existing development, and for certain expansions of existing development.

3. R-1 Single-Family Residential District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Single-Family Residential," which allows a density range of between one and six residential units for each acre of land. The minimum lot area for R-1 lots is also regulated by the Town’s Slope Density regulations. This District is generally applied to established residential neighborhoods characterized by single-family detached residential units on conventional lots. Most of the land area in this District has previously been developed. Additionally, this District is applied to lots located at or above one hundred fifty (150) feet above Mean Sea Level which are further regulated through the requirement for the careful review of architectural design and site development characteristics for new development on undeveloped land, for certain reconstruction of existing development, and for certain expansions of existing development.

4. R-2 Medium Density Residential District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Medium Density Residential," which allows a density range of between six and twelve residential units for each acre of land. This District is generally applied to lands adjacent to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and to land areas abutting or facing commercial land uses. Lots within the District would be developed with either duplex or triplex style development, although single-family detached residential units will also be permitted.

5. R-3 High Density Residential District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "High Density Residential," which allows a density range of between thirteen and twenty residential units for each acre of land. This District is generally applied to lands near commercial areas. Lots within the District would be developed with either apartment or condominium style development which reflects a compatibility with the Town's predominantly residential character.

6. C-2 Downtown Commercial District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Central Commercial," which allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0. This District is generally applied to existing commercial areas along San Anselmo Avenue and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard between The Hub and Ross Avenue. The purpose of this District is to identify those areas which form the Town's central business district. The primary uses expected are businesses referred to as "primary attractors," which are those that draw most of their customers from outside the community. The second type of businesses expected in this District are those which rely upon pedestrian activity generated by the primary attractors. Mixed-uses, combining commercial, office, and residential uses are also allowed within this District, however, offices and residential uses are encouraged to locate above the ground floor to preserve the District's primary purpose of providing for commercial activities.

7. C-L Limited Commercial District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Limited Commercial," which allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.0. This District is generally applied to properties lining both sides of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, west of The Hub, for approximately one-quarter (1/4) of a mile, ending at Bella Vista Avenue. The Land Use category was developed as part of the 1988 General Plan to allow only those commercial uses which will not result in the generation of traffic in volumes sufficient to disrupt the flow of vehicular traffic along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. Residential uses are allowed within this District which provide 104 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
307
101
mixed-uses, live/ work arrangements, and affordable housing that will not result in significant traffic disruption along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. Offices and residential uses are encouraged to be located above the ground floor to preserve this District's primary purpose for providing for commercial activities. Multifamily uses are encouraged to provide incentives for mass transportation use.

8. C-3 Commercial District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "General Commercial," which allows a maximum Floor Area Ratio of 1.0. This District is generally applied to those areas along Redhill Avenue, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, and the eastern end of San Anselmo Avenue. The purpose of this District is to identify those areas of Town which will afford opportunities for various commercial activities to serve the needs of the community as well as the needs of surrounding communities. Residential uses are allowed within this District which provide mixed-uses, live/work arrangements, and affordable housing that will not result in significant traffic disruption along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. Offices and residential uses are encouraged to be located above the ground floor to preserve this District's primary purpose for providing for commercial activities. Multifamily uses are encouraged to provide incentives for mass transportation use.

9. PF Public Facilities District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Public Facility." This District is generally applied to all existing major public land uses, including the Town Corporation Yard, Town Hall, the Police Department, the Public Library, the Fire Service buildings, public parking lots, parks, and public schools.

10.PPD Preliminary Planned Development District. The Preliminary Planned Development District is not specifically reflected on the General Plan Land Use Map but is intended to serve as an "overlay" District to all land areas within the Town. The purpose of this District is to provide opportunities to allow development on land areas within the Town which because of size, hillside location, unusual topography, natural re- sources, or aesthetic appeal cannot be developed through adherence to rigid development standards. The characteristics of these land areas require a flexible approach to provide logical and orderly development while promoting and protecting the public's health, safety, and general welfare. A PPD District is a designation established upon property which may only be developed pursuant to a Town approved specific plan.

11.SPD Specific Planned Development District. The Specific Planned Development District is not explicitly displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map but is intended to serve as an "overlay" District to all land areas within the Town. The purpose of this District is to provide opportunities to allow development on land areas within the Town which because of size, hillside location, unusual topography, natural resources, or aesthetic appeal cannot be developed through adherence to rigid development standards. The characteristics of these land areas require a flexible approach to provide logical and orderly development while promoting and protecting the public's health, safety, and general welfare. An SPD District refers to a specific plan development approved by the Town.

12.CF Community Facilities District. This District is displayed on the General Plan Land Use Map as "Community Facility." This District is generally applied to certain Town-owned property and allows for private use of said properties when appropriate.

The Town’s land development regulations have perpetuated a single-family detached development pattern, with most of the Town zoned in the R-1 single-family Zoning District which allows up to six dwelling units per acre. Development proposing 100 percent residential uses, with a maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre, is currently allowed by-right in the Town’s R-3 multifamily district, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 35 and SB 330; allowed with a Conditional Use Permit in the commercial districts including the C-1, C-2, C-L, and C-3 districts; and allowed with a specific plan in the SPD district. The Town maintains the current Zoning Code with all zoning and development standards on the Town’s website.

Recognizing that additional density is needed throughout the community to accommodate additional housing in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, the Housing Element includes Program 5.7 that will require the Town to amend the Zoning Code to accommodate higher density and affordable housing in the C-L, C-3, and SPD districts. The maximum density of the C-1 and C-2 districts will not be increased as the C-1 district is meant to be neighborhood scale commercial and mixed-use development while the increased density would not be complementary to the historic character of the C-2 district (Downtown San Anselmo). In addition, the Town will amend the Zoning Code as part of Program 5.7 and Actions 5.2a, 5.2b, 5.7a, 5.7b, 5.7c, 5.7d, and 5.7e to explicitly state that permitted uses are allowed by-right in accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

To better accommodate the densities needed to accommodate affordable housing development, the Housing Element include Action

5.3a that will establish an affordable housing overlay district to allow greater building height, density, and floor area ratio for multifamily and mixed-use developments that provide a specified percent of units as affordable to low- and very-low-income households. This overlay zone will be applied in addition to the rezonings proposed for the housing opportunity sites as stipulated under Action 5.7a, and it is not necessary to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Rather, the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone will serve 105 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
308
102
as an additional tool to enhance the development of affordable housing in San Anselmo. The Affordable Housing Overlay Zone will apply to properties zoned SPD, C-3, and R-3. In addition, property owners will be able to request a zoning amendment to fall within the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, and the Town will waive rezoning fees. Applicants seeking project approval within the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone will have the option of utilizing the objective development and design standards (Action 3.2a) for ministerial project approval or pursuing development through the Town’s traditional permitting process described in Chapter 4, Housing Constraints (with changes proposed under Action 5.9e to remove subjective findings from project review).

Off-Street Parking Standards
San Anselmo requires off-street parking for all new residential development, as shown in Table 4.3 below. For mixed-use projects the parking requirement must be satisfied for all uses unless a parking variance is granted. If a mixed-use project cannot provide off-street parking, the Town supports shared parking arrangements. Variances are also granted to reduce the overall parking requirement or to allow tandem parking.

Table 4.3 Residential Off-Street Parking
Standards

RESIDENTIAL LAND USE REQUIREMENT
Single-Family Dwelling, Attached or Detached, and Located below 150 mean sea level elevation 2 spaces per living unit
Single-Family Dwelling, Attached or Detached, and Located above 150 mean sea level elevation 3 spaces per living unit
Residential unit associated with an application under
California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. 1 space per living unit, except as provided in Title 10, Chapter 4 of the Town's Municipal Code
Accessory Dwelling Units 1 paved space per ADU
Multifamily Living Unit:

Studio or 1-bedroom living unit 1 space per unit
2-bedroom living unit 1.5 spaces per unit
3 or more-bedroomliving unit 2 spaces per unit
Source: Town of San Anselmo Municipal Code Parking Standards - Table 5A Although the Town does not allow overnight street parking in San Anselmo, variances or special permits for on-street overnight parking are granted.

In addition, the Police Department grants parking permits to downtown residents for overnight on-street parking if the distance to a public parking lot is greater than one block. The permit promotes safety for downtown residents by allowing them to park close to home at night when on-site parking is not an option. To improve the flexibility of the Town’s parking standards the Zoning Code, the Housing Element includes Action 5.2c to amend the Zoning Code to eliminate minimum parking requirements for new development and redevelopment within a half-mile of public transit in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 and Action 5.2d which will amend the Zoning Code to include flexible parking requirements and reductions in areas outside of a half-mile of public transit under certain circumstances. 106 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
309
103
Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
Housing element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population including, but not limited to, multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. The "Zoning Code” refers to Chapter 3 of Title 10 of the San Anselmo Municipal Code.

Table 4.4 summarizes the permitting status of each housing type based on San Anselmo’s zoning districts. Multifamily and single-family housing are conditionally permitted in all commercial zoning districts. While permitted uses (those uses marked as “P”) are considered by-right uses by the Town, the Town will amend the Zoning Code as part of Program 5.7 and Actions 5.2a, 5.2b, 5.7a, 5.7b, 5.7c, 5.7d, and 5.7e to explicitly state that permitted uses are allowed by-right in accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Table 4.4: Permitted Housing Types by Zone3
Zoning District
Housing Types R-1-H R-1-C R-1 R-2 R-3 P C-1 C-2 C-L C-3 Single-Family Attached -- -- -- P P C C C C C
Single-Family Detached P P P P P C C C C C
Multifamily Residential P (9) P (9) P (9) - P C C C C C Accessory Dwelling Units1 P(10) P(10) P(10) P P -- -- -- -- -- Single-Room Occupancy Units2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- C C C Supportive Housing3 P P P P P -- C C C C
Transitional Housing3 P P P P P -- C C C C
Residential Care Facility, Large4 C(8) C(8) C(8) C C -- -- -- -- -- Residential Care Facility, Small4 P P P P P -- -- -- -- -- Residential Care Facility for Persons with a
Chronic Life-Threatening Illness, Large4 C C C C C -- -- -- -- -- Residential Care Facility for Persons with a
Chronic Life-Threatening Illness, Small4 P P P P P -- -- -- -- -- Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, Large4 C(8) C(8) C(8) C C -- -- -- -- -- Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, Small4 P P P P P -- -- -- -- -- Drug and/or Alcoholism Treatment Facility, Small P P P P P -- -- -- -- -- Drug and/or Alcoholism Treatment Facility, Large C (8) C (8) C (8) C C -- -- -- -- -- Emergency Shelter5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P
Low-Barrier Navigation Center6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mobile And Manufactured Homes P P P P P C C C C C
Employee Housing7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Source: Town of San Anselmo Municipal Code Land Use Regulations - Table 3A 1 Action 6.2d will amend the Zoning Code to allow ADUs in accordance with State law. 2 Action 3.3c will amend the Zoning Code to allow single-room occupancy (SRO) units as a permitted use in the R-3 zone. 3 Action 5.8d will amend the Zoning Code to allow supportive and transitional housing in all zoning districts that allow residential uses in accordance with State law. 4 Action 7.2a will amend the Zoning Code to allow residential care facilities, both large and small, in accordance with State law. 5 Action 5.8e will amend the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters in accordance with State law. 6 Action 5.7g will amend the Zoning Code to allow low barrier navigation centers in compliance with State law. 7 Action 5.8c will amend the Zoning Code to allow employee housing in compliance with State law. 8 Use is prohibited on lots created by California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. 9 Two units permitted pursuant to Chapter 10-4.101, implementing California Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. 10 No accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling shall be allowed for units on parcels that use both the authority contained in Government Code Section 65852.21 and the authority contained in Government Code Section 66411.7 (Urban Lot Split). "P" = Permitted by-right; "C" = Conditional Use Permit; and “–“= Not permitted Accessory Dwelling Units
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one 107 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
310
104
(1) or more persons and is located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. An accessory dwelling unit also includes an efficiency unit, as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code, and a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.” In 2022, the Town adopted Ordinances Nos. 1172 and 1162 to further bring its administration and approval of ADUs in conformity with housing laws. The Town ministerially approves ADUs that comply with Government Code Section 65852.2(e) via a building permit.

The Housing Element includes Policy 6: Promote the Construction and Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units and specifies 14 actions to undertake the implementation of three programs that will streamline the ADU and JADU permitting process and promote the construction of ADUs and JADUs (Policy 6) and maintain consistency with Government Code Section 65852.2(e). Program 6.1 will require that the Town adopt pre-approved ADU plans to expedite approval and lowers costs associated with ADU construction. Program 6.2 will further streamline the ADU and JADU permitting process. Program 6.3 will require the Town to update the Zoning Code to allow one JADU and multiple ADUs on lots one acre and larger in the R-1, R-1-C, and R-1-H districts. In addition, Action 5.1a will establish a renter match program with ADU owners and prospective tenants and Action 1.3b will monitor the production of ADUs to ensure the provision of an adequate supply of ADUs.

Multifamily Rental Housing
Multifamily housing accounts for about 18 percent of the housing stock in the town. The Zoning Code allows multifamily development by right in the R-1, R-1-H, R-1-C, and R-3 zones. The commercial zones encourage both 100 percent residential development and mixed-use development and conditionally permit multifamily development in the P, C-1, C-2, C-L, and C-3 zones.

To address the constraints to provision of multifamily housing in San Anselmo, the Town will amend the Zoning Code as part of Programs 3.1, 5.2, and 5.7 and to allow duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes by right in the R-1, R-2, C-1, and C-L zones. In addition, the Zoning Code will allow them by right in the C-2 and C-3 zones on the upper floors or behind a ground-floor commercial/office use. The Town will also amend the Zoning Code to allow developments proposing up to six residential uses by right in the C-1, C-2, C-L, and C-3 zones, with provisions to require the residential uses be located on upper floors or behind a ground-floor commercial/office use in the C-2 and C-3 zones.

Manufactured Housing/Mobile Homes
Section 65852.3 of the California Government Code requires jurisdictions to allow manufactured homes on lots zoned for single-family dwellings subject to the same development standards that apply to conventional single-family dwellings. Section 10-3.1702 of the San Anselmo Municipal Code states that a residential unit may be a manufactured structure or mobile home. As a result, manufactured housing is subject to the same standards and regulations that apply to other single-family homes. Therefore, manufactured housing is allowed by right in the R-1, R-1-H, R-1-C, R-2, and R-3 zones and with a Conditional Use Permit in the P, C-1, C-2, C-L, and C-3 zones. In order to be approved under a Conditional Use Permit, Title 10, Article 13 of the San Anselmo Municipal Code requires single-family uses, including manufactured homes, meet the following standard: “The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town.” Given the provisions to allow manufactured housing as single-family dwellings in the town, there are no constraints associated with manufactured housing development standards or land use controls.

Residential and Community Care Facilities
The Community Care Facilities Act in the California Health and Safety Code requires that residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons (including foster care) be permitted by right similar to other residential uses. Residential care facilities serving more than six individuals can be permitted subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The Town allows residential care facilities serving six or fewer by right in residential zones and conditionally permits licensed large residential and community care facilities in residential zones.

Residential care facilities help persons with disabilities live in deinstitutionalized settings that facilitate integration into the community. The Town separates group homes into eight different categories based on occupancy size and characteristics: residential care facility (large), residential care facility (small), residential care facility for persons with a chronic life-threatening illness (large), residential care facility for persons with a chronic life-threatening illness (small), drug and/or alcoholism treatment facility (small), drug and/or alcoholism treatment facility (large), residential care facility for the elderly (large), and residential care facility for the elderly (small). Definitions for these categories specify state-licensed facilities. As 108 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
311
105
displayed in Table 4.4, all types are permitted or conditionally permitted in zones that allow housing. Therefore, the Zoning Code contains no provisions that impose additional development or standards on residential and community care facilities (licensed and unlicensed), including distance requirements, limits on capacity, and off-street parking. As demonstrated in Table 4.4, the Town does not discriminate in the commercial zones based on the characteristics of occupants and considers group homes as housing and subject to the same standards as other homes in their respective zoning districts.

The Housing Element includes Action 7.2a that will amend the Zoning Code and allow “Residential Care Facility, Small” in zoning districts that allow for single-family homes and Action 5.8a will amend the Zoning Code to define "group homes" to refer to residential and community care facilities.

Reasonable Accommodation
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy their home. For example, reasonable accommodation would allow covered ramps in the setbacks of properties that have already been developed to accommodate a resident’s mobility impairments.

HCD’s Group Home Technical Advisory (TA) states that “a request for a reasonable accommodation may only be denied if: (1) The individual on whose behalf the accommodation was requested is not an individual with a disability; (2) There is no disability-related need for the requested accommodation (in other words, there is no [connection] between the disability and the requested accommodation); (3) The requested accommodation would constitute a fundamental alteration of the services or operations of the person who is asked to provide the accommodation. (4) The requested accommodation would impose an undue financial and administrative burden on the person who is asked to provide the accommodation; or (5) The requested accommodation would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of others (i.e., a significant risk of bodily harm) or would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others, and such risks cannot be sufficiently mitigated or eliminated by another reasonable accommodation.

The Town adopted the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance in 2015, and subsequently updated it in 2018, to provide a procedure for people with disabilities to request reasonable accommodation in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies, and procedures.

Reasonable accommodations can be requested to exempt an applicant from various land use, zoning, or other regulations. Pursuant to Section 10-13.06 of the Municipal Code, a reasonable accommodation request must meet the following findings to be approved:

1. Whether the housing that is the subject of the request will be used by an individual considered disabled under the Acts.

2. Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts.

3. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the Town.

4. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a Town program, policy, practice and/or regulation, including but not limited to land use or zoning.

5. Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would adversely impact surrounding properties or uses

6. Whether there are reasonable alternatives that would provide an equivalent level of benefit without requiring a modification or exception to the Town’s applicable programs, policies, practices and/or regulations.

7. Whether the accommodation would alter the significance of an historic structure.

8. An approved request for reasonable accommodation is subject to the applicant’s compliance with all other applicable regulations.

9. A reasonable accommodation approved is considered a personal accommodation for the individual applicant and does not run with the land.

The Municipal Code requires the Town to make a decision on a reasonable accommodation request within 45-days and requires notification to adjacent properties, or other properties as determined by the Planning Director, 10 days prior to the decision. Furthermore, the Town allows people who are not residing on the property to appeal the Planning Director’s decision. These findings and procedures may lead to decisions that contradict State law. Action 9.1e will amend the Zoning Code to remove barriers for the approval of requests for reasonable accommodation in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In particular, the Town will revise the reasonable 109 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
312
106
accommodation procedures to comply with State law and remove Finding 5 required for reasonable accommodation approval which states “whether the requested reasonable accommodation would adversely impact surrounding properties or uses” to remove barriers to approval of reasonable accommodations."
Zoning Definition of Family
Under Adamson v. City of Santa Barbara (1980), definitions of family that discriminate against unrelated occupants does not serve any legitimate or useful objective or purpose recognized under the zoning and land planning powers of the Town, and therefore violates rights of privacy under the California Constitution. The San Anselmo Municipal Code does not include a definition for the term “family.” A residential unit is defined as a building, or portion thereof, for occupancy as living quarters for one household. A single-family residential unit is defined as a detached residential unit. San Anselmo’s definition encompasses persons not related by blood, marriage, or adoption and does not limit the number of unrelated persons living in a housing unit. Therefore, it is not a constraint to housing development in general or the provision of housing for persons with disabilities.

Transitional and Supportive Housing
The Town defines transitional housing, supportive housing, and target population in the Zoning Code as listed below:
• "Transitional housing" means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that require the termination of assistance and recirculating of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than six (6) months from the beginning of the assistance. • "Supportive housing" means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. • "Target population" means persons with low incomes who have one (1) or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for service provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Service Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.

Supportive housing services may include childcare, after-school tutoring, career counseling, etc. Most transitional housing includes a supportive services component. There are no known transitional housing facilities in San Anselmo. There are currently no site-based transitional or permanent housing projects, which includes supportive housing, for people experiencing homelessness in San Anselmo.

State law requires that supportive and transitional housing be considered a residential use of property and shall be subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone. In January 2015, the Town amended the Zoning Code to permit transitional and supportive housing by-right in all residential zoning districts and as a conditionally permitted use in all commercial zoning districts.

The amendments ensure that transitional and supportive housing is treated as a residential use in these zones, subject only to the same restrictions that apply to other residential uses in the same zone. The one exception to this is in the Professional (P) zoning district, in which single-family detached homes are conditionally permitted while transitional and supportive housing are not allowed. The Town also added definitions for supportive housing, transitional housing, and target population consistent with Government Code §65582(g), (j) and (i).The Housing Element includes Action 5.8d amending the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with State law and allow them in all zoning districts that allow residential uses in accordance with AB 2162.

Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters are generally defined as a facility which provides immediate short-term housing for individuals experiencing homelessness.

Pursuant to SB 2, jurisdictions with an unmet need for emergency shelters are now required to identify a zoning district where emergency shelters will be allowed as a permitted use without the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit. The identified zone must have sufficient capacity to accommodate the shelter need and, at a minimum, provide capacity for at least one year-round shelter. Within the identified zone, only objective development and management standards may be applied, given they are designed to encourage and facilitate the development of or conversion to an emergency shelter. Emergency shelters may be an accessory to a public or civic type use. Permit processing, development, and management standards for emergency shelters must be objective and facilitate the development of or conversion to emergency shelters. 110 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
313
107
As discussed in greater detail in the Current Housing Conditions and Trends section of this Housing Element, there are 54 estimated unsheltered people experiencing homelessness that the Town needs to plan for. In January 2015, the Town amended the Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters for up to 17 beds by-right (i.e., without a Conditional Use Permit or other discretionary permit) in the Limited Commercial (C-L), General Commercial (C-3), and Public Facilities (PF) zoning districts, all of which allow various types of residential uses. Parcels with this zoning designation are located in the heart of the town near transit routes, commercial services, and other amenities of San Anselmo, ensuring that tenants in an emergency shelter would have access to all necessary resources.

Emergency shelters must be located within one-half mile of a transit stop. This 17-bed limit does not pose a constraint for the development of emergency shelters in San Anselmo, as they are allowed in multiple areas of the town (see Table 4.5). To further facilitate development, the Housing Element includes Action 5.8e to revise the Town’s definition for “emergency shelter” to ensure it is consistent with State law and does not create a barrier to emergency shelter development.

In addition, AB 2339 (Government Code Section 65583 (a)(4)) requires jurisdictions to provide a calculation methodology for determining the sufficiency of sites available to accommodate emergency shelters in the identified zoning designation. As shown in Table 4.5 below, the designated emergency shelter areas in San Anselmo include 16 vacant, undeveloped parcels with a total of more than 10 acres of land area and therefore have adequate land capacity to accommodate a year-round emergency shelter that could provide temporary lodging for 2,221 homeless individuals. The

0.27-acre parcel (APN 006-173-22), for example, at the intersection of Greenfield Avenue and Hillsdale Drive is located along a major transportation corridor with access to nearby amenities and transit stops, making it more likely to support an emergency shelter. The table below summarizes the vacant, undeveloped parcels per district and the number of people that could be accommodated.

Table 4.5: Potential Emergency Shelter Sites in San Anselmo Zone Vacant
Parcels
Site Size Total Acres Total Individuals
Accommodated Min. 1 Sq. Ft. Max. Sq. Ft.

C-L 0 n/a n/a n/a 0 people
C-3 6 1,742 28,750 1.75 381 people
PF 9 3,049 184,694 8.45 1,840 people
Total 16 1,742 184,694 10.20 2,221 people 1 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65583, the number of people experiencing homelessness that can be accommodated on any site shall be demonstrated by dividing the square footage of the site by a minimum of 200 square feet per person.

The Town’s Emergency Shelter Ordinance establishes standards for on-site management and security, exterior lighting, common facilities, parking and refuse areas, and a minimum distance between shelters. Emergency shelters are permitted by right if they meet the standards listed in Section 10-12.03 of the Municipal Code and identified below:

1. An emergency shelter shall meet the following development and performance standards:
i. On-site management and on-site security shall be provided during hours when the emergency shelter is in operation. ii. Adequate external lighting shall be provided for security purposes. The lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and of intensity compatible with the surrounding area. iii. The development may provide one or more of the following specific common facilities for the exclusive use of the residents and staff:
d. Central cooking and dining room(s).
e. Recreation room.
f. Counseling center.
g. Childcare facilities.
h. Other support services.

2. Parking and outdoor facilities shall be designed to provide security for residents, visitors, employees, and the surrounding area.

3. A refuse storage area shall be provided that is completely enclosed with masonry walls not less than five feet high with a solid-gated opening and that is large enough to accommodate a standard-sized trash bin adequate for use on the parcel, or other enclosures as approved by the Planning Director. The refuse enclosure shall be accessible to refuse collection vehicles.

4. The agency or organization operating the emergency shelter shall comply with the following requirements:
111 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
314
108
i. Temporary shelter shall be available to residents for no more than six months. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.
ii. Staff and services shall be provided to assist residents to obtain permanent shelter and income. iii. The provider shall have a written management plan including, as applicable, provisions for staff training, neighborhood outreach, security, screening of residents to ensure compatibility with services provided at the facility, and for training, counseling, and treatment programs for residents.

5. No emergency shelter shall be located within 300 feet of another emergency shelter site.

6. The facility shall be in, and shall maintain at all times, good standing with Town and/or state licenses, if required by these agencies for the owner(s), operator(s), and/or staff on the proposed facility.

7. The maximum number of beds or clients permitted to be served (eating, showering and/or spending the night) nightly shall not exceed seventeen people.

The Town’s regulations for emergency shelters are not compliant with State law because the Town imposes development standards beyond the objective standards allowed by State law. The Housing Element includes Action 5.8e to amend the definition of emergency shelter and update development standards in the Zoning Code to comply with SB 2, AB 2339, and AB 139.

Single Room Occupancy (SROs) Units
Single room occupancy (SRO) units are one-room units for occupancy by one or two individuals as their primary residence, which are occupied for periods not less than 30 days. SROs are different than studios or efficiency units because SRO units are not required to have a kitchen or bathroom.

The San Anselmo Zoning Code establishes provisions for SRO units to provide clear standards for these small units and support opportunities for the development of permanent, affordable housing in close proximity to transit and services for small households and for persons with special needs.

Development standards for SRO units are provided in Section 10-3.1901 of the Municipal Code as follows:
• A Conditional Use Permit is required for the use of any rooms or units as SROs. • An SRO shall not be located within 300 feet of any other SRO, emergency shelter, or other similar program, unless such program is located within the same building or on the same lot.
• Units shall have a maximum floor area of 400 square feet and accommodate a maximum of two persons. • One washer and one dryer shall be provided for every ten units. • SROs may contain partial or full bathroom facilities, however, are not required. If an SRO does not contain full bathroom facilities, common bathroom facilities shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code for congregate residences with at least one full bathroomper floor. • SROs may contain partial or full kitchen facilities, however, are not required. If an SRO does not contain full kitchen facilities, common kitchen facilities shall be provided. For projects with more than 10 units, at least one full kitchen facility shall be provided per floor. • SRO units shall comply with all requirements of the California Building Code. • SRO facilities with seven or more units shall include twenty-four-hour on-site management, a dwelling unit designated for the manager, and a management plan.
• On-site parking must be provided as required for multifamily units. The Planning Commission may reduce parking requirements to one space per four units if the SRO is deed-restricted for extremely low-income housing or if alternative transportation is provided. With the exception of projects that allow only senior residents, projects with reduced parking shall provide one bicycle parking space per unit. • SRO units shall provide tenancy for a minimum of 30 days.

To make this affordable and efficient housing type more widely available throughout the community, the Housing Element includes Action3.3c that will require the Town to amend the Zoning Code to allow residential buildings containing the units as a permitted use in the R-3 zoning district.

Agricultural/Farm Employee Housing
State law asserts that employee housing for six persons or less shall be allowed in the same way residential structures are allowed in zones allowing 112 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
315
109
residential uses and that employee housing for up to 12 units or 36 beds shall be deemed an agricultural use and must be subject to the same regulations as any other agricultural use in the same zone. “No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance shall be required of this employee housing that is not required of any other agricultural activity in the same zone” (Employee Housing Act, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, 17021.6, and 17021.8). According to data derived from the 2020 American Community Survey and summarized in the Current Housing Conditions and Trends section of this Housing Element, no one in San Anselmo is employed in maintenance or production occupations in the agriculture/natural resources industry. In addition, there are no agricultural zones or uses in the Town. Therefore, the Town has not identified a need for specialized farmworker housing beyond overall programs for housing affordability.

The Town complies with the Employee Housing Act. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5, the Town deems any employee housing providing accommodation for 6 or fewer employees as a single-family structure. No Conditional Use Permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance is required of employee housing serving 6 or fewer employees that is not required of a single-family dwelling in the same zone. To ensure that the Town is not responsible for any barriers to the establishment of employee housing, the Housing Element includes Action 5.8c to amend its regulations for compliance with the Employee Housing Act as needed to accommodate future updates to State law.

Affordable Housing
Inclusionary zoning, also known as inclusionary housing, refers to a range of policies and practices that mandate or provide incentives for the inclusion of affordable housing units in new developments. Inclusionary zoning is a tool that cities and counties can adopt to increase the supply and funding for affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning policies establish a variety of requirements for the development of new housing, such as the number of affordable units required to be constructed in an otherwise market-rate residential development project, the minimum project size where inclusionary housing requirements would apply, affordability targets, and alternative means of achieving affordable housing goals when constructing new residential development projects.

Adopted on June 21, 2023, the San Anselmo Zoning Code sets inclusionary housing regulations for residential development projects (Title 10, Chapter 21- Affordable Housing) in accordance with the 2015 Housing Element Program H3.3- Inclusionary Housing Regulations and Establish Housing Impact Fees). The inclusionary housing regulations established an Affordable Housing Fund and Affordable Housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees.

The inclusionary housing regulations were based on a coordinated effort that included joining six other Marin County jurisdictions to develop a common inclusionary policy among all participating jurisdictions. The purpose of the effort, to the extent practicable, was to reduce variation and complexity in the various inclusionary ordinances and make it easier for developers to assess project costs across jurisdictions. The intent of the coordinated effort was to also remove constraints to development by ensuring that its inclusionary requirements were not more restrictive than other jurisdictions’ ordinances and that the inclusionary requirements would not create a cost burden that rendered a project financially infeasible. The jurisdictions engaged an economic consultant to conduct stakeholder outreach and research and provide recommendations.

The ordinance established a 20% inclusionary requirement for both for- sale and rental development projects, consistent with the requirements of many other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. The Town also revised the minimum project size threshold from one unit to two (excluding new single-family dwelling units, ADUs, and up to one SB 9 unit).

The ordinance established affordability targets for both Rental Projects and For-Sale Projects as shown below:

Required Affordable Unit Set Aside for For-Sale Projects:

Inclusionary Units and In-Lieu Fee for Rental Projections- Option 1 Project Size Required Affordable Unit Set Aside
Low Moderate Above Moderate
2-4 units 20%
5-29 units 5% 5% 10%
30 or more units 5% 10% 5%
Project Size Required Affordable Unit Set Aside and In-Lieu Fee Very Low Low Moderate In-Lieu Fee
2-10 units 10% 10%
11-29 units 10% 10%
30 or more units 15% 5%
113 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
316
110
Inclusionary Units and In-lieu Fee for Rental Projects- Option 2 Project Size Required Affordable Unit Set Aside and In-Lieu Fee Very Low Low Moderate In-Lieu Fee
2-10 units 15% 5%
11-29 units 15% 5%
30 or more units 10% 5% 5%
Developers may choose between the two options for rental projects as shown above.

The ordinance also establishes the target Area Median Income (AMIs), which determines the maximum rent or sales price that can be charged for each unit required to be affordable pursuant to Town policies. The target AMIs are the same for rental projects and for for-sale projects and reflect the most recent AMIs for Marin County as published by HCD (see below table). The target AMIs for the low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income units are set at the mid-point within the income range. The target AMI for very low-income units is set at the upper end of the income range, which is consistent with State density bonus law.

Very Low1 Low Moderate Above Moderate2
50% 65% 100% 135% 1 Not applicable for for-sale projects. 2 Not applicable for rental projects.

In-lieu fees were also analyzed in the inclusionary study and revised in the updated ordinance. The affordable housing in-lieu fees are calculated based on the housing affordability gap – the difference between what households at various income levels (very low, low, and moderate) can pay for housing and the cost of developing market rate housing.

The in-lieu fees for the study were calculated for three development types: for-sale single- family subdivisions, for-sale condominium townhomes, and rental apartments. The prototypes evaluated in the study were informed by recently built and proposed development projects in Marin as well as conversations with developers with experience in Marin County. The in-lieu fees established for both Rental and For-Sale projects is $362,817. The inlieu fee is increased or decreased in accordance with the year over year increase or decrease in the California Construction Cost Index. In addition to an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee, the Town Council adopted an affordable housing non-residential/commercial linkage fee. The Commercial/non-residential linkage fee is a fee that is imposed on non-residential development in order to mitigate the housing-related impacts on the community of the nonresidential development. The fees are paid into the Affordable Housing Fund, which is dedicated to promoting and facilitating affordable housing within the Town. The following fees apply to Commercial/Nonresidential development projects in-lieu of the provision of on-site affordable housing units:

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

The adoption of the Town’s inclusionary zoning and regulations are consistent with Housing Element Program 3.3, Action 3.3b, Program 5.7, and Action 5.7f that establishes an inclusionary housing ordinance to require affordable housing be provided as part of all new multifamily and mixeduse development.

Building Code and Code Enforcement
The Town’s Building Code is based on the latest 2022 version of the California Building Code, along with all required updates. The Town has not adopted amendments to the 2022 California Building Code, but the Municipal Code preserves local amendments adopted in perpetuity to accompany previous versions of the Building Code. Local amendments have been made to the Building Codes for health and safety purposes. For example, the Town requires that new homes install Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) vents to improve fire safety and resilience. The Town also requires that new homes be constructed one foot above the base flood elevation, while the California Building Code requires that homes just be elevated to the base flood elevation. The additional foot of elevation reduces homeowners’ insurance rates, decreases structural damage and repairs needed due to flooding, and enhances overall resident health and safety. These amendments do not significantly diminish the ability to develop affordable 114 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
317
111
housing or accommodate persons with disabilities or other special needs groups.

In Section 9-4.01 of the Municipal Code, the Town has also adopted a Building Code amendment requiring that all electrical and communication service laterals, including those for cable television service, to any new building or building undergoing a substantial improvement be undergrounded. Many other jurisdictions require that utilities be undergrounded as well to improve resiliency and reduce the risk of hazards induced by wildfire, earthquakes, storm events, and other natural disasters. While this amendment may increase the cost of development, it ultimately preserves and improves the health and safety of San Anselmo residents. Regardless, the Town recognizes the increased cost burdens that this requirement places on housing development. To ensure that the Town is not responsible for barriers to affordable housing development, the Town will identify and seek grants and other potential funding sources to subsidize undergrounding utilities for affordable housing development (Actions 5.5a through 5.5d).

San Anselmo’s Building Code enforcement practices are complaint-driven, as are those of 70 percent of the local governments surveyed by HCD.

The usual process is for a code enforcement officer to conduct a field investigation after a complaint has been submitted. If the complaint is found to be valid, the immediacy and severity of the problem is evaluated, and the code enforcement officer reaches out to the property owner to ameliorate the issue. Town Staff report that the most common complaints received are from neighbors reporting unpermitted work on residential units. There is no indication that code enforcement practices unduly penalize older structures.

Site Improvements
Development of residential units involves connecting to utilities in the right-of-way. All electrical distribution lines, telephone, cable television, and similar service wires or cables, which provide services to new development, are to be installed underground. New subdivisions will require site improvements such as:
• Streets must be graded, have a rock base and be paved or surfaced to widths and grades as provided by the Town Municipal Code. • Structures shall be installed in accordance with the approved improvement plan. • Curbs and gutters to be required along the streets.
• Paved sidewalks shall be constructed where required by the Town Municipal Code. • Retaining walls may be required wherever topographic conditions warrant or where necessary to retain fill or cut slopes within the rights-ofway or slope easements. • Potable water must be provided by connection to the Marin Municipal Water District system or through approval of a water well permit. • Provisions shall be made for adequate sewage.
• Trees, shrubs, and ground cover will be required where there is insufficient vegetation. • Provisions shall be made for filling lands as required by the approved improvement plans. • Provisions shall be made for drainage and flood control in accordance with the approved improvement plans. • The faces of cut and fill slopes shall be prepared and maintained to control against erosion, both during and after construction. • All utility distribution facilities, with the exception of equipment appurtenant to such underground facilities, installed within and for the purpose of supplying service to any subdivision shall be placed underground. • Street signs shall be placed at all street intersections and shall be in accordance with specifications on file with the Town Engineer. Street Improvements:
• If the portion of the street upon which the parcel fronts require widening or extension to conform to the Streets and Highways Plan of the Town, rights-of-way for such widening and/or extension have been dedicated to the Town by the owner of the parcel; and • That frontage improvements in accordance with the current Town specifications in use by the Department of Public Works and at the location prescribed by the Town Engineer in accordance with the Streets and Highways Plan of the Town have been installed at no cost to the Town; or
• That such frontage improvements will be so installed as a part of the development applied for and prior to occupancy thereof; or • That in lieu of such improvements the applicant has deposited with the Town the estimated cost thereof; or 115 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
318
112
• That the improvement requirement should be waived or deferred due to extenuating circumstances. If the Town Engineer finds that improvements should be deferred, he shall require as a prerequisite to issuance of the permit that the owner agrees in writing to undertake the construction of the required improvements within ninety (90) days after written notice to begin construction is mailed to the owner at the premises or such other address as the owner may from time to time furnish the Town. Such agreement shall further provide that in the event of the owner's default in commencing and completing the improvements, the Town may at its option:
◦ Treat the agreement as a petition for installation of improvements pursuant to the provisions of Sections 5870 et seq. the Streets and Highways Code of the State; or
◦ Cause the work to be done and the cost thereof assessed as a lien against the owner's property. Such an agreement shall also run with the land and shall be recorded to constitute notice to prospective purchasers or encumbrances.

To ensure that required site improvements are not a barrier to development, the Housing Element will include Action 5.4b to evaluate its requirements for on- or off-site improvements to determine which are feasible to minimize or eliminate to reduce construction financing costs for affordable housing development projects.
116 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
319
113
Fees and Exactions
The Town collects fees to help cover the costs of application processing, inspections, and environmental review. Per State law, these fees are limited to the cost to the agencies of performing these services. Table 4.6 is an inventory of planning and zoning permit processing fees for housing developments. The table compares planning fees associated with housing development in the Town of San Anselmo and adjacent jurisdictions.

The Town’s application fees are comparatively low. The fee schedule for housing developments is predictable as it’s charged on a flat rate basis (regardless of number of units) and serves as a complete transaction, as compared to deposit fees. Planning fees are collected when the application is deemed complete. Compared to the Town’s fees, the table shows that nearby jurisdictions charge higher planning fees. The complete list of Town fees is accessible online at https://www.townofsananselmo.org/206/Fees. The Town also provides an online portal eTRAKiT (aspgov.com) where applicants can estimate fees prior to submitting their application.

Table 4.6: Comparative Housing Development Planning Fees Application Type San Anselmo Marin County Ross Fairfax
Administrative (Staff Level)
Design Review (Residential)
$ 1,200 $4,643 (Major)
$1,741 (Minor)
$8,351 (Major)
$5,924 (Minor)
$1,218 (Single Family)
$6,500 (Multifamily)
Planning Commission Public
Hearings $ 3,500 $ 8,125 $5,924 $ 2,550
Lot Line Adjustment
(Administrative) $1,200 $ 2,321 $ 320 $ 1,500
Administrative Lot Merger $ 500 $ 2,750 $ 2,750 $ 2,750 Administrative Minor Exception $ 500 $2,086 $5,924 $ 800 Source: Town of San Anselmo Fee Schedule (Effective July 2022). Application types shown for other jurisdictions represent the closest approximation to Town of San Anselmo’s process and procedures
Table 4.7 shows fees charged to prototypical single-family, multifamily, and ADU developments in San Anselmo. As shown in the table, the fees are established based on time and materials for processing the application. The hourly rate to process an application as established by the fee schedule is currently $136.00. It is estimated staff level reviews will take 4-12 hours to process an application and it is estimated that Planning Commission reviews will take 12-36 hours depending on the complexity of the project application or based on the number of units or unit size. Most of the Town’s planning fees apply to projects seeking discretionary approval of exemptions to the standards in the Zoning Code or the General Plan. Additional fees are assessed for developments, residential and non-residential, that would require actions set forth in the Subdivision Map Act. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts new construction of small structures in urban areas from environmental review, and therefore environmental review fees listed apply to major subdivisions. The Town has not adopted an ordinance for the purpose of administering development impact fees, aside from a road impact fee levied by the Building Department. The road impact fee covers the costs of maintaining and repairing damaged roads caused by construction activity. Building permit fees, including the road impact fee, are charged based on the valuation of the project.

Building permit fees are waived for ADUs deed-restricted to affordable for at least 55 years.

The Town relies on numerous agencies and special districts to levy fees on new developments for the provision of urban services, which adds to development costs. These agencies and special districts include Ross Valley School District, Tamalpais Union High School District, Ross Valley Fire Department, Marin Municipal Water District, Ross Valley Sanitary District, and Central Marin Sanitation Agency. The Ross Valley School District requires the payment of an impact fee of $3.48 per square foot for new construction over 500 square feet. The Ross Valley Fire Department charges minimum plan review fees of $369 for fire protection plans, $534 for sprinkler system plans for residential projects less than 5,000 square feet, $602 for sprinkler system plans for residential projects greater than 5,000 square feet, and $534 for fire alarm plans and $323 for fire alarm system modifications. The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) adopted Ordinance 445 which amended the District’s code to comply with Assembly Bill 881 and does not require a separate meter or payment of a connection for JADUs and ADUs that meet the following criteria:
• Only one ADU or JADU exists on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling; and • The ADU or JADU is within the proposed space of the single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling or accessory structure and may include an expansion of up to 150 square feet beyond the existing dimensions of an existing accessory structure for the purposes of ingress and egress; and
• The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling; and • The side and rear setbacks are sufficient for fire and safety. 117 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
320
114
Table 4.7: Development Fee Example
Single Family Home 8-unit Multifamily ADU
Unit Size (sq. ft.) 955 7,640 700
Common area (sq. ft.) 0 0 0
# Bedrooms each unit 4 2 1
Cost of construction (sq. ft.) $400 $250 $250
Project Valuation $382,000 $1,910,000 $175,000
Town Fees
Design Review $955 $955 $955
General Plan Maintenance Fee $267 $47 $47
Technology Fee $587 $104 $104
Planning Training Fee $200 $35 $35
Building Permit $6,665 $1,179 $1,179
Plan Check $1,088 $1,088 $1,088
Energy Fee $1,000 $177 $177
Plumbing $1,000 $177 $177
Electrical $1,000 $177 $177
Mechanical $1,000 $177 $177
Road Impact Fee1 $5,730 $28,650 $2,625
TOWN FEES TOTAL $19,490 $32,766 $4,471
Estimated Fees of Other Districts
Water Connection – MMWD2 $16,027 $10,036 $0
Ross Valley Sanitary District3 $9,975 $8,067 $318
Central Marin Sanitation Agency4 $7,666 $7,666 $7,666
Ross Valley School District $3,323 $26,587 $2,436
Ross Valley Fire Department $328 $328 $328
DISTRICT FEES TOTAL $28,254 $52,684 $10,748
TOTAL FEES $56,810 $85,450 $17,489
TOTAL FEES (per unit) $56,810 $10,681 $17,489
Source: Town of San Anselmo
1 1.5% value of the project, collected by the Building Department at the time of issuance of a building permit. 2 Water connection fees are based on estimated consumption, which ranges from 0.8 to 0.24 acre-foot, depending upon area. This example uses 0.24 acre-foot for the single-family house and averages the high and low amounts for the multifamily unit. The Water District also charges for water meter installation and adds an additional $7,040 installation fee. 3 Sanitary district fees are based upon a number of fixture units, which range from one unit for a wash basin to three units for a toilet. The base capacity charge of $7,339 for any equivalent dwelling unit includes 23 fixture units. Additional fixture units are charged at the rate of $318 each. The single-family example assumes 29 fixture units. Additionally, a new connections permit is $728. Sewer Service Charges are $10,293 for a single-family home with a newly constructed detached ADU, an additional $318 dollars compared to sewer service charges for single-family homes ($9,975). ADU constructed within the existing interior space or converted of an existing, detached accessory structure are exempt from capacity charges, however, a $318 dollar fee is charged per additional fixture unit. 4 Regional Capacity Charges for a new residential sewer connection are $7,666.16 based on the Central Marin Sanitary District 2022-23 Fee schedule.

The Ross Valley Sanitary District charges sewer capacity charges for newly constructed residential units. The base charge of $5,987 includes 23 fixture units. Fixture units range from one unit for a wash basin to three units for a toilet. Additional fixture units are charged at the rate of $260 each.

A permit fee, which includes up to two inspections of $594 is also charged.

The Central Marin Sanitation Agency charges a regional capacity charge of $ $7,666.16 (indexed to inflation) for each new sewer connection serving a residential unit, whether that unit is in a single-family or multifamily configuration. The Agency has a policy to reduce capacity charges for ADUs, senior residents and affordable housing projects by the same proportionate amount as the member agency’s fee.

Table 4.8 shows the typical fees for new single-family and multi-family development. The fees for housing development do not represent a significant portion of overall cost, indicating that the Town’s fees do not pose a constraint on the development of housing. 118 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
321
115
Table 4.8 : Estimated Development Fees to Overall Housing Development Costs Housing Type Town Fees Other
District Fees
Total Fees Estimated Development
Cost per Unit1
Estimated Proportion of Fees to
Development Costs per Unit
Single-Family Unit $19,490 $37,320 $56,810 $382,000 15% Multifamily Unit $4,096 $6,585 $10,681 $238,750 4%
1 Valuation (construction costs)
Zoning Fees and Transparency
In order to comply with California Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1), the Planning Department’s homepage provides clear, labeled links to all zoning and development standards at https://www.townofsananselmo.org/1021/Planning. From this page, the public has direct access to all information that the Town uses to evaluate housing developments for conformity to its land use and development regulations including:
• Application forms and requirements
• An itemized schedule of Town Council, Planning Commission, and other committee meetings • The Zoning Code
• An interactive zoning map
• General Plan.

The webpage also provides full disclosure of the Town’s ADU regulations and application permits, racial covenant modification procedures, proposed zoning amendments, fair housing resources, and handouts and forms. The webpage is updated as needed to remain current.

Environmental Review and Processing
The Town of San Anselmo processes typical small development in three to four months from the time of complete application submittal to building permit approval. This is due to the efficiency of a small-town government, the lack of an application backlog, and the fact that most public facilities are already in place. Single-family housing development applications generally take less time to review than multifamily proposals. When proposed single-family developments are in conformity with the General Plan and existing zoning, it is possible to process the required planning applications, once deemed complete, within a month. Some new single-family and all multifamily development proposals are subject to Design Review, but Town Staff note that the addition of Design Review does not typically lengthen the timeline of project review due to efficiencies in the Town’s established process for streamlined one-time project review from all required departments. Housing development proposals requiring discretionary approval also require environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. public hearings, and local review. The total review time for multifamily projects, from the initial developer contact with the Town to final approval, can take up to a year depending on the complexities or environmental constraints of the project.

Below are typical processing times and procedures for single-family and multifamily developments.

Single-Family Residence
• Administrative Design Review:
◦ Administrative design review, to ensure compliance with Objective Design Standards (Action 3.2a), will be required to construct new singlefamily residences. (See Action 3.2a) ◦ Staff will review the application for compliance with objective standards, adhering to timeline requirements pursuant to relevant State laws.

Once the application is deemed compliant, the Planning Director will approve the project in accordance with State law. ◦ Given that Action 3.2a has not yet been implemented, the Town does not have an estimate for the permit processing timeline. However, Town staff anticipate that the timeline will be shorter than traditional design review due to fewer steps required for project approval. • Traditional Design Review:
119 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
322
116
◦ Traditional design review is required to construct new single-family residences that do not comply with Objective Design Standards (Action

3.2a). If an applicant is requesting a variance, use permit, or floor area exception as part of the project, these applications are processed concurrently with the design review application. The applicant submits a completed application, filing fee and plans to the Planning Department who transmits it to other departments (generally Fire, Public Works and Building) for review and comment. ◦ Staff prepares a public notice which is sent out ten days prior to the Planning Commission hearing and a staff report analyzing the project and recommending conditions of approval is prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission. A public hearing is held where the applicant and members of the public may comment on the merits of the project. ◦ It typically takes two to four weeks from the time that the application for single-family residence is deemed complete until it is approved by the Planning Commission. Following approval, there is a ten-day appeal period; if no appeal is filed, the applicant may secure a building permit and commence construction.

Multifamily Residential
• Administrative Design Review:
◦ Administrative design review, to ensure compliance with Objective Design Standards (Action 3.2a), will be required of multifamily residential projects. (See Action 3.2a)
◦ Staff will review the application for compliance with objective standards, adhering to timeline requirements pursuant to relevant State laws.

Once the application is deemed compliant, the Planning Director will approve the project in accordance with State law. ◦ Given that Action 3.2a has not yet been implemented, the Town does not have an estimate for the permit processing timeline. However, Town staff anticipate that the timeline will be shorter than traditional design review due to fewer steps required for project approval. • Traditional Design Review:
◦ Traditional design review is required to construct new multifamily residential projects that do not comply with Objective Design Standards (Action 3.2a). If an applicant is requesting a variance, use permit, or floor area exception as part of the project, these applications are processed concurrently with the design review application. The applicant submits a completed application, filing fee and plans to the Planning Department who transmits it to other departments (generally Fire, Public Works and Building) for review and comment. ◦ Staff prepares a public notice which is sent out ten days prior to the Planning Commission hearing and a staff report analyzing the project and recommending conditions of approval is prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission. A public hearing is held, where the applicant and members of the public may comment on the merits of the project. ◦ It typically takes two to five weeks from the time that the application for a small multifamily residential project is deemed complete until it is approved by the Planning Commission. Following approval, there is a ten-day appeal period; if no appeal is filed, the applicant may secure a building permit and commence construction.

The information that follows shows the typical steps and processing time for various types of permits and housing development types in San Anselmo.

Typical Processing Time by Permit
• Ministerial Review: 2 - 6 weeks
• Conditional Use Permit: 4 – 6 weeks
• Variance: 4 – 6 weeks
• Zoning Change: 16 – 30 weeks
• General Plan Amendment: 16 – 30
weeks
• Architectural/Design Review: 4 – 6
weeks
• Initial Study/Negative or Mitigated
Negative Declaration: 4 – 6 months
• Environmental Impact Report: 6 - 8
months
Typical Processing Procedures by Project Type
New Single-Family Home: 4 - 6 weeks (this could include Traditional Design Review and Variances processed concurrently).

Duplex to Fourplex: 4 – 24 weeks (this could include Traditional Design Review, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and environmental review are processed concurrently as well as a Tentative Parcel Map if they are to be for-sale units). 120 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
323
Multifamily (5 or more units): 8 – 10 months (this could include Traditional Design Review, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and environmental review are processed concurrently as well as a Tentative Final Map if they are to be for-sale units).

The Town recognizes that the time required to process a development proposal can be a barrier to housing production if it is lengthy. The Town has streamlined the development review process over the years to make it more efficient, while still providing adequate opportunity for public re- view and input, as required for discretionary projects. In addition, much of the permit processing time frame is dictated by State-mandated noticing and processing procedures (i.e., SB 35) that help assure community review of projects. The Town has not adopted specific SB 35 regulations in the Zoning Code and follows State requirements to provide ministerial review of projects that meet SB 35 eligibility criteria. As part of Action 3.2a, the Town will develop specific written procedures for evaluation of ministerial housing projects, including projects that qualify for streamlined review under Senate Bill 35, for inclusion in the objective design standards that Town staff can use to formally process SB 35 applications.

Processing times for projects in San Anselmo are similar to, if not faster than, other jurisdictions in Marin County. Projects requiring documentation of environmental impact, including projects that are categorically exempt, are processed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. In addition, housing development applications are processed in the Town in amanner consistent with the Housing AccountabilityAct (HAA) and Permit Streamlining Act.

Title 10 Chapter 3 of the Municipal Code identifies a hierarchy of discretionary actions, which includes design review. Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the Town has a maximum of 30 days to conduct an initial review of the project and determine whether it is “complete,” or whether additional information is needed to evaluate the project. While this may seem like a long time, it includes time to refer the application to different departments and outside agencies involved in development review, and to receive and consolidate these comments. Staff tries to anticipate analyses that will be needed for environmental review or during the public hearing process (such as any special studies). If the project does not meet various Town standards, it may also need to be revised. In the past several years, the Town has improved the Town website, submittal checklists, and handouts to identify what information is required for an applicant to be deemed “complete.” The Town works closely with developers to expedite approval procedures so as not to put any unnecessary timing constraints on development. For a typical project, an initial pre-consultation meeting is held with the Planning Department, Building Department, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department to discuss the development proposal. Then, a description of the project and application must be filed with a site plan, which is first reviewed by the Planning Department and other departments and agencies (such as the Building Department) for consistencywith theMunicipal Code and General Plan guidelines. After the project is approved, the Building Department performs plan checks and issues building permits. Throughout construction, the Building Department will perform inspections to monitor the progress of the project. This process does not place an undue time constraint on most developments due to the close working relationship between Town Staff, developers, and the decision-making bodies (Planning Commission and Town Council). Discretionary projects that require design review or request a variance may require a Planning Commission meeting. Large-scale or complex projects may include additional public hearings to respond to comments and make modifications. The additional time, as well as the public hearing can pose a constraint to the development of multifamily projects. To mitigate this constraint, the Town recently implemented a pre-application process to review project proposals with applicants and identify any items of concern before application submittal.

To further streamline the approval process for new housing, the Housing Element will include Action 3.2a that will require the Town to adopt objective design standards for all housing types, Action 3.1C that will require the Town to adopt pre-approved plans for missing middle housing types, Program 6.1 that will require the Town to adopt pre-approved ADU plans. 117
121 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
324
118
Design Review
The Town of San Anselmo will offer two paths for the approval of residential development throughout the community. The first path will be an objective, ministerial approval process that relies on objective design standards for all housing types (Action 3.2a) as well as pre-approved plans for missing middle housing (Action 3.1c) andAccessory Dwelling Units (Program 6.1). The second path will continue to utilize the City’s existing, traditional Design Review process as detailed below.

The Town of San Anselmo Municipal Code provides standards and criteria for use by decision-makers when reviewing a project for design review approval. The Town also provides further Design Review details in handouts available on the Town website and at the Planning Department counter in Town Hall. The Planning Director or the Planning Commission serves as the review body for Design Review. Pursuant to Section 10-3.1504 of the Municipal Code, the Planning Director may approve Design Review applications for minor modifications to existing buildings and all additions in residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission shall review all other Design Review applications. The Town currently requires that new residential projects that trigger the Design Review requirement achieve the following findings:
• For qualifying Residential R-3 (four or more units, churches, convalescent homes) projects:

1. Is functionally and aesthetically compatible with the existing improvements and the natural elements in the surrounding area;

2. Provides for protection against noise, odors, and other factors which may make the environment less desirable;

3. Will not tend to cause the surrounding area to depreciate materially in appearance or value or otherwise discourage occupancy, investment, or orderly development in such area;

4. Will not create unnecessary traffic hazards due to congestion, distraction of motorists, or other factors and provides for satisfactory access by emergency vehicles and personnel;

5. Will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons using the improvement or endanger property located in the surrounding area; and

6. Is consistent with the Town General Plan.
• For qualifying Residential R-1, R-2, and R-3 (three (3) or fewer units) sites below one hundred fifty (150) feet Mean Sea Level (flatland) projects:

1. Conformance to Findings 1 through 6;

2. Will not unreasonably impair access to light and air of structures on neighboring properties;

3. Will not unreasonably affect the privacy of neighboring properties including not unreasonably affecting such privacy by the placement of windows, skylights and decks;(4)Will be of a bulk, mass and design that complements the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood; and(5)Will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such neighborhood.
• For qualifying Residential R-1-H, R-1-C, and R-1 design review for lots that include any area at or above one hundred fifty (150) feet Mean Sea Level (hillside) projects:

1. Conformance to Findings 1 through 9; 11. Adequacy of screening; and

2. Selection of architectural features and colors that enable the structure to blend with its environment and which results in a low visual profile.
• For projects that request to exceed the maximum allowed dwelling size on residential lots that include any area at or above one hundred fifty (150) Mean Sea Level):

1. Conformance to Findings 1 through 12;

2. Will not be materially visible offsite;

3. Is of a scale, intensity, and design that integrates with the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood;

4. Internal efficiency and/or space utilization problems exist.

5. Required conditions if approval is granted to exceed the maximum dwelling size guidelines based on existing landscaping:
i. A landscape plan shall be submitted showing location, type and size of existing landscapes screening, and 122 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
325
119
ii. (Any existing landscape screening, which is part of an approved landscape plan, shall be maintained. If said landscaping is lost due to natural disaster, the owner shall replace it per the plan. If said landscaping is removed or neglected for any reason other than a natural disaster, the owner shall replace it per the plan and may be subject to either an infraction or a misdemeanor.

The criteria listed above are intended to decrease “uncertainty” for applicants, and as much as possible, provide objective and clear standards, considerations and expectations for new development. To more clearly communicate to the development community the design expectations of the Town and to streamline the development approval process, San Anselmo will evaluate and update the design review findings to be objective (Action 5.9e). In addition, as part of Program 5.7 and Actions 5.2a, 5.2b, 5.7a, 5.7b, 5.7c, 5.7d, and 5.7e, the Town will amend the Zoning Ordinance indicating that projects providing affordable housing in accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i), on sites identified in the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory will not be subject to Design Review provisions that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

Evaluation of Inclusionary Zoning as a Constraint
Affordable Housing by Choice — Trends in California Inclusionary Programs (NPH, 2007) looked at housing produced through inclusionary programs from January 1999 through June 2006 and found that nearly one-third of California jurisdictions now have inclusionary programs, and more than 80,000 Californians have obtained housing through inclusionary programs. In 2021, a study1 of IH programs in local jurisdictions nationwide throughout 2018 and 2019. Some of the key takeaways found that:
• In 2019, there were 228 IH programs in California across 162 jurisdictions. As of 2022, that figure has grown to 239 IH programs, which accounts for approximately 23 percent of IH programs nationwide. In California, eight programs have created 1,000 or more affordable units since adoption and 57 programs have created between 28,960- and 29,180-units total per program. • Under the Duty to Serve Rule, legal agreements such as deed restrictions, deed covenants, ground leases, development agreements, or affordable housing agreements are necessary to establish price and rent restrictions, ensuring inclusionary units are affordable. These legal agreements need to have a resale formula that limits homeowners’ proceeds at resale. • Approximately 73 percent of IH programs nationwide can create affordable units directly without reliance on fees to fund projects.

Table 4.9 compares inclusionary housing requirements across multiple Marin County jurisdictions. Many communities offer a variety of concessions or incentives for construction of affordable units including, but not limited to, density bonuses or incentives of equal financial value, waiver or modification of development standards, provision of direct financial assistance, and deferral or reduction of payment of fees. Several jurisdictions in Marin County also require smaller projects that have an insufficient number of units to cover the full cost of constructing an affordable unit to pay a fee.
1 Inclusionary Housing in the United States, published by Ground Solutions in 2021. 123 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
326
120
Table 4.9: Inclusionary Housing Requirements in Marin
County
Jurisdiction Minimum Project
Size Percent Required
Corte Madera 2 units
2-10 units: Can either restrict 10% of the total development for very low-income households and pay a 10% in-lieu fee, or restrict 15% of the total development for low- income households and pay a 5% in-lieu fee.
11-29 units: Can either restrict 10% of the total development for very low-income households and pay a 10% of all proposed units for moderate-income housing or restrict 15% of the total development for low-income households and 5% of the total development for moderate-income households
<30 Units: Can restrict 15% of the total development for very low-income housing and pay a 5% in lieu fee or restrict 10% of the total development for very low-income households, 5% of the total development for low- income households, and 5% of the total development for moderate-income households.

Larkspur 5-14 units 5-14 units: 15% of the total development must be restricted for lower-income households. 15+ units: 20% of the total development must be restricted for lowerincome households.

Marin County 1 unit
Single-family homes with more than 2,000 square feet of conditioned floor area, and teardowns or major remodels of single-family homes that result in over 500 square feet of new space where the new total conditioned floor area is greater than 2,000 square feet:

Must pay an affordable housing impact fee of $6.69 per square foot for projects with conditioned floor area less than 3,000 square feet and $14.20 per square foot for projects with more than 3,000 square feet.

Multifamily housing (including condominiums, single-family conversions1, and subdivisions with a proposed development of one or more new dwellings) require 20% of the total development be restricted for lower-income households (in-lieu fee for below

0.5 unit) for projects proposing 2+ new units or lots.

Mill Valley 2 units 2-9 units: Must pay an in-lieu fee for the creation of affordable housing.

Novato 3 units
Dependent on number of units. At a minimum, projects providing 3-6 units must restrict 10% of all proposed units for lower-income households or pay an in-lieu fee. At a maximum, projects providing 20 or more units must restrict 20% of the total development for lower-income households.

San Rafael 2 units
2-15 units: Must restrict 10% of the total development for lower-income households. 15+ units: Must restrict 15% of the total development for lower-income households. 21+ units: Must restrict 20% of the total development for lower-income households.

Sausalito Multifamily and
mixed-use projects of 4+ units
4+ units: Must restrict 15% of the total development for lower-income households. Qualifying projects must provide at least one income-restricted unit.

Tiburon N/A
3-6 units: Must contribute pro rata funds to the Town's in-lieu housing fund. 7-12 lots or units: 10% of the total development must be designated for special needs households; 5% of all units must be handicapped accessible; and 15% of the total development must be designated as affordable units 1A single-family home conversion to multi-family residential, typically as a duplex or fourplex.

The Town of San Anselmo has not codified inclusionary housing requirements. However, the Town encourages developers to include affordable units in their projects. Sohner Court, a 22-unit condominium development, provided two ownership units affordable to moderate-income households in 1989. 600 Red Hill LLC, a 28-unit rental project provided two deed restricted very-low income units in 2021 and 1 Lincoln Park, a 16-unit senior housing rental project, also provided two deed restricted low income units in 2016. The 2015-2023 Housing Element included a program to align San Anselmo’s inclusionary policies with other jurisdictions and make the requirements more applicable to the types of development anticipated in San Anselmo. As of May 2023, the Town plans to adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in the summer of 2023, and the Housing Element will include Action 5.7f to establish an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Additionally, the Town’s Housing Element will include Action 9.2a to establish an Affordable Housing Overlay District to further incentivize the inclusion of below market rate units in new housing development.

Density Bonus Ordinance
The Town’s Density Bonus Ordinance provides incentives to developers who comply with California Government Code Sections 65915 through 65918 (the State Density Bonus Law) to include a portion of the developments overall units to be affordable housing. Chapter 11 (Density Bonus) of 124 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
327
121
Title 10 of the Municipal Code establishes the standards and procedures for granting density bonuses for housing developments that comply with the Ordinance requirements. The Town’s Density Bonus implement the regulations of the State's Density Bonus Law. Applicants must fill out an application to request a State Density Bonus and indicate the manner to which the applicant will satisfy affordability requirements for the housing units proposed for a density bonus, a description of any requested incentives, concessions, or modifications to development standards, and the development must acknowledge that the project will be subject to a condition of approval and deed restriction to retain affordability of the affordable unit(s) for at least 55 years.
125 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
328
122
This page left intentionally blank
126 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
329
123
HOUSING 5

RESOURCES
127 Item 2.5 - Attachment
2 330
124
Housing Resources
The extent to which San Anselmo can achieve its Housing Element policies, programs, and actions is due in part to the availability of financial resources for implementation. There are a variety of potential funding sources available for housing activities in San Anselmo. Due to the high costs of housing development and preservation and limitations on both the amount and uses of funds, a variety of funding sources may be required to support housing activities. A summary of major funding sources available to carry out housing activities in San Anselmo is listed below.

Funding sources are divided into three categories: federal, state, and local (County and Town) resources.

Federal Programs
Low Income Housing Tax Credit
The federal Low-income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is the principal source of federal funding for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental homes. The tax credits provide a dollar-for-dollar credit against federal tax liability. Although the LIHTC is a federal program, it is administered principally through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC), overseen and based within California’s State Treasurer Office,
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG Program provides funds for new construction, housing acquisition, housing programs, housing rehabilitation, public services, community facilities, economic development, and public works. CDBG activities are initiated and developed at the local level and are based on a community’s needs.

HOME Investment Partnership Programs (HOME)
The HOME Program provides formula grants to cities, counties, and states for building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low-income households.

Section 811
HUD provides funding towards the development and subsidizing supportive rental housing for very low- and extremely low-income adults with dis- abilities. This allows persons with disabilities to live as independently as possible through affordable housing and the appropriate supportive services.

Section 202
HUD provides grants to non-profit developers of supportive housing for very low-income seniors and provides rent subsidies to help make housing projects affordable.

Mortgage Credit Certificate
The Mortgage Credit Certificate program makes federal income tax credits available to low-income first-time homebuyers to purchase housing.

The County makes certificates available through participating lenders. 128 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
331
125
State Programs
CalHome Program
The CalHome program supports existing low- and very low-income households to become or remain homeowners. The program provides grants and/or loans to fund local public agencies, nonprofit corporations, and Federally Recognized and Special Government entities for first-time homebuyer mortgage assistance, owner-occupied rehabilitation assistance, technical assistance for self-help housing projects, technical assistance for shared housing programs, accessory dwelling unit/junior accessory dwelling unit assistance, and homeownership development project loans.

Infill Incentive Grant (IIG) Program
The IIG Program provides funding for capital improvement projects necessary to facilitate the development of a Qualifying Infill Project or a Qualifying Infill Area.

Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF)
The LHTF program helps finance local and regional housing trust funds dedicated to the creation, rehabilitation, or preservation of affordable housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters. The program provides matching grants (dollar-for-dollar) to LHTFs that are funded on an ongoing basis from private contributions or public sources that are not otherwise restricted in use for housing programs approved activities include loans for multifamily rental housing projects with units restricted for at least 55 years. No more than 20 percent of each allocation may assist moderate-income households, and at least 30 percent of each allocation must assist extremely low-income households.

Multifamily Housing Program (MHP)
The purpose of the MHP is to provide loans to individuals, public agencies, or private entities for the development, rehabilitation, preservation, and/or acquisition of permanent and transitional rental housing, and the conversion of nonresidential structures to rental housing, for lower income households. Projects are not eligible if construction has commenced as of the application date, or if they are receiving 9 percent federal low-income housing tax credits. Eligible applicants (including local public entities, for-profit and nonprofit corporations, limited equity housing cooperatives, individuals, Indian reservations and Rancherias, and limited partnerships) must have successfully developed at least one affordable housing project.

SB 2/LEAP Grants
SB 2 funds are available as planning grants to local jurisdictions to increase the supply of affordable housing. For the second year and onward, 70 percent of the funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes. A large portion of year two allocations will be distributed using the same formula used to allocate federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG).

CalHFA Homebuyer’s Down Payment Assistance Program
The CalHFA Homebuyer’s Down Payment Assistance Program provides affordable loans of up to three percent of sales price to first- time homebuyers. The program operates through participating lenders who originate loans for CalHFA. Funds are available upon request to qualified borrowers.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) The AHSC Program provides funding through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an account established to receive cap-and-trade auction proceeds, for land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects. The fund must support projects that encourage infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 129 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
332
126
Golden State Acquisition Fund (GSAF)
GSAF lenders provide affordable housing developers with access to flexible acquisition capital for the development and preservation of affordable housing throughout California.

Benefits are aimed to serve projects in California with 100 percent of the units reserved for households at or below 60 percent of the area median income for rental units or households at or below 80 percent AMI for homeownership. For mixed-use and mixed income projects, no less than 75 percent of total square footage must be developed as affordable housing (at or below 60 percent AMI).

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
The PLHA provides funding to local governments in California for housing-related projects and programs that help address the unmet housing needs of their local communities.

Homekey
Homekey provides grants to state, regional, and local public entities to develop a broad range of housing types including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, hostels, single-family homes, multifamily apartments, adult residential facilities, and manufactured housing, and to convert commercial properties and other existing buildings to permanent or interim housing for people experiencing homelessness.

Local Programs
Marin County Affordable Housing Fund
The Marin County Affordable Housing Fund provides a local funding source for financial and technical assistance to help affordable housing developers produce and preserve affordable housing. The fund was created to increase the stock of permanently affordable housing units in the county.

Marin Housing Authority (MHA) Below Market Rate (BMR) Home Ownership Program The BMR Home Ownership program, administered by MHA, provides low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers with the opportunity to purchase specified condominium units in Marin County at below market value. MHA administers the sale of newly constructed units as well as previously owned units being offered for resale. There are approximately 340 homes in the program located throughout Marin County.

Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly Section 8)
The Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private market rate units on behalf of low-income (50 percent Median Family Income) tenants. The program is administered by MHA.

Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Program (HOPWA) HOPWA provides rental assistance to individuals and families where a family member is HIV+ or has AIDS. HOPWA program participants lease privately-owned apartments and receive a rental subsidy based on their income level and family composition. MHA has designed this program to be flexible and client-friendly, prioritizing participant confidentiality. Program participants are also directed to community case management resources.

Shelter Plus Care Program
Shelter Plus Care provides rental assistance and supportive services on a long-term basis to individuals and families experiencing homelessness when the head of household has a serious mental illness (and may also have other disabilities). Shelter Plus Care participants lease privately-owned apartments and pay 30 percent of their income towards rent. MHA pays the remainder of the rent up to the maximum allowed by federal guidelines.

Participants also receive intensive support from MHA caseworkers and from a coalition of community-based service providers to assist them in 130 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
333
127
remaining successfully housed. This program is made possible through close collaboration with Marin County Community Mental Health Services.

Opportunities for Energy Conservation
Conventional building construction, use, and demolition - along with building material manufacturing- impose impacts on our environment. In the United States, the building industry accounts for a substantial portion of electricity consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, landfill waste, raw materials use, and potable water consumption1.

Many local building standards already consider energy and stormwater issues, and many jurisdictions have programs related to energy, recycling, water conservation, stormwater management, land use, and public health. The Town of San Anselmo adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2019 that sets forth policies and action to encourage energy-efficient buildings, promote the use of renewable energy sources, encourage less dependence on cars, promote water and resource conservation, reduce waste, and promote carbon sequestration strategies. One of the plan’s objectives is to create buildings that minimize the use of natural resources, are healthier and more comfortable for people, and reduce harm to the environment.

The Town administers Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations which sets forth mandatory construction standards for development. The homebuilding industry must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for enforcing the regulations. In 2011, the State added the Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) to Title 24. Revised in 2021, the CALGreen code regulates new, remodeled, and expanded residential and non-residential buildings and requires green building practices for planning and design, energy efficiency, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. In addition, SB 350 was signed in 2015 and increases California's renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. This objective will increase the amount of eligible renewables resources, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and others that are sold to and used by retail customers per year. SB 350 also requires the state to double statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030.

In response to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, AB 32 which takes a comprehensive, long-term approach to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions monumentally, the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2022 Draft Scoping Plan sets a goal for carbon neutrality by 2045, along with encouraging local governments to adopt goals that reduce GHG emissions by 15percent below 1990's levels by 2020, 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

San Anselmo also administers a green building ordinance (Ordinance No. 1168) which requires green building standards beyond the State requirements. The 2022 California Green Building Code will be implemented starting January 1st 2023.

Energy Conservation Programs Offered through Local Utilities San Anselmo promotes energy conservation by advertising utility rebate programs and free energy audits available through Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). Lower-income households are also eligible for State-sponsored energy and weatherization programs. The Town enforces energy conservation standards enacted by the State. The standards may increase initial construction costs, but over time will result in energy savings.

PG&E provides several energy assistance programs for lower income households which help qualified homeowners and renters conserve energy and control electricity costs. These programs include the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Program and the Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help (REACH) Program. The CARE program provides a 20 percent monthly discount on gas and electricity rates to income-qualified households, certain non-profit organizations, agricultural employee housing, emergency shelters, hospices, and other qualified non-profit group living facilities. The REACH Program provides one-time energy assistance to customers who are at risk of losing their energy services due to an unforeseen or uncontrollable hardship. The intent of REACH is to assist low-income customers, particularly seniors, people with disabilities, people who have fallen ill, lower-income households, and unemployed individuals, who are unable to pay for their necessary energy needs.

Marin Clean Energy (MCE) is a public, not-for-profit local electricity provider that also promotes energy conservation and sustainability. MCE purchases power from clean, renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, and bioenergy, and PG&E delivers it to a customer’s home or business through the PG&E distribution system and wires. MCE provides an option for customers to purchase electricity that comes from 100 percent renewable energy sources. MCE also pays premium rates to purchase excess electricity created by solar energy systems installed at customers’ homes and businesses and rolls credits over every month. 1 Information sourced from “Buildings and Climate Change”, Neil Hirst 2013 131 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
334
128
Conservation Rebates
PG&E offers a wide range of rebates for energy-efficient equipment and appliances including furnaces, duct sealing, whole house fans, air handler systems, swimming pool pumps and motors, water heaters, cool roofs, insulation, room air conditioners, clothes washers, dishwashers, computer monitors, energy-efficient lighting, and recycling of refrigerators, freezers, and room air conditioners. The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) also provides a variety of rebates for high-efficiency toilets, clothes washers, and water-conserving landscape practices. Both organizations promote their rebate programs through customer mailings, company websites, and point-of-sale information.

Rehabilitation Loans
MHA provides low-interest residential rehabilitation loans to very low-income homeowners to make basic repairs and improvements, correct substandard conditions, and eliminate health and safety hazards. Funds can also be used to include energy efficiency improvements.

Marin County Energy Watch (MCEW) Partnership
The MCEW brings together four elements to provide energy efficiency services and resources to single and multifamily residential units; small, medium and large commercial businesses; and public agencies and schools in Marin County as described:
• The Marin Energy Management Team (MEMT) acts as “energy manager” for public sector agencies including local governments, school districts and special districts, and specifically addresses the difficulty of reaching smaller public sector institutions. Services include audits, technical assistance, engineering, assistance in financing and obtaining incentives, specifying and managing projects, energy accounting and reporting, procurement, peer meetings and training workshops. MEMT also integrates other state, utility, and private energy efficiency programs, filling resource gaps, and addressing specific barriers as needed to provide as comprehensive and seamless a delivery of services as possible. • Smart Lights is designed to help small businesses become more energy efficient. The program offers free start-to-finish technical assistance and instant rebates to help defray the cost of upgrading and/or repairing existing equipment. Smart Lights can help with comprehensive lighting retrofits, refrigeration tune-ups, controls, and seals replacement, replacement of hot water heaters, and referrals to appropriate HVAC programs.
• California Youth Energy Services (CYES) provides no-cost green house calls to homeowners and renters, regardless of income level.

Professionally trained staff provide energy assessments and install free energy and water-saving equipment. CYES serves single-family dwellings, duplexes, and multifamily units.

Energy Upgrade California
Energy Upgrade California is an energy-efficiency program that provides rebates and resources to upgrade single-family and two-to-four- unit dwellings to save energy and water.

In addition to energy conservation programs and establishing programs that address new construction, decreasing each resident’s average daily vehicle miles traveled, which can be exacerbated by long commutes, is one of the most effective strategies to help reduce climate change impacts. Jurisdictions in Marin County can support this effort by promoting land use patterns that locate new development near jobs, transit, and services. The programs contained in the San Anselmo Housing Element focus new development in existing areas, promote land use and conservation strategies to address energy conservation and climate change, enact new initiatives to foster the community’s environmental sustainability, and provide energy conservation programs through the distribution of educational materials to homeowners and builders on an annual basis. In order to facilitate these actions, programs 2.1 and 2.2 offer outreach methods that will ensure the public is informed of the many strategies for increasing energy conservation at home. 132 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
335
133
HOUSING 6

OPPORTUNITIES
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
336
NOVEMBER 2023
134
Housing Opportunities
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Town of San Anselmo’s 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is 833 net new units distributed over four income categories, as assigned by the Association of BayArea Governments (ABAG). The unit count and income assignments are based on the regional assignment methodology developed by ABAG for the 6th RHNA Cycle. The Town’s total allocation and unit count breakout by income level is detailed in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: RHNA 6th Cycle Allocation Table
Income Level RHNA Allocation
Very Low-Income (0-50% AMI) 253
Low-Income (51-79% AMI) 145
Moderate-Income (80-119% AMI) 121
Above Moderate-Income (120% AMI+) 314
Total 833
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
337
NOVEMBER 2023
135
Pipeline Projects
Housing Element law allows jurisdictions to count pipeline projects, or units constructed or under construction between the base year of the RHNA period (January 2022) and the beginning of the new planning period (January 2023), towards the RHNA. The projects shown in Table 6.2 are under construction or have been approved. As described in the table, the projects approved or under construction in the town are not subject to development agreements or conditions that would require project phasing or delayed timing requirements that would impact development in the planning period. All projects are pending because the Town is waiting for the applicant to complete the project next steps such as applying for a Building Permit, submitting project information needed to approve a Building Permit, or completing construction. The affordability level for the projects listed in the table are determined by the State density bonus law or the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and ABAG direction regarding safe harbor methodology to estimate the anticipated affordability distribution of ADUs. If a project does not utilize a density bonus or proposes an ADU, the Town assumes the unit will be developed for above-moderate income households.

Table 6.2: Pipeline Projects
Property
Address Unit Type
Total
Number
of Units
Income Level of
Units Status Remaining Steps to Occupancy
729 SFD Blvd Single-family
detached
1 1 Above Moderate Approved by Planning
Commission
Applicant to apply for and
receive Building Permit.1
1214 San
Anselmo Ave
Single-family
detached
1 1 Above Moderate Approved by Planning
Commission
Applicant to apply for and
receive Building Permit.1
Vacant Lot -
Sturdivant Ave
Single-family
detached
1 1 Above Moderate Approved by Planning
Commission
Applicant to apply for and
receive Building Permit.1
61 Hillside Ave Single-family
detached
1 1 Above Moderate Approved by Planning
Commission
Applicant to apply for and
receive Building Permit.1
63 Hillside Ave Single-family
detached
1 1 Above Moderate Approved by Planning
Commission
Applicant to apply for and
receive Building Permit.1
1 Saunders Ave Single-family
detached
1 1 Above Moderate Approved by Planning
Commission
Applicant to apply for and
receive Building Permit.1
21 Santa Barbara
Ave, Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
40 SFD Blvd,
Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
1 The Alameda
Knolls, Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
344 Oak Ave,
Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
55 Avenue Del
Norte, Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
338
NOVEMBER 2023
136
Table 6.2: Pipeline Projects
Property
Address Unit Type
Total
Number
of Units
Income Level of
Units Status Remaining Steps to Occupancy
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
101 Cedar St,
Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
112 Crescent Rd,
Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
22 Belle Ave Multi-family unit 1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
3 Ray Ct, Unit A Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
9 Tomahawk Dr,
Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
15 Oak Springs
Dr, Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
20 Karl Ave, Unit
A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
11 Hooper Ln,
Unit A
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
339
NOVEMBER 2023
137
Table 6.2: Pipeline Projects
Property
Address Unit Type
Total
Number
of Units
Income Level of
Units Status Remaining Steps to Occupancy
100 Berkeley Ave Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
49 Cedar St Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
600 Red Hill Ave Multi-family units 18 2 Very Low; 16
Above Moderate2
Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project
information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
65 Lincoln Park Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
43 Indian Rock
Ct
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
72 Oak Knoll Ave Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
55 Avenue Del
Norte
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
78 Longwood Dr Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code1
16 Broadmoor
Ave
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
340
NOVEMBER 2023
138
Table 6.2: Pipeline Projects
Property
Address Unit Type
Total
Number
of Units
Income Level of
Units Status Remaining Steps to Occupancy
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
268 Brookside Dr Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
24 Ross Valley
Dr
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
151 Los Angeles
Blvd
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
10 Humboldt Ave Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
53 Canyon Rd Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
88 Crooked Ave Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
16 Berkeley Ave Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Issued Applicant to construct unit and receive Certificate of
Occupancy once inspected and
deemed complete in
conformance with approved
plans and the adopted Building
Code.1
316 Greenfield
Ave
Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
6 Spruce Ave Accessory
dwelling unit
1 1 Above Moderate Building Permit Pending Applicant to submit project information requested from the
Building Department to ensure
project conforms with adopted
Building Code prior to Building
Permit issuance.1
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
341
NOVEMBER 2023
139
Table 6.2: Pipeline Projects
Property
Address Unit Type
Total
Number
of Units
Income Level of
Units Status Remaining Steps to Occupancy

1. No development agreements or requirements such as phasing or timing are required prior to occupancy.

2. The project is required to deed restrict the affordable units in accordance with the State density bonus law.

Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
342
NOVEMBER 2023
140
After accounting for the pipeline projects, the remaining RHNA units are as detailed in Table 6.3 below Table 6.3: RHNA 6th Cycle Less Pipeline Projects Delta Table Income Level RHNA
Allocation Pipeline Projects RHNA Less Pipeline Projects Very Low-Income (0-50% AMI) 253 2 251
Low-Income (51-79% AMI) 145 0 145
Moderate-Income (80-119% AMI) 121 0 121
Above Moderate-Income (120% AMI+) 314 52 262
Total 833 54 779
Accessory Dwelling Units
The Town of San Anselmo has a consistent track record of supporting and encouraging accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development. In response to changes in State housing law, the Town has seen an increase in ADU applications over the last eight years. The Town’s ADU permits issued by year during the 5th cycle planning period are displayed in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: ADU Building
Permits Issued by Year
2014 1
2015 5
2016 6
2017 12
2018 37
2019 10
2020 12
2021 43
In the summer of 2022, the Town distributed an ADU questionnaire to residents to better understand what process improvements and development standard amendments could be made to further encourage ADU development. A summary of the results of this questionnaire can be found in Appendix A of the Housing Element. The Town already implements a successful ADU program and receives significant homeowner interest and construction resulting from current community education and outreach. The Town plans to further expand community outreach efforts and education to promote increased ADU development. The Housing Element includes Policy 6 to promote several ADU related programs and actions related to the construction and affordability of ADUs.

Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
343
NOVEMBER 2023
141
RHNA 6th Cycle ADU “Safe Harbor” Methodology
HCD and ABAG provide general direction regarding a “safe harbor” methodology that jurisdictions can use to estimate the number of ADUs likely to develop during the 6th cycle planning period and guidance on distribution of those units across the four income categories. This “safe harbor” methodology recommends that jurisdictions:

1. Determine the average number of ADUs permitted in the last three years.

2. Multiply that average by the eight years in the RHNA cycle to determine the estimated 8-year total.

3. Distribute the ADUs amongst the four income categories based on the methodology established by ABAG in their “Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA” technical memo, which distributes projected units by percent as detailed below:
o Very Low-Income: 30%
o Low-Income: 30%
o Moderate-Income: 30%
o Above Moderate-Income: 10%
Using this methodology, the Town of San Anselmo projects a total of 160 ADUs will be built during RHNA 6th cycle. The 160 ADUs are distributed by income categories as detailed in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5: ADU Income Category Distribution Table
Income Level Projected ADUs
Very Low-Income (0-50% AMI) 48
Low-Income (51-79% AMI) 48
Moderate-Income (80-119% AMI) 48
Above Moderate-Income (120% AMI+) 16
Total 160
After accounting for the pipeline projects and projected ADUs, the remaining RHNA units are displayed in Table 6.6 below.

Table 6.6: RHNA 6th Cycle Less Pipeline Projects and ADUs Delta Table Income Level RHNA Less Pipeline
Projects Projected ADUs RHNA Less Pipeline Projects and ADUs Very Low-Income (0-50% AMI) 251 48 203
Low-Income (51-79% AMI) 145 48 97
Moderate-Income (80-119% AMI) 121 48 73
Above Moderate-Income (120% AMI+) 262 16 246
Total 779 160 619
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
344
NOVEMBER 2023
142
20 Percent No Net Loss Buffer
The Town has accounted for a “no net loss” buffer (Government Code Section 65863), which provides housing sites to accommodate more units than required by the RHNA, to ensure development opportunities remain available throughout the planning period to accommodate San Anselmo’s 6th cycle RHNA, especially for lower- and moderate- income households. A summary of "no net loss" requirements is listed below:
• A jurisdiction must maintain adequate sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income category at all times throughout the entire planning period.
• A jurisdiction may not take any action to reduce a parcel’s residential density unless it makes findings that the remaining sites identified in the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory can accommodate the jurisdiction’s remaining unmet RHNA by each income category, or if it identifies additional sites so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. • If a jurisdiction approves development of a parcel identified in the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory with fewer units than shown in the Housing Element, it must either make findings that the Housing Element’s remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income level or identify and make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA for each income category. • A jurisdiction may not disapprove a housing project on the basis that approval of the development would trigger the identification or zoning of additional adequate sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA.

After accounting for pipeline projects and projected ADUs, the Town must plan for the remaining 619 units allocated to the local RHNA. The Town of San Anselmo has calculated and added a 20 percent “no net loss” buffer onto the remaining RHNA units. With the 20 percent “no net loss” buffer of 126 units, the Town must plan for 745 total units in the 6th cycle planning period, as shown in the table below.

Table 6.7: RHNA 6th Cycle Less Pipeline Projects and ADUs Plus 20% "No Net Loss" Delta Table Income Level
RHNA 6th Cycle Less
Pipeline Projects and
ADUs
20 Percent"No Net Loss"
Buffer
RHNA 6th Cycle Less
Pipeline Projects and
ADUs Plus 20 Percent
"No Net Loss" Buffer
Very Low-Income (0-50% AMI) 203 38.8 241.8
Low-Income (51-79% AMI) 97 17.6 114.6
Moderate-Income (80-119% AMI) 73 13.8 86.8
Above Moderate-Income (120% AMI+) 246 55.8 301.8
Total 619 126 745
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
345
NOVEMBER 2023
143
Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory
To plan for the remaining 745 housing units needed to meet San Anselmo’s 6th cycle RHNA and 20 percent “no net loss” buffer obligation, housing opportunity sites have been identified throughout the community. The Map Book included in Appendix B of this Housing Element identifies each parcel included in the inventory and associated information regarding current zoning, existing land use, vacancy, general plan land use, inclusion in past cycles, acreage, proposed density, realistic capacity, existing units, and net new units. The following process was utilized to identify and vet housing opportunity sites.

1. Preliminary housing opportunity sites were identified by Town Staff.

2. Staff-identified sites were brought to the HEAC for review during HEAC Meeting 2 for initial consideration.

3. Staff-identified sites were brought to the public at a virtual workshop for consideration.

4. Staff-identified sites were refined based on feedback from the HEAC and the public. For example, staff-identified sites in the R-1-H and R-1-C zoning districts were eliminated based on community concerns regarding environmental degradation, slope topography and instability, and wildfire hazard.

5. The refined sites were brought back to the HEAC for further consideration and revision.

6. An objective sites inventory analysis was conducted to determine whether the revised sites were appropriate for new housing, balancing a myriad of factors as detailed in the Sites Inventory Analysis subsection later in this section of the Housing Element.

7. The results of the sites inventory analysis were presented to the HEAC at HEAC Meeting 4 for further review and refinement. Zoning Code amendments needed to accommodate the proposed density on the identified housing opportunity sites were also presented to and discussed by the HEAC. The HEAC recommended the sites to the Town Council.

8. The Town Council considered the sites and made a motion to move forward with all sites with the exception of the dog park site and the Wade Thomas school site.

9. Town Staff conducted meetings with the local schools to discuss the potential of housing on the underutilized areas of the Town Council-approved housing opportunity sites. Based on the feedback received from these meetings, the remaining school sites were removed from the list of housing opportunity sites.

10. To make up for the deficit from eliminating the school sites, Town Staff reached out to Side by Side, a local nonprofit organization and major property owner in the community to determine whether they were still interested in constructing affordable housing on a portion of their site. Side by Side had originally proposed affordable housing be constructed on a portion of their site in RHNA 5th cycle but were met with barriers to development approval at that time. Side by Side expressed interest in development if the Town worked to eliminate the barriers to development approval that Side by Side had previously faced. Policy 5 of the Housing Element and the corresponding programs and actions will help to eliminate barriers to development.

11. The updated housing opportunity sites were brought to the HEAC for final review and consideration at HEAC Meeting 5.

Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
346
NOVEMBER 2023
144
Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory Analysis
Methodology in Identifying Sites
To supplement the local knowledge of Town Staff, the HEAC, elected and appointed officials, and the public, an objective sites inventory analysis was conducted to further understand whether identified sites have the potential to accommodate additional housing. The process of developing the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory involved identifying and eliminating sites with constraints to development. Properties that were impacted by various environmental constraints or hazards were excluded from the analysis. A weighted suitability model was used to evaluate multiple criteria influencing the likelihood of development on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Each property was assigned a total weighted score; higher scores indicate a greater likelihood of development during the 6th cycle planning period. The following factors were included in scoring criteria:
• Current Zoning. The Town allows a variety residential development types and densities by-right in residential districts and as a conditional use in commercial districts. Zoning districts were scored based on the allowed residential density and whether residential uses are allowed by-right or as a conditional use.
• General Plan Land Use. General Plan land uses were scored based on the residential densities supported by each category. • Lot Acreage. Based on HCD’s guidelines for sites suitable for affordable housing development, lots that are between half-an-acre and ten acres were scored higher compared to smaller or larger sites. • Vacancy. Lots were scored based on presence of any physical building or structure on them. This does not take into consideration potentially underutilized or vacant buildings/structures on lots that could be abandoned. • Residual Lot Coverage. Lots were scored based on how much land area is available to accommodate additional development. • Fire Hazard or Severity Zones. Lots were scored based on location within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone and the severity of the Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
• Slope. The lots were scored based on the average slope of the property, which would determine financial and structural feasibility of future development.

Identified Housing Opportunity Sites
The map on the following page identifies the location of the 63 housing opportunity sites identified by the Town. The 63 sites are comprised of 151 parcels.

Opportunity site characteristics are summarized in Table 6.8 and detailed in the Map Book appendix.

Location. San Anselmo's housing opportunity sites are concentrated along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and Red Hill Avenue. The location of the sites is highly accessible to public transportation options, job opportunities, education opportunities, and recreation opportunities. Although housing opportunity sites are not identified throughout San Anselmo, the Town will create additional opportunity for housing development in other areas of the community by allowing missing middle housing types in all residential districts, adopting objective design standards for missing middle housing, and adopting pre-approved plans for missing middle housing (Program 3.1).

Underutilization. San Anselmo's housing opportunity sites are currently underutilized, primarily commercial properties. Since San Anselmo is a built-out community with very few vacant sites remaining for development, underutilized, nonvacant properties are the focus for housing opportunity sites as the redevelopment of underutilized nonvacant sites is more realistic during the RHNA Cycle 6. To encourage higher density redevelopment of utilized properties, the Town will allow missing middle housing types in all residential districts, adopt objective design standards for missing middle housing, and adopt preapproved plans for missing middle housing (Program 3.1).

Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
347
NOVEMBER 2023
145
Figure 6.1: Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory Analysis Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
348
NOVEMBER 2023
146
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
1 1 9 Tamal
Ave
006-
042-28
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
SF No N N 0.3051967
98 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-2 6 12 3 1 2
2 2 300 Sunny
Hills Dr
006-
061-33
PPD/R1 Exemption
- Improved
SF No N N 5.33 01 Lower
Income
R-3/SPD 20 30 112 0 112
3 3 1019 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
042-05
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
SF No N N 0.2659636
71 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-2 6 12 2 1 1
4 4 1001 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
042-08
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
SF No N N 0.2832553
43 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-2 6 12 2 1 1
5 5 8 Sais Ave 006-
072-13
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
SF No N N 0.2474005
77 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-2 6 12 2 1 1
6 6 930 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
061-31
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.4034228
76 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 8 0 8
7 7 805 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
082-40
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.4320901
95 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 9 0 9
8 8 820 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
061-13
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.4871495
24 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 10 0 10
8 9 790 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
091-68
SPD Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.3048246
03 02
Moderate
Income
C-L/SPD 20 30 6 0 6
8 10 800 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
061-06
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.4207145 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 8 0 8
8 11 4 Loma
Robles Dr
006-
091-70
SPD SingleResid. -
Improved
HDR No N N 0.3675664
62 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3/SPD 20 30 7 1 6
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
349
NOVEMBER 2023
147
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
8 12 2 Loma
Robles Dr
006-
091-69
SPD SingleResid. -
Improved
HDR No N N 0.2152212
67 02
Moderate
Income
R-3/SPD 20 30 5 1 4
8 13 810 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
061-22
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.2882844
62 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 6 0 6
8 14 830 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
061-38
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.4800575
1 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 10 0 10
9 15 761 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
083-02
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.1642050
34 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 0 3
9 16 781 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
083-01
C-L Industrial -
Improved
LC No N N 0.3040489
67 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 6 0 6
10 17 727 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
083-07
C-L SingleResid. -
Improved
LC No N N 0.1110695
1 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 2 1 1
10 18 729 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
083-06
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.1079513
89 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 2 0 2
11 19 6 Bridge
Ave
006-
083-37
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.2636711
78 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 5 0 5
11 20 707 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
083-09
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.2106369
91 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 4 0 4
12 21 754 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
091-39
SPD Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.4620082
8 03 Above
Moderate
Income
C-L/SPD 20 30 9 0 9
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
350
NOVEMBER 2023
148
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
12 22 750 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
091-40
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.4788299
16 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 10 0 10
13 23 129
Spaulding
St
006-
091-65
SPD MultipleResid. -
Unimproved
LC Yes N N 0.4057087
4 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3/SPD 20 30 8 0 8
13 24 No Address 006-
091-05
R-1-H SingleResid. -
Unimproved
VLD Yes N N 0.28 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 5 0 5
13 25 113
Spaulding
St
006-
091-15
R-2 MultipleResid. -
Improved
MDR No N N 0.3286092
32 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 6 2 4
14 26 613 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
101-05
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2565457
33 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 5 0 5
14 27 100 Center
Blvd
006-
101-04
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 1.0204642
19 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 21 0 21
15 31 640 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
092-08
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.3059630
76 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 6 0 6
15 28 112
Spaulding
St
006-
092-3
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.1364699
6 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 2 1 1
15 30 606 Sir
Francis
Drake
006-
092-09
C-L Commercial
- Improved
LC No N N 0.4321581
19 03 Above
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 9 0 9
16 29 604 Red
Hill Ave
006-
091-57
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1234358
12 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 0 3
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
351
NOVEMBER 2023
149
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
17 32 5 Palm Ln 006-
121-05
C-3 SingleResid. -
Improved
GC No N N 0.2952326
37 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 6 1 5
17 33 504 Red
Hill Ave
006-
121-02
C-3 SingleResid. -
Improved
GC No N N 0.0959826
41 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 2 1 1
17 34 520 Red
Hill Ave
006-
091-09
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1726948
17 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 4 1 3
17 35 526 Red
Hill Ave
006-
091-60
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1295378
94 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 1 2
17 36 510 Red
Hill Ave
006-
121-01
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1665527
49 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 0 3
17 37 580 Red
Hill Ave
006-
091-61
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.3759811
64 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 7 0 7
18 38 17 Buena
Vista
006-
121-17
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
SF No N N 0.0585399
45 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 1 1 0
18 39 9 Buena
Vista
006-
121-16
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
SF No N N 0.1043483
64 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
18 40 412 Red
Hill Ave
006-
121-14
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2660118
4 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 6 0 6
18 41 400 Red
Hill Ave
006-
121-15
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2117328
51 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 4 0 4
18 42 No Address 006-
121-13
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1768305
83 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 4 0 4
18 43 50 Essex
St
006-
121-12
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
SF No N N 0.2638780
19 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 6 0 6
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
352
NOVEMBER 2023
150
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
19 44 330 Red
Hill Ave
006-
121-31
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.5834070
21 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 12 0 12
19 45 306 Red
Hill Ave
006-
161-05
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.3289410
08 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 6 0 6
20 46 292 Red
Hill Ave
006-
162-01
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1903176
75 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 0 3
21 47 100 Red
Hill Ave
006-
167-04
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.7717826
92 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 16 0 16
21 48 No Address 006-
167-06
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 1.2348467
46 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 26 26 25
22 49 6 Red Hill
Ave
006-
201-56
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.6716281
62 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 14 0 14
22 50 2 Red Hill
Ave
006-
201-01
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.0817784
21 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 2 0 2
22 51 90 Red Hill
Ave
006-
201-46
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2642032
44 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 6 0 6
22 52 60 Red Hill
Ave
006-
201-04
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2870765
18 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 6 0 6
22 53 50 Red Hill
Ave
006-
201-55
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1642818
86 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 0 3
23 54 275
Greenfield
Ave
006-
211-21
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No 28 N 0.2134203
7 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 4 0 4
24 55 230
Greenfield
Ave
006-
173-
007
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No 27 N 0.4351127
57 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 9 0 9
24 56 208
Greenfield
Ave
006-
173-11
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.5713416
28 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 11 0 11
24 57 270
Greenfield
Ave
006-
173-22
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2856100
65 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 5 0 5
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
353
NOVEMBER 2023
151
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
24 58 224
Greenfield
Ave
006-
173-17
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.5945143
98 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 12 0 12
24 59 210
Greenfield
Ave
006-
173-04
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2380697
39 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 4 0 4
24 60 222
Greenfield
Ave
006-
173-16
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.5263845
14 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 11 0 11
25 61 5 W
Hillside Ave
006-
172-02
R-1 SingleResid. -
Unimproved
VLD Yes 26 N 0.7187211
09 01 Lower
Income
C-3 20 30 15 0 15
26 62 144
Greenfield
Ave
006-
171-07
C-3 SingleResid. -
Improved
GC No N N 0.1659044
64 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 1 2
26 63 6 W
Hillside Ave
006-
171-08
C-3 SingleResid. -
Improved
GC No N N 0.5956641
5 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 12 1 11
26 64 128
Greenfield
Ave
006-
171-05
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1588321
4 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 0 3
26 65 130
Greenfield
Ave
006-
171-6
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No 25 N 0.5083515
45 01 Lower
Income
No
Change
20 30 10 0 10
27 66 60
Greenfield
Ave
006-
254-13
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2583598
4 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 5 0 5
27 67 118
Greenfield
Ave
006-
171-03
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1867370
86 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 0 3
27 68 114
Greenfield
Ave
006-
171-02
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1289639
4 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 3 0 3
27 69 70
Greenfield
Ave
006-
254-14
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1942142
89 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 4 0 4
27 70 No Address 006-
171-12
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2454340
85 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 5 0 5
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
354
NOVEMBER 2023
152
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
27 71 90
Greenfield
Ave
006-
171-13
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.0495894
45 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 1 0 1
28 72 316 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
251-03
C-2 Commercial
- Improved
CC No N N 0.1798402
38 02
Moderate
Income
C-3 20 30 3 0 3
28 73 312 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
251-02
C-2 Commercial -
Improved
CC No N N 0.0702101
38 02
Moderate
Income
C-3 20 30 1 0 1
28 74 300 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
251-01
C-2 Commercial -
Improved
CC No N N 0.1796047
88 02
Moderate
Income
C-3 20 30 3 0 3
28 75 340 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
251-05
C-2 Commercial -
Improved
CC No N N 0.1511271
74 02
Moderate
Income
C-3 20 30 3 0 3
28 76 40
Greenfield
Ave
006-
251-10
C-3 Commercial -
Improved
GC No N N 0.3306681
52 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 6 0 6
28 77 34
Greenfield
Ave
006-
251-09
C-3 Commercial -
Improved
GC No N N 0.0735996
11 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 2 0 2
28 78 14
Greenfield
Ave
006-
251-28
C-3 Commercial -
Improved
GC No N N 0.1774236
82 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 4 0 4
28 79 324 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
251-27
C-2 Commercial -
Improved
CC No N N 0.3465657
28 02
Moderate
Income
C-3 20 30 7 0 7
28 80 No Address 006-
251-08
C-3 Commercial -
Improved
GC No N N 0.2338035
96 02
Moderate
Income
No
Change
20 30 4 0 4
29 81 55 San
Rafael Ave
007-
211-04
R-1 Single- Resid.
- Improved
DMR No N N 0.3417289
22 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-2 6 12 2 1 1
29 82 43 San
Rafael Ave
007-
211-05
R-1 Single- Resid.
- Improved
DMR No N N 0.5258696
13 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-2 6 12 4 2 2
30 83 71 San
Rafael Ave
007-
211-01
R-1 Single- Resid.
- Improved
SF No N N 0.4863629
21 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-2 6 12 4 1 3
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
355
NOVEMBER 2023
153
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
30 84 76
Tamalpais
Ave
007-
211-36
R-1 Single- Resid.
- Improved
SF No N N 0.4030052
29 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-2 6 12 3 1 2
31 85 206 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
252-02
C-2 Commercial -
Improved
CC No 36 N 0.1468495
86 02
Moderate
Income
C-3 20 30 3 1 2
31 86 214 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
252-03
C-2 Commercial -
Improved
CC No N N 0.1496882
84 02
Moderate
Income
C-3 20 30 3 0 3
32 87 43
Tamalpais
Ave
007-
212-13
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No 31 N 0.1612940
13 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
32 88 41
Tamalpais
Ave
007-
212- 14
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1746332
5 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
33 89 50
Mariposa
Ave
007-
284-50
R-2 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.3649698
23 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 7 1 6
34 90 69
Tamalpais
Ave
007-
212-07
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No 29 N 0.2265138
25 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 4 1 3
34 91 77
Tamalpais
Ave
007-
212-06
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1971871
07 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 4 1 3
34 92 63
Tamalpais
Ave
007-
212-09
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1776838
41 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 4 1 3
35 93 54
Magnolia
Ave
007-
212-50
R-3 MultipleResid. -
Improved
DMR No 30 N 0.1506438
41 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 0 3
35 94 58
Magnolia
Ave
007-
212-43
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1485538
71 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 4 1 3
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
356
NOVEMBER 2023
154
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
36 95 36
Magnolia
Ave
007-
212-37
R-2 MultipleResid. -
Improved
DMR No 32 N 0.1975216
62 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 4 2 2
36 96 30
Magnolia
Ave
007-
212-36
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1415769
88 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
37 97 69
Magnolia
Ave
007-
213-08
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No 33 N 0.1802637
31 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
37 98 73
Magnolia
Ave
007-
213-57
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1284409
94 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
38 99 41
Magnolia
Ave
007-
213-17
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1063885
46 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
38 100 43
Magnolia
Ave
007-
213-16
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No 34 N 0.1085541
94 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
38 101 47
Magnolia
Ave
007-
213-15
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.0965971
59 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
39 102 196
Tunstead
Ave
007-
213-50
R-2 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No 35 N 0.1609632
73 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
40 103 160 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
241-05
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
CC No 37 N 0.4290003
01 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 9 0 9
40 104 130 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
241-56
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
CC No N N 0.7571078
35 01 Lower
Income
No change 20 30 16 0 16
40 105 190 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
241-06
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
CC No N N 0.4700749
15 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 9 0 9
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
357
NOVEMBER 2023
155
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
40 106 120 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
241-61
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
CC No N N 0.5190789
39 01 Lower
Income
No change 20 30 10 0 10
40 107 100 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
241-63
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
CC No N N 0.1453026
15 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 3 0 3
41 108 182 Pine St 007-
251-37
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1072029
85 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
41 109 170 Pine St 007-
251-34
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1059213
35 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
41 110 140 Pine St 007-
251-27
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1202614
6 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
41 111 160 Pine St 007-
251-32
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1053835
29 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
41 112 184 Pine St 007-
251-38
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1146340
14 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
41 113 150 Pine St 007-
251-29
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1054898
02 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
42 114 171 Pine St 007-
252-02
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.0909824
86 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 1 1 0
42 115 177 Pine St 007-
252-01
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.0959965
71 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
358
NOVEMBER 2023
156
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
43 116 155 Pine St 007-
252-06
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1052242
21 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
44 117 129 Pine St 007-
252-13
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1130604
29 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
45 118 110 Ross
Ave
007-
281-21
R-2 MultipleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.4014780
96 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 8 2 6
46 119 80 Ross
Ave
007-
281-13
R-2 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1730871
48 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 4 2 2
46 120 88 Ross
Ave
007-
281-14
R-2 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1265529
37 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
46 121 102 Ross
Ave
007-
281-19
R-2 Exemption
- Improved
DMR No N N 0.2029710
62 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 4 1 3
47 122 68 Ross
Ave
007-
281-12
R-2 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1211244
73 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
47 123 1 Cedar St 007-
281-11
R-2 MultipleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1616674
54 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 2 1
48 124 61
Woodland
Ave
007-
282-23
R-1 Exemption
- Improved
DMR No N N 0.1270624
52 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 0 3
49 125 50 Ross
Ave
007-
282-13
R-1 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.0961585
24 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
359
NOVEMBER 2023
157
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
50 126 21
Mariposa
Ave
007-
301-06
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.3514344
73 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 7 0 7
50 127 121 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
301-19
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.6412015
61 01 Lower
Income
No change 20 30 13 0 13
50 128 115 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
301-18
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1300476
42 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 3 0 3
50 129 101 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
301-20
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.3313489
44 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 6 0 6
51 130 55 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
302-13
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1617420
46 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 3 1 2
51 131 35 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
302-14
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1331947
48 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 3 1 2
51 132 29 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
302-15
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1286093
08 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 3 1 2
52 133 22
Mariposa
Ave
007-
284-22
C-3 SingleResid. -
Improved
GC No N N 0.0973449
62 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
53 134 217 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
284-17
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1146729
12 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 2 0 2
53 135 223 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
284-49
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.2025700
07 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 4 0 4
53 136 243 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
284-13
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.3510729
56 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 7 0 7
53 137 15 Ross
Ave
007-
284-12
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1192829
04 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 3 0 3
53 138 233 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
284-14
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1143782
24 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 2 0 2
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
360
NOVEMBER 2023
158
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
54 139 98 Sir
Francis
Drake Blvd
006-
191-36
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
CC No N N 0.1436177
46 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 3 0 3
55 140 151 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
301-07
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.3785806
56 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 7 7 0
56 141 25 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
302-16
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.1425617
91 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 2 0 2
57 142 19
Tamalpais
007-
212-20
C-2 Commercial
- Improved
CC No N N 0.1188818
55 03 Above
Moderate
Income
C-2/SPD 20 30 2 0 2
58 143 341 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
252-16
C-2 Commercial
- Improved
CC No N N 0.1919515
04 03 Above
Moderate
Income
C-2/SPD 20 30 4 0 4
59 144 23 Ross
Ave
007-
284-10
C-3 SingleResid. -
Improved
GC No N N 0.1828283
29 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
60 145 21 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
302-17
C-3 Commercial
- Improved
GC No N N 0.3102910
5 02
Moderate
Income
No change 20 30 7 0 7
61 146 305 San
Anselmo
Ave
007-
282-20
C-2 Commercial
- Improved
CC No N N 0.7521766
9 01 Lower
Income
C-3/SPD 20 30 16 0 16
62 147 71 Ross
Ave
007-
284-03
R-2 MultipleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1780958
77 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 2 1
62 148 73 Ross
Ave
007-
284-02
R-2 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1363581
41 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 2 1 1
62 149 70
Mariposa
Ave
007-
284-34
R-2 SingleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1496087
42 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 1 2
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
361
NOVEMBER 2023
159
Table 6.8: Opportunity Site Characteristics
Site Parcel
ID Address APN Current Zoning
Existing
Land Use
GP
Land
Use
Vacant
4th
Cycle
Site
5th
Cycle
Site
Acreage
Considered
Income
Supported
Proposed
Zoning
Proposed
Min.

Density
(DUA)
Proposed
Max.

Density
(DUA)
Realistic
Capacity
Existing
Units
Net
New
Units
63 150 51 Ross
Ave
007-
284-07
R-1 MultipleResid. -
Improved
DMR No N N 0.1851372
8 03 Above
Moderate
Income
R-3 20 30 3 2 1
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
362
NOVEMBER 2023
160
Realistic Capacity Assumptions
To calculate the realistic capacity for each site, a typical density of 70 percent of the maximum dwelling units per acre was assumed. This considers recent development trends in San Anselmo and other communities in the region and the typical percentage of land area that is dedicated to parking, hallways, utilities, and other non-dwelling unit spaces. The following developments, which represent all multi-family developments approved in San Anselmo, Sausalito, and Larkspur (both of which are similar communities to San Anselmo in population size and geographic positioning) between 2016 and 2023, informed the Town’s realistic capacity assumptions:
• The property at 600 Red Hill Avenue is zoned R-2/PPD/SPD and approximately 1.61 acres in size. The allowable maximum density for the project, given the lot size and zoning, was 21 units. The project was approved in 2021 to allow 28 units (including 7 density bonus units). which is 100 percent of the maximum allowed density on the site without consideration of the density bonus units. With density bonus units included, the property developed at 141 percent of the maximum allowed density on the site. • The parcel at 1 Lincoln Park is zoned C-3 and approximately 0.63 acres in size. The allowable maximum density for the project, given the lot size and zoning, was 12 units. The project was approved in 2016 to allow 16 units (including 4 density bonus units), which is 100 percent of the maximum allowed density on the site without consideration of the density bonus units. With density bonus units included, the property developed at 127 percent of the maximum allowed density on the site.
• The parcel at 1755 Bridgeway in Sausalito will develop 19 multi-family units on about 0.58 acres zoned for multifamily residential uses. The allowable maximum density for the project, given the lot size and zoning, was 5 units. The project was approved in 2023 to allow 19 units, which is 380 percent of the maximum allowed density on the site. The increased density was primarily attributed to a density bonus, regulatory incentives, and State streamlining provisions.
• The Magnolia Village project in Larkspur will build 20 townhomes on a mixed-use site with 4 retail spaces on the ground floor. The project is located on a 1.63-acre site that is currently zoned C-2, Commercial, and developed but blighted and underutilized. The allowable maximum density for the project, given the lot size and zoning, was 35 units. The project was approved in 2023 to allow 20 units, which is 57 percent of the maximum allowed density on the site.

The average density resulting from these four recent developments is 176 percent. Excluding the Sausalito project, which developed at a density significantly higher than the maximum density allowed, the average density resulting from the other three recent developments is 108 percent of the allowable maximum density of the underlying zone. In order to provide a conservative estimate of realistic development capacity, the Town has reduced the realistic development capacity on sites in the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory to 70 percent of the maximum density allowed in the underlying zone. As detailed in Actions 5.2a and 5.2b, San Anselmo will establish a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and require that at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a project be for residential use in the C-L and C-3 districts. Further, as detailed in Action 5.3a, the Town will establish an Affordable Housing Overlay District that could be applied to development in the SPD, C-3, or R-3 Districts that would incentivize the development of affordable housing by allowing greater density amongst other incentives. These actions further ensure housing development in the Town meets or exceeds the realistic capacity assumptions made for this analysis.

Suitability of Non-Vacant and Underutilized Sites
Nestled in the heart of the Ross Valley, the Town of San Anselmo is renowned for its blend of nature, community, and safe family-friendly living. The Town enjoys easy access to nature, as it directly borders generous open space areas in the shadow of Mt. Tamalpais. Since the Town’s first long range planning documents were adopted in May 1959, the vision for the Town has always been to plan for the physical growth and development of the community in a manner that provides the greatest degree of safety, service, economy, and convenience. Additionally, the Town’s objectives have been to balance and preserve the natural environment, varied topography, open space, and other natural amenities. Given these historical goals, wellintentioned preventative planning efforts aimed at preserving open space and small-town character resulted in slow residential growth. Despite the Town’s efforts to preserve and retain the community character, the result of these preventative planning efforts led to overly restrictive zoning regulations, such as low residential densities, limiting development standards (e.g., floor area, lot coverage, setback requirement, height limitation), single story and dated suburban development with large and expansive paved parking lots, limited land uses in commercial zoning, and discretionary permitting for consideration of any housing. The result of the past preventative planning efforts has led to dated, underutilized building sites that are partially or entirely vacant, and often appear as dilapidated and/or neglected building sites.

In contrast to the past, the Town’s current vision is one that values and promotes residential development as a key component of a vibrant community.

While preparing the Housing Element Update, and in response to recent state legislation, the community has had an opportunity to rethink its future and patterns of development. While community character and natural amenities are still a top priority for the Town, the Town is dedicated to unlocking the untapped potential within the community by increasing housing. The Town is committed to encouraging and facilitating housing by the redevelopment of underutilized properties and vacant sites. With a focus on sustainable and thoughtful urban planning, the Town envisions a future where underutilized Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
363
NOVEMBER 2023
161
and vacant spaces transform into vibrant, welcoming neighborhoods and celebrate inclusivity, economic vitality, and a more dynamic, diverse, and thriving community.

Mindful of the challenging market conditions, the Town is committed to taking actions that will attract residential development, and in fact, has already begun to take concrete steps to facilitate and ease housing production. To this end, the Town’s Housing Element prioritizes many strategic actions, such as zoning amendments to reduce barriers to housing, offering incentives to encourage development, providing continued outreach to encourage the redevelopment of unutilized properties, and a variety of other actions listed in Chapter 8, Policies, Programs, and Actions, of the Housing Element. The Town will expedite the residential permitting process and waive fees for lot consolidations sought on housing opportunity sites, as stated in Action 5.2e, which will encourage multi-family housing. Additionally, the Town has already adopted Objective Design and Development Standards as stated in Program 3.2, Action 3.2a for certain multi-family development, prohibiting the discretionary design review that can often be a barrier to housing development and thus, establishing a more efficient and streamlined permitting process.

The Policies, Programs, and Actions in the Housing Element, and the actions already taken by the Town, demonstrate the Town’s commitment to not only address the pressing need for housing opportunities, but also fosters a sense of community, revitalizing the Town and creating spaces where residents can thrive.

San Anselmo has little remaining vacant land suitable for development, and existing vacant sites in the community are severely constrained by the wildland urban interface, high Fire Hazard Severity Zones, and other environmental factors as discussed in greater detail in the Environmental Constraints section of Chapter 4: Housing Constraints. As such, the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory is comprised largely of non-vacant sites.

Most non-vacant opportunity sites in San Anselmo are underutilized and currently developed as commercial, downtown mixed residential or singlefamily residential land uses. The existing uses of these sites would not prevent redevelopment, as they provide marginal economic viability, as determined through an examination of specific factors for nonvacant parcels including the age of structures, improvement to land value ratio, unrealized potential, sites that are occupied by vacant or unutilized buildings, non-conforming structures, and developer interest. Opportunity sites received one point if they met one of the factors’ thresholds. If a site met at least three of the following factors, it was deemed suitable for residential development, as summarized in Figure 6.2 and detailed in Table 6.10. As shown in Figure 6.2, only four of the Town’s opportunity sites meet only four of the factors.

More than 89 percent of sites meet more than five factors. • Age of existing structure: If an existing non-residential building is 30 years or older, or if an existing residential building is 40 years or older it was deemed suitable for redevelopment. In general, buildings over 30 years begin to show signs of fatigue and often require significant investments to modernize. Advances in building technology and demands for residential and commercial space have drastically shifted in the past 30-40 years, making reuse of buildings that age and older unlikely. • Improvement to land value (ILV) ratio: If the existing building or structure on a site is worth less than the land of the site (i.e., the ILV ratio is less than 1.0), it was deemed suitable for redevelopment. Properties that are currently developed as high-quality, modern residential uses and commercial centers/office buildings typically have higher IVL ratio. Since land in the community is in such high demand, a site where the land is worth more than the existing building or structure is highly likely to redevelop rather than be reused.
• Unrealized potential: If a site zoned for residential uses has the potential to add two or more units based on the proposed maximum allowed density compared to the existing density, or if a site zoned for commercial uses has the potential to increase its FAR based on the currently maximum allowed FAR compared to the existing FAR, it was deemed suitable for redevelopment.

A property with a low improvement to land value ratio at 113 Spaulding Street.

Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
364
NOVEMBER 2023
162
• Vacant or underutilized buildings: The national transition from in-person shopping and work to online retail and remote work have shifted the physical landscape and economy, and the town has observed a similar decreased demand for the existing retail and office spaces in San Anselmo. This is evidenced by the growing number of chronically vacant or underutilized buildings in town, and property owners and real estate management offices have anecdotally shared their concerns with Town staff regarding increasing struggles to find tenants over the last few years that are interested in renting their spaces. Since land in the community is in such high demand, a developer is more likely to purchase a site with vacant or underutilized buildings for redevelopment with housing than purchase a vacant site with steep topography, wildfire risk, or other environmental impediments. If a nonvacant site is occupied by a building with a higher vacancy rate and does not command the rents associated with newer commercial buildings in San Anselmo, it was deemed suitable for redevelopment. Sites with partially vacant or underutilized buildings or parking lots not required for viable use received a score of 0.5. • Developer interest: If Town staff have received a formal inquiry from a developer for the development of residential uses on a site, it was deemed suitable for redevelopment. • Proximity to Transit. If the opportunity site is located within a quarter mile of a transit stop, it was deemed suitable for redevelopment. Per Government Code Section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i) the Town cannot require parking for development within a quarter mile of a transit stop. This significantly increases the potential yield of redevelopment, making it more financially feasible to undertake. • Streamlined Permitting with ODDS. If the opportunity site is subject to the Town’s Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS), it was deemed suitable for redevelopment. If a development utilizes the ODDS, development can occur by-right, significantly decreasing the time and cost associated with receiving development approvals, making redevelopment more financially feasible to undertake. Multiple developers and property owners in San Anselmo have expressed apprehension to redevelop their property with residential uses due to the discretionary review process. In conversations with developers and property owners, Town staff have received feedback that a ministerial path to project approval, such as the ODDS, would provide the developers and owners with adequate certainty in the development process to proceed with redevelopment of their property. Therefore, the developer risk mitigation resulting from a new objective review process significantly increases the potential for redevelopment on these sites.
• Non-Conforming Structures. As shown in the accompanying pictures in Appendix B, many buildings in San Anselmo have experienced deferred maintenance and would require significant reinvestment to improve and conform to today’s standards. Furthermore, buildings constructed prior to 1990 also are not compliant with ADA requirements. Any major improvements will require the buildings be brought up to codes regarding accessibility. This is often challenging financially in general and physically in particular for older buildings. Since land in the community is in such high demand, a developer is more likely to purchase a site with a non-conforming building and raze it rather than invest the money needed to bring it to today’s standards. If a property with nonconforming structures was identified as needing substantial reinvestment to conform with the Town’s Municipal Code, which regulates the built environment to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare are maintained as stated in Section 1-6.01 of the Code, then it was deemed suitable for redevelopment.

The nonvacant sites analysis summarized in the chart and detailed in the table below refined the Town’s Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory last submitted to HCD on February 20, 2023. The Town’s original submittal included 172 housing opportunity sites and the revised inventory presented in this document includes 151 sites. Over 20 sites were removed from the opportunity sites inventory because they met fewer than four of the factors described above.

A partially vacant building at 754 Sir Francis Drake
Boulevard.

Significant reinvestment would be necessary to construct housing at 19 Tamalpais Avenue.

Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
365
NOVEMBER 2023
163
There are multiple above-moderate income non-vacant
sites in the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory that are located on properties that currently provide single-family residential housing. Recent market trends in San Anselmo indicate a rise in the redevelopment of lower-density singlefamily sites in walkable neighborhoods with higher-density residential uses. Since 2019, the Town has received,
approved, and issued certificates of occupancy for two
projects involving the redevelopment of lower-density
residential uses with higher-density residential units in San Anselmo. One project, located at 45 Ross Avenue, involved the demolition of one single-family residence and
warehouse and construction of six new residential units. The other project at 18 Mariposa Avenue involved the demolition of one single-family residence and construction of four new residential units. Given these recent development trends, the Town anticipates redevelopment of other lower-density single-family properties (as identified in the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory) with higher-density residential uses.

There are multiple non-vacant sites in the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory located on commercially-zoned properties adjacent to major transportation thoroughfares, including Red Hill Avenue, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, and Greenfield Avenue, that currently contain commercial structures. As shown in Table 6.9 below, recent market trends throughout Marin County demonstrate a shift towards redevelopment of older, underutilized commercial and nonresidential strips near transportation corridors with higher-density residential uses.

Table 6.9: Recent Trends in Redevelopment of Commercial and Nonresidential Zoned Properties with Existing Uses in Nearby Jurisdictions
Project Zoning Previous Use (Year Built) Project Use Approved Number of Units
1131-1141 Magnolia
Avenue, Larkspur
Commercial Former hardware store and small
businesses such a salon/framing
store/bakery (1925)
Mixed use commercial and multifamily housing2023 20
1301 Grant Avenue,
Novato
Downtown Core
Retail
Office building (1956) Mixed use commercial and multifamily housing2021 3 101 Landing Court,
Novato
General
Commercial
RV, boat, and trailer storage facility
(1962)
Multi-family housing 2020 32
1107 Grant Avenue,
Novato
Downtown Core
Retail
Former hardware store (1907) Mixed use retail and multi-family housing
2019 32
1515 Fourth Street, San
Rafael
West End Village Bank building (date of construction
unknown) and large parking lot
Mixed use commercial and multifamily housing2023 162
88 Vivian Street, San
Rafael
Neighborhood
Commercial
Bowling alley (1959) Multi-family housing 2022 70
703 Third Street, San
Rafael
T5 Main Street Retail stores and parking lots (<1950) Mixed use commercial and multifamily housing2019 120 In addition, the Town has a demonstrated history of conversion of former gas stations and auto repair uses to other land uses, with remediation under the supervision of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), as listed below:
• 613 (formerly 631) Sir Francis Drake Boulevard: This site is zoned for commercial uses and was the site of a former Mobile Unocal gas station.

The project site removed the gas station and cleaned up the site after 1984 and now serves as an ancillary parking lot to an adjacent grocery store.
• 111 Red Hill Avenue: This site is zoned for commercial uses and was the site of a former Chevron gas station. The project site was redeveloped into a commercial building in 1990.
• 1535 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard: This site is in the Specific Planned Development (SPD) zone with an underlying Neighborhood Commercial land use designation and was the site of a former Mobile gas station. The project site was redeveloped into an eight-unit multi-family 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
Number of Sites
Sum of Nonvacant Site Suitability Scores
Figure 6.2 Nonvacant Sites Suitability Analysis
Summary
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
366
NOVEMBER 2023
164
development in 2008.
• 100 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard: This site is zoned for commercial uses and was the site of a former auto repair shop with gas pumps. The project site was redeveloped with a commercial office building in 2003.

In a nearby jurisdiction, a site with an existing gas station at 1005 Northgate Drive in San Rafael received approval in 2019 to redevelop the site with 30 residential units. While many of the San Anselmo sites listed above were redeveloped with commercial uses, the Town’s Zoning Code at the time did not allow for by-right residential development in commercial zoning districts. The sites with gas stations or auto uses in the Housing Opportunity Site Inventory are proposed to be redesignated and rezoned to accommodate residential development to meet the identified housing need in Action 5.7a, creating an opportunity to redevelop with residential uses. Furthermore, Policy 5 programs and actions remove barriers from development and provide incentives including, but not limited to, density increases, reduced development standards, and the use of the ODDS.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPA developed the UST Finder, a web map application containing a comprehensive, state-sourced national map of underground storage tanks (UST) and leaking USTs (LUST). It provides the attributes and locations of active and closed USTs, UST facilities, and LUST sites. There are three total USTs in San Anselmo, as identified in Appendix B, and none of them are leaking, which would require remediation.

There are no sites in the Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory that are identified by DTSC or the Town of San Anselmo as having known or suspected contamination issues. If a site is determined to have environmental issues upon redevelopment, there are resources available to incentivize remediation and development. Redevelopment is encouraged by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) petroleum and brownfields grant funding for cleanup and remediation through the State’s Brownfield and Environmental Restoration Program.1 The grants offered at the state level and federal level offset the costs of redevelopment. Furthermore, local market trends point to the redevelopment potential of sites with contamination (from previous uses) to housing. As an example, a mixed-use project at 999 Third Street in San Rafael (zoned T5 Neighborhood) received approval in 2020 for environmental remediation from previous uses as a gas plant (overseen by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control) and construction of research & development facilities, a senior center, and 67 units of affordable senior housing. The project is currently under construction. In addition, the Rose Garden project in Larkspur, approved in 2010, constructed 85 housing units following the environmental remediation of hazardous wastes left by previous uses, as overseen by DTSC.

The Town has also received feedback from several owners of the identified housing opportunity sites indicating that the proposed Zoning Code amendments (Policy 5) that would reduce barriers and incentivize development would encourage them to redevelop their properties with housing, further cementing the Town’s confidence that development will occur at the planned densities during the 6th cycle planning period.

Jurisdictions that rely on non-vacant sites to meet 50% or more of their lower income RHNA are subject to a requirement to provide “substantial evidence” that the sites are realistic and developable. San Anselmo is subject to the “substantial evidence” requirement, since more than half of the identified lower-income potential is on non-vacant sites. Examples of substantial evidence include structures that don’t conform with current building standards, uses with low improvement values (such as parking lots), property owner interest in developing the parcel, and higher building vacancy rates. Another aspect of substantial evidence is whether other projects in the town have recently developed (or been approved for development) at the presumed densities. While many of San Anselmo’s non-vacant sites have low value land uses such as parking lots or storage, some sites retain active uses. State law requires that these uses be considered “constraints.” Jurisdictions can mitigate such constraints by providing incentives for residential uses (such as greater height and floor area limits) and working with housing developers to facilitate development.

As required by Government Code § 65583.2(g)(2), the Town has included findings in the resolution adopting the Housing Element that existing uses do not impede additional residential development. The Town has provided incentives and actions to work with developers to ensure that such sites are developable. It has also provided a buffer of additional sites in the event non-vacant sites are not available during the planning period. 1 State-level grants are published here: https://dtsc.ca.gov/brownfields/loans-and-grants/ and https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/ Federal grants are published here: https://www.epa.gov/ust/petroleum-brownfields#federalprog Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
367
NOVEMBER 2023
165
Table 6.10: Non-Vacant Site Suitability
Site Address
Improvement
Ratio
Threshold
Met
Age Of
Structure
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Residential
Potential
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Commercial
Potential
Threshold
Met
Sites With
Vacant
Buildings
Threshold
Met
Site
within
1/4
Mile of
a
Transit
Stop
Site
Within
ODDS
Focus
Area
Developer
Interest
NonConforming
Structures
Sum of
Nonvacant
Site
Suitability
Scores
Vacant
Site
Meets
Feasibility
for
Development
Threshold
1 9 TAMAL AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
2 300 SUNNY
HILLS DR 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 Yes
3 1019 SIR

FRANCIS DRAKE
BLVD
0 1 0 0 0.5 1 1 0 1 4.5 Yes
4 1001 SIR

FRANCIS DRAKE
BLVD
1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
5 8 SAIS AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
6 930 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
7 805 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 0 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 5.5 Yes
8 830 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
8 820 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 6.5 Yes
8 810 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
8 800 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 5.5 Yes
9 781 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
9 761 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 5.5 Yes
10 729 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 7 Yes
10 727 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
11 6 BRIDGE AVE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
11 707 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
12 754 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 4 Yes
12 750 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
368
NOVEMBER 2023
166
Table 6.10: Non-Vacant Site Suitability
Site Address
Improvement
Ratio
Threshold
Met
Age Of
Structure
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Residential
Potential
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Commercial
Potential
Threshold
Met
Sites With
Vacant
Buildings
Threshold
Met
Site
within
1/4
Mile of
a
Transit
Stop
Site
Within
ODDS
Focus
Area
Developer
Interest
NonConforming
Structures
Sum of
Nonvacant
Site
Suitability
Scores
Vacant
Site
Meets
Feasibility
for
Development
Threshold
13 113 SPAULDING
ST 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 Yes
14 100 CENTER
BLVD 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
15 112 SPAULDING
ST 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 5 Yes
15 606 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
15 640 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
16 604 RED HILL
AVE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 7 Yes
17 580 RED HILL
AVE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
17 526 RED HILL
AVE 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 Yes
17 520 RED HILL
AVE 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
17 5 PALM LN 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
17 510 RED HILL
AVE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
17 504 RED HILL
AVE 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 Yes
18 412 RED HILL
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
18 NO ADDRESS 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 5.5 Yes
18 9 BUENA VISTA 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
18 400 RED HILL
AVE 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
18 17 BUENA VISTA
AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
19 330 RED HILL
AVE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 7 Yes
19 306 RED HILL
AVE 1 0 1 0 0.5 1 1 0 0 4.5 Yes
20 292 RED HILL
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
369
NOVEMBER 2023
166
Table 6.10: Non-Vacant Site Suitability
Site Address
Improvement
Ratio
Threshold
Met
Age Of
Structure
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Residential
Potential
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Commercial
Potential
Threshold
Met
Sites With
Vacant
Buildings
Threshold
Met
Site
within
1/4
Mile of
a
Transit
Stop
Site
Within
ODDS
Focus
Area
Developer
Interest
NonConforming
Structures
Sum of
Nonvacant
Site
Suitability
Scores
Vacant
Site
Meets
Feasibility
for
Development
Threshold
21 NO ADDRESS 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
21 100 RED HILL
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
22 90 RED HILL AVE 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
22 60 RED HILL AVE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
22 50 RED HILL AVE 0 0 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 4.5 Yes
22 6 RED HILL AVE 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 7.5 Yes
22 2 RED HILL AVE 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
23 275 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
24 208 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
24 210 GREENFIELD
AVE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
24 222 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 6.5 Yes
24 224 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 6.5 Yes
24 230 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
26 128 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
26 130 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
26 144 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
26 6 W HILLSIDE
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
27 60 GREENFIELD
AVE 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
27 70 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 Yes
27 90 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 Yes
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
370
NOVEMBER 2023
167
Table 6.10: Non-Vacant Site Suitability
Site Address
Improvement
Ratio
Threshold
Met
Age Of
Structure
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Residential
Potential
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Commercial
Potential
Threshold
Met
Sites With
Vacant
Buildings
Threshold
Met
Site
within
1/4
Mile of
a
Transit
Stop
Site
Within
ODDS
Focus
Area
Developer
Interest
NonConforming
Structures
Sum of
Nonvacant
Site
Suitability
Scores
Vacant
Site
Meets
Feasibility
for
Development
Threshold
27 NO ADDRESS 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes Yes
27 114 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
27 118 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 5.5 Yes
28 300 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 6.5 Yes
28 312 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
28 316 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 Yes
28 324 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Yes
28 340 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 7 Yes
28 14 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 Yes
28 No Address 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes Yes
28 34 GREENFIELD
AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 Yes
28 40 GREENFIELD
AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
29 43 SAN RAFAEL
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
29 55 SAN RAFAEL
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
30 71 SAN RAFAEL
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
30 76 TAMALPAIS
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 Yes
31 206 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 Yes
31 214 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
32 43 TAMALPAIS
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
32 41 TAMALPAIS
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 6 Yes
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
371
NOVEMBER 2023
169
Table 6.10: Non-Vacant Site Suitability
Site Address
Improvement
Ratio
Threshold
Met
Age Of
Structure
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Residential
Potential
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Commercial
Potential
Threshold
Met
Sites With
Vacant
Buildings
Threshold
Met
Site
within
1/4
Mile of
a
Transit
Stop
Site
Within
ODDS
Focus
Area
Developer
Interest
NonConforming
Structures
Sum of
Nonvacant
Site
Suitability
Scores
Vacant
Site
Meets
Feasibility
for
Development
Threshold
33 50 MARIPOSA
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
34 77 TAMALPAIS
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
34 69 TAMALPAIS
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 Yes
34 63 TAMALPAIS
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 Yes
35 54 MAGNOLIA
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
35 58 MAGNOLIA
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 Yes
36 30 MAGNOLIA
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
36 36 MAGNOLIA
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 7 Yes
37 73 MAGNOLIA
AVE 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 Yes
37 69 MAGNOLIA
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 Yes
38 47 MAGNOLIA
AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
38 43 MAGNOLIA
AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
38 41 MAGNOLIA
AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 65 Yes
39 196 TUNSTEAD
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 Yes
40 100 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 Yes
40 120 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 5 Yes
40 130 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 7 Yes
40 160 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 5.5 Yes
40 190 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
372
NOVEMBER 2023
170
Table 6.10: Non-Vacant Site Suitability
Site Address
Improvement
Ratio
Threshold
Met
Age Of
Structure
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Residential
Potential
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Commercial
Potential
Threshold
Met
Sites With
Vacant
Buildings
Threshold
Met
Site
within
1/4
Mile of
a
Transit
Stop
Site
Within
ODDS
Focus
Area
Developer
Interest
NonConforming
Structures
Sum of
Nonvacant
Site
Suitability
Scores
Vacant
Site
Meets
Feasibility
for
Development
Threshold
41 140 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
41 150 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
41 160 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
41 170 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
41 182 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
41 184 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 Yes
42 177 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
42 171 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
43 155 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 Yes
44 129 PINE ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
45 110 ROSS AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 Yes
46 80 ROSS AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
46 88 ROSS AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
46 102 ROSS AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 Yes
47 1 CEDAR ST 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 Yes
47 68 ROSS AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
48 61 WOODLAND
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
49 50 ROSS AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 Yes
50 21 MARIPOSA
AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
50 121 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 6.5 Yes
50 115 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 6.5 Yes
50 101 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 6.5 Yes
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
373
NOVEMBER 2023
171
Table 6.10: Non-Vacant Site Suitability
Site Address
Improvement
Ratio
Threshold
Met
Age Of
Structure
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Residential
Potential
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Commercial
Potential
Threshold
Met
Sites With
Vacant
Buildings
Threshold
Met
Site
within
1/4
Mile of
a
Transit
Stop
Site
Within
ODDS
Focus
Area
Developer
Interest
NonConforming
Structures
Sum of
Nonvacant
Site
Suitability
Scores
Vacant
Site
Meets
Feasibility
for
Development
Threshold
51 55 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 6.5 Yes
51 35 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 5.5 Yes
51 29 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 Yes
52 22 MARIPOSA
AVE 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
53 15 ROSS AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 Yes
53 243 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
53 233 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 Yes
53 223 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 5.5 Yes
53 217 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 6.5 Yes
54 98 SIR FRANCIS
DRAKE BLVD 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 7 Yes
55 151 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
56 25 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
57 19 TAMALPAIS 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 Yes
58 341 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
59 23 ROSS AVE 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8 Yes
60 21 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 5.5 Yes
61 305 SAN
ANSELMO AVE 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 Yes
62 73 ROSS AVE 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 Yes
62 70 MARIPOSA
AVE 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 6 Yes
62 71 ROSS AVE 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 Yes
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
374
NOVEMBER 2023
172
Table 6.10: Non-Vacant Site Suitability
Site Address
Improvement
Ratio
Threshold
Met
Age Of
Structure
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Residential
Potential
Threshold
Met
Unrealized
Commercial
Potential
Threshold
Met
Sites With
Vacant
Buildings
Threshold
Met
Site
within
1/4
Mile of
a
Transit
Stop
Site
Within
ODDS
Focus
Area
Developer
Interest
NonConforming
Structures
Sum of
Nonvacant
Site
Suitability
Scores
Vacant
Site
Meets
Feasibility
for
Development
Threshold
63 51 ROSS AVE 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 6 Yes
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
375
NOVEMBER 2023
173
Replacement Housing Requirements
The Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory includes non-vacant sites, one of which currently provides housing to lower income households: Tam House II at 61 Woodland Avenue (part of Site 47). Action 4.1c requires replacement housing units when any new development (residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower-income households at any time during the previous five years.

Rezone Program for Adequate Sites
The Housing Opportunity Sites Inventory includes sites that will require rezoning or that text amendments be made to existing zoning district designations to accommodate the regional housing need, including for lower-income households. Program 5.2 and Program 5.7 and the associated actions require amendments to the Zoning Code to accommodate higher density and affordable housing San Anselmo’s rezoning program will meet all requirements of Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i) as detailed below:
• Residential Density. As detailed in Actions 5.2a, 5.2b, 5.7b, 5.7c, 5.7d, 5.7e, the Town will establish a required minimum density of residential development and will allow a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. In addition, the Affordable Housing Overlay District (Program 5.3) will be applied to properties zoned SPD, C-3, and R-3, and it will provide additional flexibility in development standards to encourage affordable housing in San Anselmo. Property owners will also be able to request a zoning amendment to fall within the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, and the Town will waive rezoning fees. However, the Affordable Housing Overlay District is not required to meet the RHNA or make development feasible at the densities prescribed by the base zone. • Mixed Use Development. As detailed in Action 5.2b, the Town of San Anselmo will require that residential use occupy at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed use project.
• Residential Use by Right. The Town will not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. Any subdivision of the sites shall be subject to all laws, including, but not limited to, the local government ordinance implementing the Subdivision Map Act. As detailed in Actions 3.1b and 3.2a, the Town of San Anselmo will adopt objective design standards for all housing types, including missing middle housing types, which will be used as administrative design review for project approval. Due to the objective, nondiscretionary nature of the objective design standards, design review will not constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

Infrastructure Availability
As detailed in Chapter 4, Housing Constraints, infrastructure providers in San Anselmo have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of development on the identified housing opportunity sites.

Housing Opportunities Conclusion
The Town of San Anselmo is committed to creating housing opportunities and choice throughout the community and has gone above and beyond the state mandate to do so. San Anselmo’s RHNA 6th Cycle obligation is a total of 833 total units. With 54 units in pipeline projects and 160 projected ADUs, the Town’s obligation is reduced to 619 total units. To plan for the remaining 619 units, the Town has identified 63 sites across 151 parcels that can reasonably accommodate 794 total units – providing the Town with nearly a 30 percent buffer. This significant buffer will ensure that the Town has the resources needed to fulfill its RHNA 6th Cycle obligation and more in the next eight years.

Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
376
NOVEMBER 2023
174
Table 6.11: RHNA 6th Cycle Allocation Compared to Opportunity Site Yield Income Level RHNA
Allocation
RHNA Less Pipeline Projects and ADUs
Plus 20 Percent "No Net Loss" Buffer
Opportunity Sites
Yield
Low Income 398 356.4 325
Moderate Income (80-119% AMI) 121 114.6 272
Above Moderate Income (120% AMI+) 314 301.8 197
Total 833 745 794
Table 6.12 and Table 6.13 below summarize the projected number of units that could be developed on parcels currently suitably designated and zoned to allow residential uses in relation to the RHNA and projected pipeline projects and ADUs. The sites currently suitably zoned to allow residential development are broken down into vacant and non-vacant sites. Redevelopment potential of the non-vacant sites is analyzed in this chapter. As shown in the table, San Anselmo’s RHNA of 833 units cannot be met by already suitably zoned land that allows residential uses.

Therefore, the Town proposes to redesignate and rezone sites to accommodate additional residential development at income levels that meet the identified housing need in Action 5.7a.

Table 6.12: Suitable Sites Zoned for Residential Uses Yield Analysis Very LowIncomeLowIncomeModerateIncomeAbove
ModerateIncome
Total
RHNA 253 145 121 314 833
Estimated Units Accommodated by Vacant
Land Zoned to Allow Residential Uses 0 16 10 26
Estimated Units Accommodated by Non-Vacant
Land Zoned to Allow Residential Uses 182 224 60 466
Projected Units to be Accommodated by
Pipeline Projects and ADUs 50 48 48 68 214
Remaining RHNA to be Accommodated by
Opportunity Sites 118 -167 (surplus) 176 127
Table 6.13: Housing Opportunity Sites Summary Table
Income Category Total
Sites
Total Net
New Units Total Acres Rezoned Sites Rezoned Sites: Net New Units Rezoned Acres Lower Income 16 325 15.80 3 143 6.80
Moderate Income 64 272 14.52 9 32 1.74
Above Moderate
Income 70 197 14.94 58 133 11.60
Total 150 794 45.26 70 308 20.14
Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
377
171
7 AFFIRMATIVELY

FURTHERING

FAIR HOUSING
175 Item 2.5 - Attachment
2 378
172
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
Introduction and Overview of AB 686
Assembly Bill 686 passed in 2017 requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity1 and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing2 . AB 686 mandates that local governments identify meaningful goals to address the impacts of systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal educational or employment opportunities to the extent these issues create and/or perpetuate discrimination against protected classes3 . In addition, it:
• Requires the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities to administer their programs and activities related to housing and community development in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing. • Prohibits the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities from taking actions materially inconsistent with their AFFH obligation. • Requires that the AFFH obligation be interpreted consistent with HUD’s 2015 regulation, regardless of federal action regarding the regulation. • Adds an AFFH analysis to the Housing Element (an existing planning process that California cities and counties must complete) for plans that are due to begin in 2021.
• Includes in the Housing Element’s AFFH analysis a required examination of issues such as segregation and resident displacement, as well as the required identification of fair housing goals.

The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the Town’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

Analysis Requirements
An assessment of fair housing must consider the elements and factors that cause, increase, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs.4 The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time. This analysis should compare the locality at a county level or even broader regional level such as a Council of Government, where appropriate, for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities.

For the purposes of this AFFH, “Regional Trends” describe trends the Bay Area (the members of ABAG) when data is available in the Data Needs Package as well as it could be gathered from the U.S. Census and trends within the boundaries of Marin County. “Local Trends” describe trends specific to the San Anselmo.
1 While the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) does not provide a definition of opportunity, opportunity usually related to the access to resources and improve quality of life. HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) have created Opportunity Maps to visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility. 2 “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” is defined to mean taking meaningful actions that “overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for communities of color, persons with disabilities, and others protected by California law. 3 A protected class is a group of people sharing a common trait who are legally protected from being discriminated against on the basis of that trait. 4 Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subds. (c)(10)(A), (c)(10)(B), 8899.50, subds. (a), (b), (c); see also AFFH Final Rule and Commentary (AFFH Rule), 80 Fed. Reg. 42271, 42274, 42282-42283, 42322, 42323, 42336, 42339, 42353-42360, esp. 42355-42356 (July 16, 2015). See also 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.150, 5.154(b)(2) (2016). 176 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
379
173
Sources of Information
The Town used a variety of data sources for the assessment of fair housing at the regional and local level. These include:
• Housing Needs Data Packets prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which rely on 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) data by the U.S. Census Bureau for most characteristics ◦ Note: The ABAG Data Packets also referenced the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports (based on the 2013-2017 ACS) • U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS) • Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in January 2020 (2020 AI). • Local Knowledge
Some of these sources provide data on the same topic, but the resulting data differs due to different methodologies. For example, the decennial Census and ACS report slightly different estimates for the total population, number of households, number of housing units, and household size. The ACS provides estimates based on a small survey of the population taken over the course of the whole year.5 Since the survey size and seasonal population shifts, some information provided by the ACS is less reliable. For this reason, the readers should keep in mind the potential for data errors when drawing conclusions based on the ACS data used in this chapter. The information included provides an indication of possible trends. The analysis makes comparisons between data from the same source during the same time periods, using the ABAG Data Package as the primary source since ABAG has provided data at different geographical levels for the required comparisons. As such, even though more recent ACS data may be available, 2015-2019 ACS reports are cited more frequently (and 2013-2017 for CHAS data).

The Town also used findings and data from the 2020 Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020 AI), which includes a variety of locally available information, such as surveys, local history, and events that have historically or currently affect fair housing choice. The Town also sourced regional findings and data from HCD’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.

In addition, HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer. The AFFH Data Viewer consists of map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the ACS data in the ABAG package. Time frames across data sources may differ by a few years when data from the same year was not available . As explained earlier, assessments are most useful when indicating possible trends.

For simplicity, this analysis will refer to various sections of the county as North Marin, West Marin, Central Marin, and Southern Marin. San Anselmo is part of Central Marin. These designations are shown in Figure 7.1 and include the following communities and jurisdictions:
• North Marin: Black Point-Green Point, Novato, Lucas Valley-Marinwood • West Marin: Dillon Beach, Tomales, Inverness, Point Reyes Station, Nicasio, Lagunitas-Forest Knolls, San Geronimo, Woodacre, Bolinas, Stinson Beach, Muir Beach
• Central Marin: Sleepy Hollow, Fairfax, San Anselmo, Ross, Santa Venetia, San Rafael, Kentfield, Larkspur, Corte Madera • Southern Marin: Mill Valley, Tiburon, Strawberry, Tamalpais-Homestead Valley, Marin City, Belvedere, Sausalito 177 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
380
174
Figure 7.1: Marin County Communities
178 Item 2.5 - Attachment
2 381
175
Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are aware of fair housing laws and rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing The Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) provides fair housing services, including fair housing counseling, complaint investigation, and discrimination complaint assistance, to Marin County residents. FHANC is a non-profit agency whose mission is to actively support and promote fair housing through education and advocacy. FHANC also provides fair housing workshops in English and Spanish. Workshops educate tenants on fair housing law and include information on discriminatory practices, protections for immigrants, people with disabilities, and families with children, occupancy standards, and landlord-tenant laws. FHANC also provides educational workshops on home buying and affordable homeownership. FHANC hosts a fair housing conference in Marin County annually.

The County of Marin works in close partnership with the Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) (a division of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, FHANC). FHAM is the only HUD-certified Housing Counseling Agency in the county, as well as the only fair housing agency with a testing program in the county. Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) provides free services to residents protected under federal and state fair housing laws. FHAM helps people address discrimination they have experienced, increasing housing access and opportunity through advocacy as well as requiring housing providers to make changes in discriminatory policies. FHAM provides the following services:

1. Housing counseling for individual tenants and homeowners;

2. Mediations and case investigations;

3. Referral of and representation in complaints to state and federal enforcement agencies;

4. Intervention for people with disabilities requesting reasonable accommodations and modifications;

5. Fair housing training seminars for housing providers, community organizations, and interested individuals;

6. Systemic discrimination investigations;

7. Monitoring Craigslist for discriminatory advertising;

8. Education and outreach activities to members of protected classes on fair housing laws;

9. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) training and activities to promote fair housing for local jurisdictions and county programs;

10. Pre-purchase counseling/education for people in protected classes who may be victims of predatory lending; and

11. Foreclosure prevention.
179 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
382
176
Fair Housing Enforcement
Regional Trends
The 2020 Analysis of Impediments (AI) presented information on housing discrimination basis for the entire County. Discrimination complaints from both in-place and prospective tenants are filed with FHANC, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Complaints filed through HUD/DFEH from 2018-2019, included in the 2020 AI are shown below. More updated FHANC clients (2020-2021) are also included in Table 7.1. A total of 301 housing discrimination complaints were filed with FHANC from 2020 to 2021 and 14 were filed with HUD from 2018 to 2019. Discrimination complaints by protected class are shown in Table 7.1. A majority of complaints, including 78 percent of complaints filed with FHANC and 57 percent of complaints filed with HUD, were related to disability status. This finding is consistent with federal and state trends. According to the 2020 State AI, 51 percent of housing-related complaints filed with DFEH between 2015 and 2019 were filed under disability claims, making disability the most common basis for a complaint. In addition to the complaints detailed in the table below, FHANC also received four complaints based on age, three based on sex, two based on color, one based on sexual orientation, and one based on marital status. Similarly, state trends show that race and familial status are among the most common basis for discrimination complaints (16 percent and 10 percent, between 2015 and 2019).

Table 7.1: Discrimination Complaints by Protected Class (2018-2021) Protected Class
FHANC (2020-21) HUD/DFEH (2018-19)
Complaints Percent Complaints Percent
Disability 235 78% 8 57%
National Origin 38 13% 4 29%
Race 22 7% 3 21%
Gender 19 6% 2 14%
Familial Status 13 4% 1 7%
Source of Income 28 9% N/A N/A
Total 301 N/A 14 N/A
Sources: Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2020; Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), 2020-21.

A reasonable accommodation, as defined in the 2020 AI, “is a change or modification to a housing rule, policy, practice, or service that will allow a qualified tenant or applicant with a disability to participate fully in a housing program or to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common spaces.” The 2020 AI reported that FHANC requested 35 reasonable accommodations for clients with disabilities between 2018 and 2019, 33 of which were approved. County staff also advise clients on reasonable accommodations requests. FHANC also provides funding for the Marin Center for Independent Living (MCIL). Since 2017, FHANC has provided funding for 13 MCIL modifications.

As described earlier, the County works with Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) (a division of Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, FHANC) to provide fair housing services to Marin residents. However, FHAM also provides services across a large service area that includes Marin County, Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, Fairfield, and Vallejo.

Historically, FHAM’s fair housing services have been especially beneficial to Latinos, African Americans, people with disabilities, immigrants, families with children, female-headed households (including survivors of domestic violence and sexual harassment), and senior residents; approximately 90 percent of clients are low-income. FHAM’s education services are also available to members of the housing, lending, and advertising industry.

Providing industry professionals with information about their fair housing responsibilities is another means by which FHAM decreases incidences of discrimination and helps to protect the rights of members of protected classes. 180 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
383
177
From 2017 to 2018, the FHAM served 1,657 clients (tenants, homeowners, social service providers, and advocates), a 22 percent increase from the previous year; provided counseling on 592 fair housing cases (a 26 percent increase), intervened for 89 reasonable accommodations granted (a 33 percent increase) of 97 (a 24 percent increase) requested for people with disabilities; funded eight (8) reasonable modification requests to improve accessibility for people with disabilities; investigated 71 rental properties for discriminatory practices, filed 15 administrative fair housing complaints (a 15 percent increase)and one (1) lawsuit; garnered $71,140 in settlements for clients and the agency; and counseled 71 distressed homeowners and assisted homeowners in acquiring $228,197 through Keep Your Home California programs to prevent foreclosure.

During Fiscal Year 2018 to 2019, FHAM counseled 393 tenants and homeowners in Marin County, screening clients for fair housing issues and providing referrals for non-fair housing clients or callers out of FHAM’s service area. Of the households counseled, 211 alleged discrimination and were referred to an attorney or bilingual housing counselor for further assistance (e.g. receiving information on fair housing laws, interventions with housing providers requesting relief from discriminatory behavior, making 35 reasonable accommodation requests on behalf of disabled tenants, four referrals to HUD/DFEH and representation in administrative complaints). Though the complaints FHAM received were on every federal and protected basis, the fair housing administrative complaints filed with the Department of HUD or the California Department of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, race, national origin, gender, and familial status. 181 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
384
178
Local Trends
FHANC received 39 housing discrimination complaints from San Anselmo residents between 2016 to 2021, including five in 2021 (Table 7.2).

It is important to note that the sum of the complaints by protected class shown below will not equal the total as a single complaint may have been filed by a member of multiple protected classes. During this period, a large majority (74.4 percent) of complaints were related to disability status. Less common complaints related to race (7.7 percent), sexual orientation (7.7 percent), and gender (7.7 percent). Two complaints were filed by members of each of the following protected classes: source of income, age, marital status, religion, and national origin. One complaint was filed related to sex and familial status respectively. Consistent with the large proportion of persons filing on the basis of disability, 59 percent of complaints cited reasonable accommodation as a discriminatory practice. Other common discriminatory practices cited include different terms and conditions (15.4 percent), refusal to rent/sale (12.8 percent), and intimidation, interference, or coercion (12.8 percent).

Of the 39 complaints filed during this period, 27 (69.2 percent) were filed by White residents, four were filed by Black/African American residents (10.3 percent), three were filed by other/multiple race residents (7.7 percent), two were filed by American Indian/Alaska Native and White residents (5.1 percent), and two were filed by Asian and White residents (5.1 percent). Nearly 13 percent of complaints were filed by Latino residents. White residents were underrepresented in the pool of complaints, while all other races/ethnicities were overrepresented compared to the distribution of the population (see Table 7.3).

Table 7.2: Discrimination Complaints by Protected Class – San Anselmo (2016-2021) Protected Class 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Total
Disability 5 6 5 5 2 6 74.4%
Race 1 0 0 2 0 0 7.7%
Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 2 1 0 7.7%
Gender 0 0 0 0 2 1 7.7%
Source of Income 1 0 1 0 0 0 5.1%
Age 0 0 1 0 1 0 5.1%
Marital Status 0 0 1 0 1 0 5.1%
Religion 0 0 0 0 1 1 5.1%
National Origin 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.1%
Sex 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.6%
Familial Status 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.6%
Total 5 6 7 7 5 9 39
Note: Sum of complaints by basis will not equal total as a single complaint may be on the basis of multiple protected classes.

Sources: Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), 2020-21.

The HCD Data Viewer records HUD fair housing inquiries. Fair housing inquiries are not official fair housing cases but can be used to identify concerns about possible discrimination. According to 2013-2021 HUD data, there were 0.15 inquiries per 1,000 persons in San Anselmo. The fair housing inquiry rate in the town is like the nearby jurisdictions of Fairfax, Larkspur, and Ross, and lower than San Rafael and Corte Madera. There were two total inquiries from San Anselmo residents during this period, one related to disability status and one related to sex. 182 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
385
179
Fair Housing Testing
Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws.

Regional Trends
During the 2018-2019 FY, FHANC conducted email testing, in-person site, and phone testing for Marin County. FHANC conducted 60 email tests to “test the assumption of what ethnicity or race the average person would associate with each of the names proposed.” Email testing showed clear differential treatment favoring the White tester in 27 percent of tests, discrimination based on income in 63 percent of tests, and discrimination based on familial status in 7 percent of tests. Three paired tests (6 tests total) also showed discrimination based on both race and source of income. In 80 percent of tests (24 of 30 paired tests), there was some discrepancy or disadvantage for African American testers and/or testers receiving Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs).3
In-person site and phone tests consisted of an African American tester and a White tester. Of the 10 paired in-person site and phone tests conducted, 50 percent showed differential treatment favoring the White tester, 60 percent showed discrepancies in treatment for HCV recipients, and 30 percent showed discrimination on the basis of race and source of income.

The conclusions of the fair housing tests included in the 2020 AI are as follows:
• Housing providers make exceptions for White Housing Choice Voucher recipients, particularly in high opportunity areas with low poverty. • Email testing revealed significant evidence of discrimination, with 27 percent of tests showing clear differential treatment favoring the White tester and 63 percent of tests showing at least some level of discrimination based upon source of income. • Phone/site testing also revealed significant instances of discrimination: 50 percent of discrimination based upon race and 60 percent based on source of income.

In Fiscal Year 2018 to 2019, Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) conducted systemic race discrimination investigations as well as complaintbased testing, with testing for race, national origin, disability, gender, and familial status discrimination. FHAM monitored Craigslist for discriminatory advertising, with the additional recently added protection for individuals using housing subsidies in unincorporated parts of Marin.

FHAM notified 77 housing providers in Marin during the year regarding discriminatory language in their advertisements.

The 2020 State AI did not report any findings on fair housing testing. However, the AI concluded that community awareness of fair housing protections correlates with fair housing testing as testing is often complaint-based, like it is for FHAM in Marin County. According to the 2020 State AI, research indicates that persons with disabilities are more likely to request differential treatment to ensure equal access to housing, making them more likely to identify discrimination. The 2020 State AI highlighted the need for continued fair housing outreach, fair housing testing, and trainings to communities across California, to ensure the fair housing rights of residents are protected under federal and state law. The 2020 State AI recommended that the state support the increase of fair housing testing to identify housing discrimination.

The 2020 State AI also reported findings from the 2020 Community Needs Assessment Survey. Respondents felt that the primary bases for housing discrimination were source of income, followed by discriminatory landlord practices, and gender identity and familial status. These results differ from the most cited reason for discrimination in complaints filed with DFEH and FHANC. The State survey also found that most (72 percent) respondents who had felt discriminated against did “nothing” in response. According to the 2020 State AI, “fair housing education and enforcement through the complaint process are areas of opportunity to help ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help.” 3 The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Since housing assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family homes, townhouses and apartments. Participants are free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. Participants issued a housing voucher are responsible for finding a suitable housing unit of their choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the local Public Housing Agency (PHA) on behalf of the participant. The participant then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. Beginning on January 1, 2020, housing providers, such as landlords, cannot refuse to rent to someone, or otherwise discriminate against them, because they have a housing subsidy, such as a Housing Choice Voucher, that helps them to afford their rent. 183 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
386
180
Local Trends
During the 2018-2019 FY, FHANC conducted email testing in San Anselmo. FHANC conducted eight email tests to “test the assumption of what ethnicity or race the average person would associate with each of the names proposed.” Email testing showed clear differential treatment favoring the White tester in 50 percent of tests, discrimination based on income in 75 percent of tests, and there was also clear differential treatment based upon familial status. Four paired tests showed clear differential treatment based upon race and two paired tests based upon source of income.

In 100 percent of tests (eight of eight paired tests), there was some discrepancy or disadvantage for African American testers and/or testers receiving Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs).

Fair Housing Education and Outreach
Regional Trends
As stated earlier, the 2020 State AI has concluded that fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help. FHANC organizes an annual fair housing conference and resource fair for housing providers and advocates. Housing rights workshops are offered to landlords, property managers, and community members. Information on federal and state fair housing laws, common forms of housing discrimination, protected characteristics, unlawful practices, and fair housing liability is presented to workshop participants. The Marin Housing Authority website includes the following information in 103 languages:
• Public Housing, including reasonable accommodations, grievance procedures, transfer policies, Section 3, maintenance service charges, fraud and abuse, resident newsletters, forms and other resources; • HCVs, including for landlords, participants, fraud and abuse and voucher payment standards; • Waitlist information and updates;
• Resident Services, including the Supportive Housing Program and Resident Advisory Board; • Homeownership including Below Market Rate Homeownership Program, Residential Rehab Loan Program, Mortgage Credit Certification Program and the Section 8 Homeownership Program;
• Announcements and news articles, Agency reports and calendar of events.

The County established a Fair Housing Community Advisory Group in 2016. The Community Advisory Group provides advice and feedback on community engagement and communication strategies to County staff, participates in inclusive discussions on fair housing topics, identifies fair housing issues and contributing factors, and assists in developing solutions to mitigate fair housing issues. The County also established a Fair Housing Steering Committee consisting of 20 members representing public housing, faith-based organizations, the Marin Housing Authority, Asian communities, cities and towns, African American communities, business, persons with disabilities, children, legal aid, persons experiencing homelessness, Latino communities, and philanthropy. The Steering Community advises on community engagement strategies, identifies factors contributing to fair housing impediments, incorporates community input and feedback, and provides information on a variety of housing topics to inform actions and implementation plans.

From 2017 to 2018, Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) educated 221 prospective homebuyers; trained 201 housing providers on fair housing law and practice, a 28 percent increase from the previous fiscal year. From 2017 to 2018, FHAM also reached 379 tenants and staff from service agencies through fair housing presentations and 227 community members through fair housing conferences (a 37 percent increase); distributed 4,185 pieces of literature; had 100 children participate in our annual Fair Housing Poster Contest from 10 local schools and 16 students participate in our first Fair Housing Poetry Contest from 11 local schools; and offered Storytelling shows about diversity and acceptance to 2,698 children attending 18 Storytelling shows.
184 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
387
181
As of 2021, FHAM agency reaches those least likely to apply for services through the following: · • Translating most of its literature into Spanish and some in Vietnamese; • Continuing to advertise all programs/services in all areas of Marin, including the Canal, Novato, and Marin City, areas where Latino and African-American populations are concentrated and live in segregated neighborhoods; • Maintaining a website with information translated into Spanish and Vietnamese; • Maintaining bilingual staff: As of 2021, FHAM has three bilingual Spanish speakers who offer intake, counseling, education and outreach to monolingual Spanish speakers; in addition, they have one staff member who is bilingual in Mandarin and another in Portuguese; • Maintaining a TTY/TDD line to assist in communication with clients who are deaf/hard of hearing · Offering translation services in other languages when needed;
• Conducting outreach and fair housing and pre-purchase presentations in English and Spanish; • Collaborating with agencies providing services to all protected classes, providing fair housing education to staff and eliciting help to reach vulnerable populations – e.g. Legal Aid of Marin, the Asian Advocacy Project, Canal Alliance, ISOJI, MCIL, Sparkpoint, the District Attorney’s Office, Office of Education, and the Marin Housing Authority.

Local Trends
As previously described in the Public Outreach Chapter, the Town held a series of Virtual Community Meetings and Housing Element Advisory Committee (HEAC) meetings. Both the Virtual Community Meetings and the HEAC meetings included an overview of fair housing issues, what AFFH is and how it relates to the town, current conditions within the town and potential actions to address AFFH issues. The Town is committed to continuing to engage the segments of the population that reside in the neighborhoods with a lower access to opportunity and more fair housing impediments for ongoing input related to housing and community development needs and access to opportunities. This includes access to economic, environmental, educational and transportation opportunities. The Town intends to complete additional outreach as it works to obtain certification of this Housing Element as well as continuing community engagement during the planning period.

Integration and Segregation
Race/Ethnicity
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. For example, prior studies have identified socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”- households with extended family members and non-kin.4 These factors have also been associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tends to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).5 To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as block groups within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 denoting no segregation and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two group that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, if an index score above 60, 60 percent of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation.6 The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
4 Harvey, H., Duniforn, R., & Pilkauskas, N. (2021). Under Whose Roof? Understanding the living arrangements of children in doubled-up households. Duke University Press, 58 (3): 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370- 9101102
5 Sandefur, G.D., Martin, M., Eggerling-Boeck, J. , Mannon, S.E., & .Meier, A.M. (2001). An overview of racial and ethnic demographic trends. In N. J. Smelser, W.J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.) America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences. (Vol I, pp. 40-102). National Academy Press Washington, D.C. . 6 Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 185 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
388
182
Regional Trends
Non-Hispanic Whites make up 71.2 percent of Marin County’s population, a significantly larger share than in the Bay Area region7, where only 39 percent of the population is non-Hispanic White. The next largest racial/ethnic group in Marin County is Hispanic/Latino, making up 16 percent of the population, followed by Asian population (5.8 percent), and population of two or more races (3.8 percent) (Table 7.3). Of the selected jurisdictions surrounding San Anselmo, San Rafael has the most concentrated Hispanic population, where 31 percent of residents are Hispanic or Latino, while Ross has the smallest Hispanic population of only 3.5 percent (and inversely the largest White population of 89 percent). These trends differ from the Bay Area, where Asians make up the second largest share of the population (27 percent). While Asians make up the third largest share of the population in Marin County, they account for only six percent of the population.

Table 7.3: Racial Composition in Neighboring Cities and County (2019) Race Bay Area10 Marin
County
San
Anselmo
Corte
Madera Fairfax Larkspur Ross San Rafael
White, non-Hispanic 3,030,040
(39.3%)
185,079
(71.2%)
10,759
(85.9%)
7,723
(78.5%)
6,237
(82.3%)
9,597
(77.9%)
2,040
(89.1%)
33,502
(57.0%)
Black or African American, nonHispanic447,182
(5.8%)
5,459
(2.1%)
100
(0.8%)
226
(2.3%)
30 (0.4%)
86 (0.7%)
69 (3.0%)
764
(1.3%)
American Indian and Alaska
Native, non-Hispanic
15,420
(0.2%)
520
(0.2%) N/A N/A N/A
49 (0.4%) N/A 59(0.1%)
Asian, non-Hispanic 2,058,577
(26.7%1)
15,077
(5.8%)
413
(3.3%)
600
(6.1%)
326
(4.3%)
665
(5.4%)
87 (3.8%)
3,938
(6.7%)
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic N/A 260
(0.1%) N/A N/A
30 (0.4%)
12 (0.1%) N/A N/A
Some other race, non-Hispanic N/A 2,339
(0.9%)
38 (0.3%)
157
(1.6%) N/A
62 (0.5%) N/A 234(0.4%)
Two or more races, non-Hispanic N/A 9,878
(3.8%)
326
(2.6%)
433
(4.4%)
242
(3.2%)
493
(4.0%)
11 (0.5%)
1,998
(3.4%)
Hispanic or Latino 1,811,856
(23.5%)
41,591
(16.0%)
698
(7.1%)
698
(7.1%)
712
(9.4%)
1,355
(11.0%)
80 (3.5%)
18,220
(31.0%)
Total 7,710,026 259,943 12,525 9,838 7,578 12,319 2,290 58,775

1. The “Bay Area” data covers the members of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which are the counties of: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francis- co, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.

2. Asian and Pacific Islander combined; ABAG Data Package presented data with some races combined.

Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates). ABAG Housing Needs Data Package.

As explained above, dissimilarity indices measure segregation, with higher indices signifying higher segregation. In Marin County, all minority (nonWhite) residents combined are considered moderately segregated from White residents, with an index score of 42.6 in 2020 (Table 7.4). Since 1990, segregation between non-White (all non-white residents combined) and White residents has increased. Dissimilarity indices between Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and White residents have also increased since 1990, indicating that Marin County has become increasingly racially segregated. Based on HUD’s definition of the index, Black and White residents are highly segregated and Hispanic and White residents are moderately segregated, while segregation between Asian/Pacific Islander and White residents is considered low.

Table 7.4: Dissimilarity Indices for Marin County (1990-2020) 1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current
Non-White/White 31.63 34.08 35.21 42.61
Black/White 54.90 50.87 45.61 57.17
Hispanic/White 36.38 44.29 44.73 49.97
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 19.64 20.13 18.55 25.72 Sources: HUD Dissimilarity Index, 2020.
7 The “Bay Area” data covers the members of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which are the counties of: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. 186 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
389
183
In California, based on the figures provided in the 2020 State AI, segregation levels between non-White and White populations were moderate in both entitlement and non-entitlement areas. However, segregation levels in non-entitlement areas are slightly higher with a value of 54.1, compared to

50.1 in entitlement areas. Segregation trends Statewide show an increase in segregation between non-White and White populations between 1990 and 2017 in both entitlement and non-entitlement areas. The 2020 State AI found that California’s segregation levels have consistently been most severe between the Black and White populations, a trend paralleled in Marin County. Also, like Marin County, State trends show Asian or Pacific Islander and White residents are the least segregated when compared to other racial and ethnic groups, but levels are still increasing.

Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 below compare the concentration of minority populations in Marin County and the adjacent region by census block group8 in 2010 and 2018. Since 2010, concentrations of racial/ethnic minority groups have increased in most block groups regionwide. In Marin County, non-White populations are most concentrated along the eastern County boundary, specifically in North and Central Marin in the cities of San Rafael, Novato, and the unincorporated communities of Marin City and San Quentin (where a State Prison is located). Red block groups indicate that over 81 percent of the population in the tract is non-White. While non-White populations appear to be increasing across the Marin region, these groups are generally concentrated within the areas described above. However, minorities are more highly concentrated in jurisdictions east and south of Marin County. Most of the block groups along the San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay shores in Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco County have higher concentrations of minorities (over 61 percent) compared to North Bay counties (Marin, Sonoma, and Napa).

Figure 7.2: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group (2010) 8 Block groups (BGs) are the next level above census blocks in the geographic hierarchy (census blocks are the smallest geographic area for which the Bureau of the Census collects and tabulates decennial census data). A BG is a combination of census blocks that is a subdivision of a census tract or block numbering area (BNA). A county or its statistically equivalent entity contains either census tracts or BNAs; it can not contain both. The BG is the smallest geographic entity for which the decennial census tabulates and publishes sample data. 187 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
390
184
Figure 7.3: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group (2018) 188 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
391
185
Figure 7.4 shows census tracts in Marin County and the neighboring region by predominant racial or ethnic groups. The intensity of the color indicates the population percentage gap between the majority racial/ethnic group and the next largest racial/ethnic group. The higher the intensity of the color, the higher the percentage gap between the predominant racial/ethnic group and the next largest racial/ethnic group. The darkest color indicator for each race indicates that over 50 percent of the population in that tract is of a particular race/ethnicity. Gray indicates a White predominant tract, green indicates a Hispanic predominant tract, purple indicates an Asian predominant tract, and red indicates a Black predominant tract. There are only four tracts in the county with non-White predominant populations. Three tracts in Central Marin and one tract in Southern Marin have predominant non-White populations. Two tracts in San Rafael have Hispanic predominant populations (green), one of which has a Hispanic population exceeding 50 percent (90 percent, darkest green), and one tract in the unincorporated San Quentin community has a Black predominant population (40 percent, red). In Southern Marin, one tract in unincorporated Marin City has a Black majority population (41 percent, red). In all other tracts countywide, Whites are the predominant race (grey). By comparison, many census tracts in Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco County have predominant minority populations (shades of purple, green, and red).

Marin City, historically an African American enclave, has experienced significant declines in the local African American population. In 1990, the community was about 90 percent Black/African American, and is currently around 28 percent.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated these trends, highlighting communities that are increasingly at risk for higher infection rates. Hispanic/ Latino populations represent about 16 percent of the county and 34 percent of Rental Assistance requests, while Black/African American residents represent about two percent of rental assistance requests.

Figure 7.4: Regional Racial/Ethnic Majority Tracts (2018) 189 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
392
186
Local Trends
Like the county, San Anselmo’s population is mostly White (85.9 percent). As presented in Table 7.5, the town’s White population increased from 83.4 percent in 2010, while the Hispanic/Latino decreased from 7.4 percent in 2010 to 7.1 percent in 2019. Since 2010, the Asian population also decreased, currently representing 3.3 percent of the population. The share of Black/African American residents, American Indian/Alaska Native residents, and residents of two or more races has also decreased during this period. The population, but 8.5 percent of Rental Assistance requests.

Table 7.5: Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition (2010-2019) 2010 2019
Persons Percent Persons Percent
White, non-Hispanic 10,174 83.4% 10,765 85.9%
Black or African American, non-Hispanic 118 1.0% 96 0.8% American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic 12 0.1% 0 0.0% Asian, non-Hispanic 620 5.1% 418 3.3%
Some other race, non-Hispanic 8 0.1% 32 0.3%
Two or more races, non-Hispanic 371 3.0% 330 2.6%
Hispanic or Latino 900 7.4% 884 7.1%
Total 12,203 100.0% 12,525 100.0%
Sources: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

ABAG provides segregation analyses for Bay Area jurisdictions for the purpose of this AFFH assessment. According to this report, dissimilarity indices between the population of people of color and White population of San Anselmo are lower than the Bay Area average (Table 7.6). Between 2000 to 2020, the White and non-White communities in San Anselmo have become less segregated, and segregation between White and non-White groups townwide is considered low based on HUD’s definitions for dissimilarity indices. Asian/Pacific Islander and White communities have become slightly more segregated during this period, while segregation between Black/African American, Hispanic or Latino, and White communities has generally remained constant. However, dissimilarity indices for San Anselmo may be inaccurate due to the small non-White populations residing in the town.

Table 7.6: Dissimilarity Indices for San Anselmo (2000-2020) San Anselmo Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander and White 17.8* 15.8* 18.6* 18.5* Black/African American and. White 19.4* 3.4* 19.2* 24.4* Latino and White 3.2* 5.1 3.3 20.7
People of Color and White 8.8 8.0 5.9 16.8
* Index based on racial group making up less than 5 percent of jurisdiction population. Estimates may be unreliable.

Source: ABAG/MTC AFFH Segregation Report, 2022.
176 San Anselmo Housing Element | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 190 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
393
187
As presented in Figure 7.5, the entirety of San Anselmo is predominantly White, consistent with the surrounding jurisdictions.

Figure 7.5: Racial/Ethnic Majority Tracts (2018)
191 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
394
188
Figure 7.6 shows the racial/ethnic minority population by block group and the sites inventory used to meet the Town’s RHNA. Racial/ethnic minority residents represent less than 20 percent of the population in all nine block groups that make up the town. All block groups have remained predominantly White since 2010, while block groups in San Rafael, northeast of the town, have seen growing populations of people of color. As discussed previously, the White population townwide has increased since 2010.All units of all income levels generated from the RHNA opportunity sites are located in census tracts which all contain less than or equal to 20 percent non-White populations.

Figure 7.6: Sites Inventory and Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2018) 178 San Anselmo Housing Element | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 192 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
395
189
Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limits their housing options. Persons with disabilities also tend to be more susceptible to housing discrimination due to their disability status and required accommodations associated with their disability. Actions outlined in Program 7.2 will support persons with disabilities in ensuring that new housing developments are accessible and affordable.

Regional Trends
Marin County’s population with a disability9 is similar to that in the Bay Area. As presented in Table 7.7, in Marin County, 9.1 percent of the population has a disability, compared to 9.6 percent in the Bay Area. Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and non-Hispanic White populations experience disabilities at the highest rates in both the Bay Area and the county (16 percent, 18 percent, and 11 percent in the Bay Area and 15 percent, 12 percent, and 10 percent in Marin County, respectively). Nearly 37 percent of Marin County’s population aged 75 and older and

14.6 percent aged 65 to 74 has one or more disability, lower shares than in the Bay Area. Ambulatory and independent living difficulties are the most common disability type in the county and Bay Area
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, populations of persons with disabilities in Marin County cities are generally consistent, ranging from 7.2 percent in Ross to 10 percent in Novato. Figure 7.7 shows that less than 20 percent of the population in all tracts in the county have a disability. Persons with disabilities are generally not concentrated in one area in the region. Figure 7.7 also shows that only few census tracts in the region have a population with a disability higher than 20 percent. However, multiple census tracts with a population with disabilities between 15 and 20 percent are concentrated along San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay in Napa, Contra Costa, and Contra Costa Valley.

Table 7.7: Populations of Persons with Disabilities – Marin County (2019) Bay Area Marin County
Percent with a Disability Percent with a Disability
Civilian non-institutionalized population 9.6% 9.1%
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 15.9% 14.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 17.5% 12.1%
Asian alone 7.3% 7.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 9.3% 0.8% Some other race alone 6.8% 4.7%
Two or more races 8.2% 8.9%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 11.3% 9.9%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 7.9% 6.1%
Age
Under 5 years 0.6% 0.7%
5 to 17 years 3.8% 2.9%
18 to 34 years 4.6% 5.9%
35 to 64 years 8.0% 6.1%
65 to 74 years 19.6% 14.6%
75 years and over 47.8% 36.8%
Type
Hearing difficulty 2.7% 3.0%
Vision difficulty 1.7% 1.5%
Cognitive difficulty 3.7% 3.2%
Ambulatory difficulty 4.8% 4.3%
Self-care difficulty 2.2% 2.0%
Independent living difficulty 3.9% 4.3%

1. The “Bay Area” data covers the members of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which are the counties of: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.

Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates). 9 The American Community Survey asks about six disability types: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. Respondents who report anyone of the six disability types are considered to have a disability. For more information visit: https://www.census.gov/topics/health/disability/guidance/data-collection-acs.html#:~:text=Physical%20Disability%20Conditions%20that%20substantially,reaching%2C%20lifting%2C%20or%20carrying. 193 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
396
190
Figure 7.7: Sites Inventory and Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2018) 194 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
397
191
Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 7.6 percent of San Anselmo residents experience a disability, compared to 9.1 percent countywide. Disabilities are most common amongst elderly residents; approximately 39 percent of persons aged 75 and over and 11.5 percent of persons aged 64 to 74 experience a disability (Table 7.8). The most common disabilities in San Anselmo are ambulatory difficulties (3.6 percent) and hearing difficulties (3 percent). The population of persons with disabilities has generally remained constant since the 2008-2012 ACS (7.7 percent with disability). The proportion of elderly adults aged 65 and older who experience a disability in the town is lower than the county, but a larger proportion of youths (5 to 17 years old) and young adults (18 to 34 years old) experience a disability. There is a significantly higher rate of Black/African American residents (13 percent) and residents of two or more races (15.8 percent) who experience a disability compared to other racial/ethnic groups in San Anselmo.

Table 7.8: Populations of Persons with Disabilities – San Anselmo (2019)
Total Population Percent with a
Disability
Total civilian non-institutionalized population 12,487 7.6% Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 92 13.0%
Asian alone 418 6.9%
Some other race alone 392 0.0%
Two or more races 342 15.8%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 10,735 7.8%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 880 2.8%
Age
Under 5 years 562 0.0%
5 to 17 years 2,195 6.5%
18 to 34 years 1,571 2.5%
35 to 64 years 5,815 4.7%
65 to 74 years 1,520 11.5%
75 years and over 824 39.1%
Type
Hearing difficulty N/A 3.0%
Vision difficulty N/A 2.1%
Cognitive difficulty N/A 2.8%
Ambulatory difficulty N/A 3.6%
Self-care difficulty N/A 1.4%
Independent living difficulty N/A 2.8%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates). 195 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
398
192
Figure 7.8 shows the population of persons with disabilities by census tract based on the 2015-2019 ACS. Three tracts make up San Anselmo: tract 1150 (northern San Anselmo), tract 1160 (central western San Anselmo), and tract 1170 (southern San Anselmo). Tract 1150 encompasses areas north of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and Shaw Drive, including Sorich Ranch Park. It is important to note that this tract also encompasses much of the Sleepy Hollow community north of the town.

The southern San Anselmo tract (tract 1170) has a higher concentration of persons with disabilities compared to the northern areas (tracts 1150 and 1160). According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 11.4 percent of the population in tract 1170 experiences one or more disability, compared to only

7.5 percent in tract 1160 and 6.1 percent in tract 1150. This trend may be due to the distribution of elderly residents. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, tract 1170 has an elderly population of 21 percent compared to 17.8 percent in tract 1160 and 19.1 percent in tract 1150. There is also one subsidized housing project in the town, Oak Hill Apartments. Oak Hill Apartments is located in the southern section of the town and serves the developmentally disabled population. Oak Hill Apartments includes 14 units, 13 of which are affordable units.

Sites Inventory
The distribution of units selected to meet the Town’s RHNA by income level and population of persons with disabilities is presented in Table 7.9 and Figure 7.8. Most RHNA sites are located in the southern tract (1170). As such, 84 percent of units yielded from opportunity sites are located in the tract where more than 10 percent of the population experiences a disability. A larger share of above moderate-income (97 percent) and moderateincome (97 percent) units are in this tract compared to lower income units (66 percent).

Table 7.9: Distribution of Opportunity Site Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities Percent with
Disability (Tract)
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units AboveModerate Income Units All RHNA Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <10% 112 34% 8 3% 5 3% 125 16%
10-20% 213 66% 264 97% 196 97% 673 84%
Total 325 100% 272 100% 201 100% 798 100%
182 San Anselmo Housing Element | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 196 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
399
193
Figure 7.8: Sites Inventory and Concentration of Persons with Disabilities by Tract 197 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
400
194
Familial Status
Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status covers: the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant persons, any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents).

Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody, or requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law.

Regional Trends
According to the 2019 ACS, there are slightly fewer households with children in Marin County than the Bay Area. About 27 percent of households in Marin County have children under the age of 18, with 21 percent married-couple households with children and six percent single-parent households (Figure 7.9). In the Bay Area, about 32 percent of households have children and like the county, most households with children are married-couple households. Within Marin County, the cities of Larkspur and Ross have the highest percentage of households with children (50.1 percent and 40.6 percent, respectively). Larkspur, Corte Madera, and San Rafael have concentrations of single-parent households exceeding the countywide average.

Figure 7.10 shows the distribution of children in married households and single female headed households in the region.

Census tracts with high concentrations of children living in married couple households are not concentrated in one area of Marin County. Most census tracts have over 60 percent of children living in married-persons households. Regionally, children in married-person households are more common in inland census tracts (away from the bay areas). The inverse trend is seen for children living in single-parent female-headed households, is shown in Figure 7.11. In most tracts countywide, less than 20 percent of children live in female-headed households. Between 20 and 40 percent of children live in female-headed households in two tracts: one in Southern Marin in the unincorporated community of Marin City and one in West Marin near the unincorporated community of Bolinas. Regionally, tracts with a higher percentage of children in married-persons households are found along the San Pablo and San Francisco bays.
184
Figure 7.9: Households with Children in Marin County and Incorporated Cities (2019) Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) San Anselmo Housing Element | Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing 198 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
401
195
Figure 7.10: Regional Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019) 199 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
402
196
Figure 7.11: Regional Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019) 200 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
403
197
Local Trends
San Anselmo has seen a decrease in households with children in recent years (Table 7.10). During the 2006-2010 ACS, there were 1,807 households with children representing 35.3 percent of all town households. The most recent 2015-2019 ACS estimates show there is now 1,655 households with children in San Anselmo representing 31.7 percent of households townwide. Over five percent of households in the town are single-parent households, most of which are female-headed single-parent households (3.5 percent). Female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Table 7.10: Change in Household Type – Households with Children (2006-2019) Household Type 2006-2010 2015-2019 Percent
Change Households Percent Households Percent
Married-couple family with children 1,283 25.1% 1,268 24.3% -1.2% Cohabiting couple with children N/A N/A 38 0.7% N/A
Single-parent, male-headed 167 3.3% 87 1.7% -47.9%
Single-parent, female-headed 343 6.7% 181 3.5% -47.2%
Total Households with Children* 1,807 35.3% 1,655 31.7% -8.4% Total Households 5,118 100.0% 5,219 100.0% 2.0%
* Includes all households with one or more people under 18 years N/A: Data unavailable
Sources: American Community Survey, 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates).

As shown in Figure 7.12, more than 80 percent of children in the northern and southern San Anselmo tracts live in married couple households compared to 69.8 percent of children in tract 1160 along the western town boundary. Despite the smaller proportion of children living in married couple households in this tract, there are no concentrations of children living in single-parent female-headed households in the town. In all San Anselmo tracts, fewer than 20 percent of children live in female-headed households. In tract 1160, 7.6 percent of children live in single-parent maleheaded households, 13.2 percent live in single-parent female-headed households, and 9.4 percent live in cohabiting couple households. While the concentration of children in female-headed households in tract 1160 is comparable to tract 1150 (11.6 percent) and tract 1170 (10.3 percent), a larger proportion live in male-headed households and cohabiting couple households.

Sites Inventory
A majority of units yielded from opportunity sites units (99 percent) are in tracts where more than 80 percent of children live in married couple households including 100 percent of lower income units, 100 percent of moderate-income units, and 98 percent of above moderate-income units (Table 7.11 and Figure 7.12). This trend is consistent with the overall composition of the town and does not disproportionately place units of any income level in tracts where fewer children live in female-headed households.

Table 7.11: Distribution of Opportunity Site Units by Percent of Children in Married Couple Households
Percent of Children in Married
Couple Households (Tract)
Lower Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units
Above
Moderate
Income Units
All RHNA Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Perce
nt
Less than 80% 0 0% 0 0% 5 2% 5 1%
Greater than 80% 325 100% 272 100% 196 98% 793 99%
Total 325 100% 272 100% 201 100% 798 100%
201 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
404
198
Figure 7.12: Sites Inventory and Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019) 202 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
405
199
Income Level
Identifying low or moderate-income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).

Regional Trends
According to Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)10 data based on the 2017 ACS, 40.5 percent of Marin County households are low or moderate-income, earning 80 percent or less than the area median income (AMI) (Table 7.12). A significantly larger proportion of renter households in Marin County are LMI. Nearly 60 percent of renter households are considered LMI compared to only 29.8 percent of owner households. Figure 7.13 shows that LMI populations are most concentrated in tracts in West Marin, North Marin (Novato), Central Marin (San Rafael), and the unincorporated communities of Marin City and Santa Venetia.

Table 7.12: Marin County Households by Income
Category and Tenure (2017)
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 5,855
(8.7%)
9,763
(26.0%)
15,622
(14.9%)
31%-50% of AMI 5,720
(8.5%)
6,008
(16.0%)
11,743
(11.2%)
51%-80% of AMI 8,479
(12.6%)
6,609
(17.6%)
15,098
(14.4%)
81%-100% of AMI 5,653
(8.4%)
3,755
(10.0%)
9,331
(8.9%)
Greater than 100% of AMI 41,588
(61.8%)
11,415
(30.4%)
52,947
(50.5%)
Total 67,295 37,550 104,845

1. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas and uses San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties) for Marin County.

Sources: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021; HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020. 10 Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low- income households. 203 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
406
200
Figure 7.13: Regional Concentrations of LMI Households by Tract (2020) 204 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
407
201
Local Trends
The Town is characterized by mainly owner-occupied households (76 percent). Nearly 55 percent of households in San Anselmo earn more than 100 percent of the area median income (AMI). However, a significantly larger proportion of owner-occupied households earn 100 percent of the AMI or more compared to renter-occupied households. Households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI are considered lower income households.

Approximately 56 of renter households in the town are lower income households compared to only 24 percent of owners. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the median household income in San Anselmo is $128,212, higher than the county ($115,246) and neighboring cities of Fairfax ($104,122), Larkspur ($109,426) and San Rafael ($91,742), but lower than Ross ($224,500) and Tiburon ($154,915).

Figure 7.14 shows the LMI populations in San Anselmo by block group. Ablock group is considered an LMI area if more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate-income. There is only one block group in the town, located along the southern town boundary, that is considered an LMI area.

According to the HCD Data Viewer, 56 percent of households residing in this block group are low or moderate-income. The Oak Hills Apartment project is located in this block group. As discussed previously, the Oak Hills Apartments project has 13 affordable units and serves the developmentally disabled population. This is the only subsidized housing project in the town and likely contributes to the concentration of LMI households in this block group. This block group is also located in the tract with the slightly larger population of persons experiencing disabilities (see Figure 7.8).

Table 7.13: San Anselmo Households by Income Category
and Tenure (2017)
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 337
(8.5%)
290
(23.1%)
626
(12.0%)
31%-50% of AMI 242
(6.1%)
130
(10.4%)
370
(7.1%)
51%-80% of AMI 381
(9.6%)
283
(22.6%)
663
(12.7%)
81%-100% of AMI 448
(11.3%)
245
(19.5%)
694
(13.3%)
Greater than 100% of AMI 2,561
(64.6%)
305
(24.3%)
2,865
(54.9%)
Total 3,964 1,254 5,218
Sources: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021; HUD CHAS (based on 2013- 2017 ACS), 2020.

Sites Inventory
The distribution of RHNA units by census tract LMI population is presented in Table 7.14 and Figure 7.14. All units yielded from opportunity sites units are in census tracts with LMI populations between 25-50 percent. The mix of income levels will increase housing opportunities in the area and promote a mixed income community. The Town’s strategy does not disproportionately place lower income units in LMI areas or exacerbate existing fair housing conditions.

Table 7.14: Distribution of Opportunity Site Units by LMI Household Concentration LMI Households
(Block Group)
Lower Income Units Moderate Income
Units
AboveModerate
Income Units All RHNA Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
25-50% 325 100% 272 100% 201 100% 798 100%
50-75% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 0 0
Total 325 100% 272 100% 201 100% 798 100%
205 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
408
202
Figure 7.14: Sites Inventory and LMI Population by Block Group (2020) 206 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
409
203
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV)
An analysis of the trends in HCV concentration can be useful in examining the success of the program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders. The HCV program aims to encourage participants to avoid high-poverty neighborhoods and promote the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low poverty neighborhoods. HCV programs are managed by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure (SEMAPS) includes an “expanding housing opportunities” indicator that shows whether the PHA has adopted and implemented a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units located outside areas of poverty or minority concentration11. In Marin County, the Landlord Partnership Program aims to expand rental opportunities for families holding housing choice vouchers by making landlord participation in the program more attractive and feasible, and by making the entire program more streamlined.

A study prepared by HUD’s Development Office of Policy Development and Research found a positive association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration and a negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty12.This means that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents tend to be lower. In areas where these patterns occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty.

Regional Trends
As of December 2020, 2,100 Marin households received HCV assistance from the Housing Authority of the County of Marin (MHA). The map in Figure 7.15 shows that HCV use is concentrated in tracts in North Marin (Hamilton and the intersection of Novato Boulevard and Indian Valley Road). In these tracts, between 15 and 30 percent of the renter households are HCV holders. In most Central Marin tracts and some Southern Marin tract (which are more densely populated), between five and 15 percent of renters are HCV recipients. The correlation between low rents and a high concentration of HCV holders holds true in North Marin tracts where HVC use is the highest (Figure 7.16). Overall, patterns throughout most Marin County communities also show that where rents are lower, HCV use is higher. 11 For more information of Marin County’s SEMAP indicators, see: the County’s Administrative Plan for the HCV Program. https://irp.cdn-website.com/4e4dab0f/files/uploaded/Admin%20Plan%20Approved%20December%202021. pdf
12 Devine, D.J., Gray, R.W., Rubin, L., & Taghavi, L.B. (2003). Housing choice voucher location patterns: Implications for participant and neighborhood welfare. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Division of Program Monitoring and Research. 207 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
410
204
Figure 7.15: Regional HCV Concentration by Tract (2020) 208 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
411
205
Figure 7.16: Regional Median Gross Rent/Affordability Index by Tract (2016) 209 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
412
206
Local Trends
According to the HCD Data Viewer, 8.3 percent of renters in the northern tract (tract 1150), 5.3 percent of renters in the southern tract (tract 1170) and 3.7 percent of renters in the central tract (tract 1160) receive HCVs (Figure 7.17). As shown in Figure 7.19, San Anselmo is predominantly comprised of owner-occupied households. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 67.6 percent of households in the town are owner-occupied. Rent prices in the town tracts are generally moderate to high. The northern area of the town has a smaller concentration of renters compared to the central and southern tracts. The median gross rent is generally uniform throughout San Anselmo (Figure 7.18).

Figure 7.17: HCV Concentration by Tract (2020)
210 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
413
207
Figure 7.18: Median Gross Rent/Affordability Index by Tract (2016) 211 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
414
208
Figure 7.19: Percent of Renter-Occupied Households by Tract (2016) 212 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
415
209
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) In an effort to identify racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower.

Regional Trends
There is one R/ECAP in Southern Marin located in Marin City west of State Highway 101 (Figure 7.20). As shown in Figure 7.4, previously, the Marin City CDP tract is characterized by a concentration of African American residents. Approximately 22 percent of Marin City’s residents are African American- significantly higher than the County’s and unincorporated county’s African American population (two percent and three percent, respectively). Marin City residents also earn lower median incomes (less than $55,000, Figure 7.24), especially compared to neighboring jurisdictions where median incomes are higher than $125,000. Marin City, where Marin County’s only family public housing is located, also has the highest share of extremely low-income households in the county; about 40 percent of households earn less than 30 percent the Area Median Income, whereas only 14 percent of unincorporated County households are considered extremely low-income.

Figure 7.20: Regional Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) 213 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
416
210
Figure 7.21: Regional R/ECAP Detail
214 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
417
211
Local Trends
There are no R/ECAPs or TCAC-designated areas of high segregation and poverty in the town. The closest R/ECAP is in Marin City, south of the town and the closest TCAC area of high segregation and poverty.is in San Rafael, east of the town.

As presented in Table 7.15, San Anselmo has a smaller population below the poverty level compared to the county. Only 2.9 percent of San Anselmo residents are below the poverty level compared to 7.2 percent in the county. In San Anselmo, the Black/African American population has the highest poverty rate of 13 percent, significantly higher than all other racial/ethnic groups in the town. The Asian population, population of two or more races, and non-Hispanic White population also have poverty rates exceeding 2.9 percent. In comparison, only 1.4 percent of the Hispanic/ Latino population and none of the population of a race not listed (“some other race alone”) are below the poverty level. Figure 7.22 shows poverty status by tract in San Anselmo. Consistent with the trend townwide, fewer than 10 percent of the population in all tracts are below the poverty line. All units of all income levels generated from the RHNA opportunity sites are in census tracts with fewer than 10 percent of the population below the poverty line.

Table 7.15: Population Below Poverty Level by Race/Ethnicity (2019) Income Category
San Anselmo Marin County
Total Population % Below Poverty
Level Total Population % Below PovertyLevel
Black or African American alone 92 13.0% 4,746 16.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0 N/A 823 22.1% Asian alone 418 3.8% 14,859 8.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 N/A 507 65.1% Some other race alone 392 0.0% 20,879 23.2%
Two or more races 342 3.5% 12,199 6.5%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 880 1.4% 39,574 16.9% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 10,717 3.0% 182,823 4.8% Total 12,469 2.9% 253,869 7.2%
Sources: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). 215 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
418
212
Figure 7.22: Poverty Status by Tract (2019)
216 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
419
213
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAAs are defined as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic white residents. According to HUD's policy paper, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities.

RCAA’s are defined as tracts with 80 percent or higher white population, and a median household income of $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016). Using this metric, the data shows that two of the three tracts which comprise San Anselmo are considered RCAA’s. The third tract is predominantly white, but its median household income is $105,000. RCAA maps are not available on HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer tool).
217 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
420
214
San Anselmo RCAA Tract
12/7/2022, 3:52:00 PM 0 0.23
1:36,112

0.45 0.9 mi
City/Town Boundaries
(R) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence "RCAA" (ACS, 2015 -2019) - Tract 0 - Not a RCAA
0 0.38 0.75 1.5 km
1 - RCAA Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community, County of Marin, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA
CA HCD
County of Marin, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, GeoTechnologies, Inc., USGS, EPA | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2019 | PlaceWorks 2021, HUD 2020 | PlaceWorks 2021, ESRI, Figure 7.23: Local Detail of Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) 218 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
421
215
Regional Trends
Figure 7.3 and Figure 7.4 (previously in this section) shows the concentration of minority/non-White population and majority populations across the region. In Figure 7.3, census tracts in yellow have less than 20 percent non-white population, indicating over 80 percent of the population is white.

There are a few tracts with over 80 percent non-Hispanic White population located throughout the county, especially in Southern Marin, parts of Central Marin, coastal North Marin, and central West Marin. The cities of Belvedere, Mill Valley, Fairfax, Ross, and some areas of San Rafael and Novato are also predominantly white. However, of all these predominantly white areas (incorporated jurisdictions and unincorporated communities), only Belvedere, the Valley, Tam Valley, Black Point- Green Point and the eastern tracts of Novato are census tracts with a median income over $125,000 (Figure 7.24). Although not all census tracts have the exact relationship of over 85 percent White and median income over $125,000 to qualify as “RCAAs,” throughout the county tracts with higher White population tend to have greater median incomes. 219 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
422
216
Figure 7.24: Regional Median Income by Block Group (2019) 220 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
423
217
Local Trends
As presented previously, non-White populations represent less than 20 percent of the population in all San Anselmo block groups (see Figure 7.6).

Figure 7.24 shows median income and non-White population by block group in the town. Most block groups have median incomes exceeding $125,000. Because all block groups in the town have White populations exceeding 80 percent, all block groups in the town with median incomes exceeding $125,000 are considered RCAAs. One block group in the northern section of the town has a median income of $118,897 and one block group in the southern section of the City has a median income of $56,324. Neither are considered RCAAs. The block group in southern San Anselmo with the lowest median income contains the Oak Hills Apartments. Oak Hills Apartments has 13 affordable units and serves the developmentally disabled population, likely contributing to the low median income in this block group.

Median household income by race/ethnicity in San Anselmo and Marin County is shown in Table 7.16. In the county, White, non-Hispanic households have the highest median income of $126,501. Countywide, the median income amongst Hispanic or Latino households is $67,125, significantly lower than non-Hispanic White households. Most non-White household populations are too small to provide sufficient data on median household income. In San Anselmo, non-Hispanic White households have the highest median income of $132,809 followed by Asian households ($111,776).

Hispanic/Latino households have a significantly lower median income of $72,578 despite having one of the lowest poverty rates in the town (see Table 7.15).

To address housing mobility and housing opportunity in RCAAs, the Town has developed actions, primarily focused on Missing Middle Housing.

These actions include Action 3.1a: Amend the Zoning Code to allow missing middle housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in the R-1 and R-2 districts, Action 3.1b: Adopt objective design standards that ensure that the design of new missing middle housing types are sensitive to the established character of San Anselmo’s neighborhoods, and Action 3.1c: Adopt pre-approved infill missing middle housing plans to reduce development costs and streamline the approval of missing middle housing. Missing Middle Housing ensures housing design standards stay consist with those already established in surrounding single family neighborhoods while increasing density. Missing Middle Housing can be the development of duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, row homes and other housing typologies.

Table 7.16: Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2019) Income Category
San Anselmo Marin County
Percent Distribution Median Household
Income Percent Distribution Median HouseholdIncome
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 91.5% $132,809 80.3% $126,501 Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 3.3% $72,578 9.7% $67,125 Black or African American 1.1% N/A 1.6% $48,602
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.0% N/A 0.3% N/A
Asian 2.5% $111,776 5.6% $107,849
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0% N/A 0.1% $18,221 Some other race 1.1% N/A 4.5% $59,604
Two or more races 1.9% N/A 3.2% $104,679
Total 100.0% $128,212 100.0% $115,246
N/A = Insufficient data.

Sources: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
221 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
424
218
Figure 7.25: Median Income and Non-White Population by Block Group (2019, 2018) 222 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
425
219
Access to Opportunities
Significant disparities in access to opportunity are defined by the AFFH Final Rule as “substantial and measurable differences in access to educational, transportation, economic, and other opportunities in a community based on protected class related to housing.” The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/ departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with nine percent Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table 7.17 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line; • Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County
Table 7.17: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education
Math proficiency Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020 TCAC/HCD assigns “scores” for each of the domain Table 7.17 by census tracts as well as computing “composite” scores that are a combination of the three domains. Scores from each individual domain range from 0-1, where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Composite scores do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation).

The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps offer a tool to visualize show areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource, and high segregation and poverty and can help to identify areas within the community that provide good access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. They can also help to highlight areas where there are high levels of segregation and poverty.

The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for low and moderateincome and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas. 223 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
426
220
Regional Trends
While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess county residents’ access to key opportunity assets in comparison to the county. Table 7.18 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools.

The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood. • Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA).

The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. • Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. • Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level.

The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.

Table 7.18: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity – Marin County School
Prof.

Labor
Market Transit Trip
Low
Transp.

Cost
Jobs Prox. Env.

Health
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 78.73 86.48 61.00 86.45 64.50 81.33 Black, Non-Hispanic 75.59 48.89 68.54 89.57 74.96 76.55 Hispanic 55.96 68.11 68.08 89.65 69.72 83.84
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.41 82.57 64.24 87.81 66.89 81.01 Native American, Non-Hispanic 77.09 67.25 62.28 87.19 69.32 80.55 Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 74.28 84.68 61.13 87.02 64.01 82.93 Black, Non-Hispanic 66.79 55.04 74.1 91.52 66.84 76.07
Hispanic 38.54 56.82 75.83 91.68 76.48 83.81
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 68.97 82.89 67.01 89.11 71.69 78.95 Native American, Non-Hispanic 56.77 66.49 71.22 88.33 67.14 85.29 Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. See page 145 for index score meanings. Table is comparing the total Marin County, by race/ethnicity, to the county and Town population living below the federal poverty line, also by race/ethnicity.

Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA 224 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
427
221
As explained earlier, TCAC composite scores categorize the level of resources in each census tract. Categorization is based on percentile rankings for census tracts within the region. Counties in the region all have a mix of resource levels. The highest concentrations of highest resource areas are located in the counties of Sonoma and Contra Costa (Figure 7.26). Marin and San Francisco counties also have a concentration of high resource tracts. All counties along the San Pablo and San Francisco Bay area have at least one census tract considered an area of high segregation and poverty, though these tracts are most prevalent in the cities of San Francisco and Oakland.

There is only one census tract in Marin County considered an area of “high segregation and poverty” (Figure 7.27). This census tract is located in Central Marin within the Canal neighborhood of the City of San Rafael. In the county, low resource areas (green) are concentrated in West Marin, from Dillon Beach to Nicasio. This area encompasses the communities of Tomales, Marshall, Inverness, and Point Reyes Station. In Central Marin, low resource areas are concentrated in San Rafael. As shown in the figures below, all of Southern Marin is considered a highest resource area, with the exception of Marin City which is classified as moderate resource.

Figure 7.26: Regional TCAC Composite Scores by Tract (2021) 225 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
428
222
Figure 7.27: Local TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty Areas (2021) 226 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
429
223
Local Trends
Table 7.19 shows the Opportunity Map scores for the census tracts in the town. Categorization is based on percentile rankings for census tracts within the Marin County region. High composite scores mean higher resources. All tracts in San Anselmo are categorized as highest resource areas. San Anselmo TCAC scores are generally consistent with tracts north and south of the town but favorable compared to jurisdictions east and west. The Opportunity Map shown in Figure 7.28 shows the RHNA Opportunity sites in the context of HCD composite opportunity scores. All opportunity sites are in highest resource areas. Economic, environmental, educational, transportation, and other opportunities are discussed in detail in the following sections.

Table 7.19: Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization (2021) Tract Economic
Domain Score
Environmental
Domain Score
Education
Domain Score Composite Index Final Category
1150 0.740 0.967 0.797 0.592 Highest Resource
1160 0.606 0.976 0.811 0.533 Highest Resource
1170 0.672 0.973 0.814 0.569 Highest Resource
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, 2021. 227 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
430
224
Figure 7.28: Sites Inventory and TCAC Opportunity Area by Tract (2021) 228 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
431
225
Opportunity Indices
Education
Regional Trends
The school proficiency index is an indicator of school system quality, with higher index scores indicating access to higher school quality. In Marin County, Hispanic residents have access to lower quality schools (lowest index value of 56) compared all other residents (for all other races, index values ranged from 74 to 78, Table 7.18). For residents living below the federal poverty line, index values are lower for all races but are still lowest for Hispanic and Native American residents. White residents have the highest index values, indicating a greater access to high quality schools, regardless of poverty status.

The HCD/TCAC education scores for the region show the distribution of education quality based on education outcomes (Figure 7.29). As explained in Table 7.17, the Education domain score is based on a variety of indicators including math proficiency, reading proficiency, high School graduation rates, and student poverty rates. The education scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating more positive education outcomes. In the Region, lower education scores are found in census tracts in all counties along the San Pablo Bay. In counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay, there are concentrations of both low and high education scores. For example, in San Francisco County, the western coast has a concentration of high education scores while the eastern coast has a concentration of low education scores. In Marin County, low education scores are concentrated in Novato and San Rafael along the San Pablo Bay and along the western coast.

According to Marin County’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice [2020 AI], while the county’s overall high school graduation rates are among the highest in the nation, Marin County, “has the greatest educational achievement gap in California.” According to data from Marin Promise, a nonprofit of education and nonprofit leaders, from 2017 – 2018:
• 78 percent of White students in Marin met or exceeded common core standards for 3rd Grade Literacy, while only 42 percent of students of color met or exceeded those standards;
• 71 percent of White students met or exceeded common core standards for 8th grade math, while only 37 percent of students of color met or exceeded those standards;
• 64 percent of White students met or exceeded the college readiness standards, defined as completing course requirements for California public universities, while only 40 percent of students of color met or exceeded those requirements.

Of special note in Marin County is the California State Justice Department’s finding in 2019 that the Sausalito Marin City School District had “knowingly and intentionally maintained and exacerbated” existing racial segregation and deliberately established a segregated school and diverted County staff and resources to Willow Creek while depriving the students at Bayside MLK an equal educational opportunity. More details on this finding are found under local knowledge for Marin’s vulnerable communities Lower education scores are found in most of the unincorporated County areas in West Marin (Figure 7.29). Higher education scores are prominent in Southern Marin and eastern Central Marin jurisdictions including the unincorporated and incorporated communities of Lucas Valley, Fairfax, Larkspur, Kentfield, Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Tiburon, and Strawberry. However, lower education scores are found in parts of North and Central Main, specifically in the cities of Novato and San Rafael. The pattern of higher education scores in the south and lower education scores in the north correlate with the location of schools throughout the county. Figure 7.30 shows that most schools are concentrated in North, Central, and Southern Marin along major highways (Highway 101 and Shoreline Highway), with few schools in West Marin. Despite a high concentration of schools in the San Rafael/Novato area, these census tracts have lower education outcomes. 229 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
432
226
Figure 7.29: TCAC Education Scores- Region
230 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
433
227
Figure 7.30: Schools in Marin County
231 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
434
228
Local Trends
Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States. The Great Schools Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: the Student Progress Rating or Academic Progress Rating, College Readiness Rating, Equity Rating, and Test Score Rating.

Ratings at the lower end of the scale (1-4) signal that the school is “below average,” 5-6 indicate “average,” and 7-10 are “above average.” Figure 7.31 shows that San Anselmo is comprised of mostly private schools (gray). All four public schools in the town are considered “above average” schools. Public schools in the City include Hidden Valley Elementary, Brookside Elementary School, Wade Thomas Elementary School, and Archie Williams High School. These scores correspond with the TCAC’s Education Score map for the City presented in Figure

7.32. All San Anselmo tracts scored in the highest quartile for education opportunities.

Figure 7.31: GreatSchools Ratings
Source: GreatSchools.org, GreatSchools Rating – San Anselmo, 2022. 232 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
435
229
Figure 7.32: TCAC Education Scores by Tract (2021)
The Healthy Places Index (HPI) analyzes community conditions and variables related to economic, education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare access to estimate healthy community conditions. The HPI is expanded upon in Healthy Places subsection of this Chapter, Access to Opportunities. According to the HPI, more than 70 percent of the population in all San Anselmo tracts have a bachelor’s degree or higher, scoring in the highest quartile for healthy community conditions. The HPI reveals that 100 percent of high school-aged residents are enrolled in high school in tracts 1160 and 1170 (central and southern areas), whereas only 91.1 percent are enrolled in high school in tract 1150 (northern area). Conversely, 65.1 percent of three and four-year-old children in tract 1150 are enrolled in preschool, compared to only

48.8 percent in tract 1170 and 20.6 percent in tract 1160. This may indicate schools are less accessible in certain parts of the town. All three census tracts in San Anselmo have an education domain score of greater than 0.75 which is the highest range of scores, indicating more positive educational outcomes. All units of all income levels generated from the RHNA opportunity sites are in census tracts with the highest education scores. 233 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
436
230
Transportation
Regional Trends
According to ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040, regional mismatch between employment growth relative to the housing supply has resulted in a disconnect between where people live and work. Overall, the Bay Area has added nearly two jobs for every housing unit built since 1990. The deficit in housing production has been particularly severe in terms of housing affordable to lower- and middle wage workers, especially in many of the jobs-rich, high-income communities along the Peninsula and in Silicon Valley. As a result, there have been record levels of freeway congestion and historic crowding on transit systems like Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain and San Francisco’s Municipal Railway (Muni).

HUD’s opportunity indicators can provide a picture of transit use and access in Marin County through the transit index13 and low transportation cost.14 Index values can range from zero to 100 and are reported per race so that differences in access to transportation can be evaluated based on race. In the county, transit index values range from 61 to 69, with White residents scoring lower and Black and Hispanic residents scoring highest. Given that the higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents utilize public transit, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to use public transit. For residents living below the poverty line, the index values have a larger range from 61 for White residents to 75 for Hispanic residents. Regardless of income, White residents have lower index values- and thus a lower likelihood of using transit.

Low transportation cost index values have a larger range than transit index values from 65 to 75 across all races and were similar for residents living below the poverty line. Black and Hispanic residents have the highest low transportation cost index values, regardless of poverty status.

Considering a higher “low transportation cost” index value indicates a lower cost of transportation; public transit is less costly for Blacks and Hispanics than other groups in the county.

Transit patterns in Figure 7.33 show that transit is concentrated throughout North, Central, and Southern Marin along the Town Centered Corridor from Novato to Marin City/Sausalito. In addition, there are connections eastbound; San Rafael connects 101 North/South and 580 Richmond Bridge going East (Contra Costa County) and Novato connects 101 North/South and 37 going East towards Vallejo (Solano County). Internally, public transit along Sir Francis Drake Blvd connects from Olema to Greenbrae. 13 Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit. 14 Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. 234 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
437
231
Figure 7.33: Public Transit
235 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
438
232
In West Marin, the West Marin Stagecoach provides two regularly operating bus routes between central and West Marin. Route 61 goes to Marin City, Mill Valley, and Stinson Beach. Route 68 goes to San Rafael, San Anselmo, Pt. Reyes, and Inverness (Figure 7.34). The Stagecoach also connects with Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit bus routes. However, the northern West Marin area does not have any public transit connection to the south. Bus transit (orange dots in Figure 6.32 and route 61 and 86 of Stagecoach Figure 7.34) only connects as far north as Inverness. This lack of transit connection affects the minority populations and the persons with disabilities concentrated in the west part of the county (Figure 7.3 and Figure 7.7).

Figure 7.34: West Marin Stagecoach Routes
236 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
439
233
Marin Transit Authority (MTA) operates all bus routes that begin and end in the county. In 2017, MTA conducted an onboard survey of their ridership and identified the Canal District of San Rafael as having a high rating of a “typical” transit rider”. That typical rider was described as, “42 percent of households have annual income of less than $25,000, 90 percent of individuals identify as Hispanic or Latino, 19 percent of households have no vehicle, 17 percent have three or more workers in their homes, 30 percent have five or more workers living with them, and Spanish is spoken in 84 percent of households."15 According to the survey, residents in the Canal area had the highest percentage of trips that began or ended in routes provided by Marin Transit.

In addition to its fixed routes, MTA offers several other transportation options and some that are available for specific populations:
• Novato Dial-A-Ride - designed to fill gaps in Novato's local transit service and connects service with Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit bus routes.
• ADA Paratransit Service – provides transportation for people unable to ride regular buses and trains due to a disability. It serves and operates in the same areas, same days, and hours as public transit. • Discount Taxi Program – called Marin-Catch-A-Ride, it offers discount rides by taxi and other licensed vehicles if you are at least 80 years old; or are 60 and unable to drive; or you are eligible for ADA Paratransit Service.

Local Trends
All Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the most recent data posted (2019), San Anselmo has an AllTransit Performance Score of 5.6 (out of 10). The map in Figure

7.35 shows that the central and southern areas of the town along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard have the highest scores compared to the southwestern and northern tracts. According to AllTransit, in the town, 93.1 percent of jobs are located within ½ mile of transit and 82.7 percent workers live within ½ mile of transit.

Figure 7.35: All Transit Performance Score – San Anselmo (2019) Source: AllTransit.org, AllTransit Metrics – San Anselmo, 2022.

The HPI includes household active commuting and automobile access by tract. In all three tracts, more than 19 percent of the population commutes to work by transit, walking, or cycling. All tracts scored in the highest quartile for active commuting, indicating the town has a healthy population of active commuters compared to the region. Lack of a vehicle can limit access to necessary resources if sufficient alternative transportation is not available. According to the HPI, fewer residents in the southern areas of the town have access to an automobile. 15 From the 2020 County of Marin Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 237 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
440
234
Economic Development
Regional Trends
The Bay Area has a regional economy in which has grown to be the fourth largest metropolitan region in the United States today, with over 7.7 million people residing in the nine-county, 7,000 square-mile area. In recent years, the Bay Area economy has experienced record employment levels during a tech expansion surpassing the “dot-com” era of the late 1990s. The latest boom has extended not only to the South Bay and Peninsula — the traditional hubs of Silicon Valley — but also to neighborhoods in San Francisco and cities in the East Bay, most notably Oakland. The rapidly growing and changing economy has also created significant housing and transportation challenges due to job-housing imbalances.

HUD’s opportunity indicators provide values for labor market index16 and jobs proximity index17 that can be measures for economic development in Marin County. Like the other HUD opportunity indicators, scores range from 0 to 100 and are published by race and poverty level to identify differences in the relevant “opportunity” (in this case economic opportunity). The labor market index value is based on the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract- a higher score means higher labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. Marin County’s labor market index values have a significant range from 49 to 86, with Black residents scoring lowest and White residents scoring highest. Scores for Marin County residents living below the poverty line drop notably for Hispanic residents (from 68 to 57), increase for Black residents (from 49 to 55) and remain the same for all other races. These values indicate that Black and Hispanic residents living in poverty have the lowest labor force participation and human capital in the county.

HUD’s jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. Index values can range from 0 to 100 and a higher index value indicates the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. County jobs proximity index values range from 65 to 75 and are highest for Hispanic and Black residents. The jobs proximity value map in Figure 7.36 shows the distribution of scores in the region.

Regionally, tracts along the northern San Pablo Bay shore and northern San Francisco Bay shore (Oakland and San Francisco) have the highest job proximity scores
In Marin County, the highest values are in Central Marin at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway 580 from south San Rafael to Corte Madera. Some census tracts in North and Southern Marin along Highway 101 also have high jobs proximity values, specifically in south Novato and Sausalito. The City of Tiburon in Southern Marin also has the highest scoring census tracts. Western North and Central Marin and some West Marin tracts, including the unincorporated Valley community (west of Highway 101) have the lowest jobs proximity scores. 16 Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. 17 Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. 238 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
441
235
Figure 7.36: Regional Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group (2017) 239 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
442
236
The TCAC Economic Scores are a composite of jobs proximity index values as well as poverty, adult education, employment, and median home value characteristics.18 TCAC economic scores range from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate more positive economic outcomes. The map below shows that the lowest economic scores are in the northern San Pablo shores as well as many census tracts in North and West Marin, southern Sonoma County, Solano, and Contra Costa County. In Marin County, the lowest economic scores are in northern West Marin and North Marin, as well as some census tracts in Central Marin and at the southern tip of the county (Marin Headlands). The highest TCAC economic scores are located along coastal West Marin communities, Southern Marin, and parts of Central Marin including the cites of Larkspur, Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Sausalito, and Tiburon.

Figure 7.37: Regional TCAC Economic Score by Tract (2021) Local Trends
HUD’s jobs proximity scores, discussed above, are shown by block group in Figure 7.38. All block groups in San Anselmo have jobs proximity index scores in the 40 to 60 range indicating employment opportunities are moderately accessible to San Anselmo residents.

The TCAC Economic Scores are a composite of jobs proximity as well as poverty, adult education, employment, and median home value characteristics. The map in Figure 7.39 shows that all tracts in San Anselmo received economic scores between 0.50 and 0.75. These scores are slightly lower than the tracts south of the City, which scored in the highest quartile. However, TCAC economic scores indicate adequate accessibility to economic opportunities townwide.
18 See TCAC Opportunity Maps at the beginning of section for more information on TCAC maps and scores. 240 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
443
237
Figure 7.38: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group (2017) 241 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
444
238
Figure 7.39: TCAC Economic Scores by Tract (2021)
242 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
445
239
Environment
Regional Trends
Environmental conditions residents live in can be affected by past and current land uses like landfills or proximity to freeways. The TCAC Environmental Score shown in Figure 7.40 is based on CalEnviroscreen 3.0 scores. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.

In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. TCAC Environmental Scores range from 0 to 1, where higher scores indicate a more positive environmental outcome (better environmental quality) Regionally, TCAC environmental scores are lowest in the tracts along to the San Pablo and San Francisco Bay shores, except for the coastal communities of San Rafael and Mill Valley in Marin County. Inland tracts in Contra Costa and Solano County also have low environmental scores.

In Marin County, TCAC Environmental scores are lowest in the West Marin areas of the unincorporated County from Dillon Beach in the north to Muir Beach in the South, east of Tomales Bay and Shoreline Highway. In addition, census tracts in Black Point-Green Point, Novato, and south San Rafael have “less positive environmental outcomes.” More positive environmental outcomes are in tracts along Highway 101, from North Novato to Sausalito (Figure 7.40).

Figure 7.39 shows the TCAC Environmental Score based on CalEnviroscreen 3.0. However, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released updated scored in February 2020 (CalEnviroscreen 4.0). The CalEnviroscreen 4.0 scores in Figure 7.41 are based on percentiles and show that Southern San Rafael and Marin City have the highest percentile and are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.

HUD’s opportunity index for “environmental health” summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. In Marin County, environmental health index values range from 77 for Blacks to 83 for Hispanics Table 7.18. The range is similar for the population living below the federal poverty line, with Black residents living in poverty still scoring lowest (76) but Native American residents living in poverty scoring highest among all races (85) and higher than the entire County Native American population (86 and 81, respectively). 243 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
446
240
Figure 7.40: Regional TCAC Environmental Score by Tract (2021) 244 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
447
241
Figure 7.41: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores by Tract (2021) 245 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
448
242
Local Trends
As shown in Figure 7.42, all tracts in San Anselmo scored in the highest quartile for TCAC environmental scores. TCAC environmental scores in the town are comparable to adjacent jurisdictions and are higher than unincorporated areas west and south of the City and in San Rafael east of the town.

Figure 7.42: TCAC Environmental Scores by Tract (2021)
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released updated scored in February 2020 (CalEnviroscreen 4.0). The CalEnviroscreen

4.0 scores in Figure 7.43 are based on percentiles: the lower the score the better the environmental conditions. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores reveal that all tracts in San Anselmo have the highest CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores within the 10th percentile. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores for the town are comparable to adjacent jurisdictions. All units of all income levels generated from the RHNA opportunity sites are in census tracts with the highest environmental domain scores and the highest CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores within the 10th percentile. 246 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
449
243
Figure 7.43: Sites Inventory and CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score by Tract (2021) 247 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
450
244
Healthy Places
Regional Trends
Residents should have the opportunity to live a healthy life and live in healthy communities. The Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state and combined 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions. Figure 7.44 shows the HPI percentile score distributions in the Region tend to be above 60 percent except in some concentrated areas in the cities of Vallejo, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco- each county along the bays have at least one cluster of tracts with an HPI below 60 (blue). In Marin County, most tracts are also above 80 percent except in Southern San Rafael and Marin City. All of Marin City and the census tract in the Canal area of San Rafael both scored in the lower 40th percentile. These communities have also both been identified as having low access to healthy foods in the 2020 AI and have a concentration of minorities and lower access to resources.

Figure 7.44: Regional Healthy Places Index by Tract (2021) 248 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
451
245
Local Trends
Figure 7.45 shows that all San Anselmo tracts have the highest healthy places indices, indicating that community conditions, including housing, education, economic, and social factors, are favorable. All units of all income levels generated from the RHNA opportunity sites are located in census tracts with the highest healthy places indices.

Figure 7.45: Healthy Places Index by Tract (2021)
249 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
452
246
Open Space and Recreation
Regional Trends
According to the Plan Bay Area 2040, a strong regional movement emerged during the latter half of the 20th century to protect farmland and open space. Local governments adopted urban growth boundaries and helped lead a “focused growth” strategy with support from environmental groups and regional agencies to limit sprawl, expand recreational opportunities, and preserve scenic and natural resources. However, this protection has strained the region’s ability to build the housing needed for a growing population. In addition, maintaining the existing open space does not ensure equal access to it.

In Marin County, the Marin County Parks and Open Space Department includes regional and community parks, neighborhood parks, and 34 open space preserves that encompass 19,300 acres and 190 miles of unpaved public trails. In 2007, 500 Marin County residents participated in a telephone survey, and more than 60 percent of interviewees perceived parks and open space agencies favorably, regardless of geographic area, age, ethnicity, or income. However, the 2020 AI found that residents in Marin City, a community with a concentration of minorities and low-income residents, has limited access to open spaces for recreation. From 1990 to 2015, Marin City, which had the highest African American population in the county and according to the Marin Food Policy Council, one of the highest obesity rates, did not have an outdoor recreational space. In 2015, the Trust for Public Land, in collaboration with the Marin City Community Services District, designed and opened Rocky Graham Park in Marin City.

According to the 2020 AI, while the park contains “a tree-house-themed play structure, drought-resistant turf lawn, adult fitness areas, and a mural showcasing scenes from Marin City's history”, Marin City continues to have limited access to surrounding open spaces and hiking trails.

In 2019, the Parks Department conducted a Community Survey and identified the cost of entrance and fees to be obstacles for access to County parks. As a result, in July of 2019, entry fees were reduced from $10 to $5 for three popular parks in the county, and admission to McNears Beach Park pool, located in San Rafael, was free beginning on August 1, 2019. 250 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
453
247
Local Trends
The following parks and open space areas are located in San Anselmo:
• Creek Park
• Faude Park
• Lansdale Park
• Memorial Park, Elders’ Garden, & Millennium Playground • Robson-Harrington Park
• Sorich Ranch Park
The City is also located adjacent to the Deer Park area and trailhead, Natalie Coffin Greene Park, Cascade Canyon Preserve, and Loma Alta Preserve. The HPI, discussed above, assesses community health using various factors including access to parks. Figure 7.46 shows the percent of the population living within a half-mile of a park, beach, or open space in San Anselmo by tract. All tracts in the town scored in the highest quartile for park access; 100 percent of the population in all tracts live within a half-mile of a park, beach, or open space. All units of all income levels generated from the RHNA opportunity sites are located in census tracts that contain 100 percent of the population living within a half-mile of a park.

Figure 7.46: Healthy Places Index – Park Access (2017)
251 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
454
248
Home Loans
A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home, particularly in light of the continued impacts of the lending/credit crisis. In the past, credit market distortions and other activities such as “redlining” were prevalent and prevented some groups from having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and the subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) were designed to improve access to credit for all members of the community and hold the lender industry responsible for community lending. Under HMDA, lenders are required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan applications and on the race or national origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants.

Regional Trends
The 2020 Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice examined lending practices across Marin County. According to HMDA, in 2017, there were a total of 11,688 loans originated for Marin properties. Of the 11,688 original loan applications, 6,534 loans were approved, representing 56 percent of all applications, 1,320 loans denied, representing 11 percent of the total applications, and there were 1,555 applicants who withdrew their applications, which represents 13 percent of all applications (Table 7.20). Hispanic and Black/African American residents were approved at lower rates and denied at higher rates than all applicants in the county.

Table 7.20: Loan Approval, Denial, and Withdrawal by Race All Applicants White Asian Hispanic/
Latino
Black/African
American
Loans approved 55.9% 60.0% 59.0% 50.0% 48.0%
Loans denied 11.3% 12.0% 16.0% 18.0% 19.0%
Loans withdrawn by applicant 13.3% 14.0% 13.0% 19.0% 14.0% Source: 2017 HMDA, as presented in 2020 Marin County AI.

According to the 2020 AI, there were several categories for reasons loans were denied. Under the category, “Loan Denial Reason: insufficient cash - down payment and closing costs,” African Americans were denied 0.7 percent more than White applicants. Denial of loans due to credit history significantly affected Asian applicants more than others; and under the category of “Loan Denial Reason: Other”, the numbers are starkly higher for African American applicants.

The AI also identified many residents who lived in Marin City during the Marinship years19 were not allowed to move from Marin City to other parts of the county because of discriminatory housing and lending policies and practices. For those residents, Marin City has been the only place where they have felt welcomed and safe in the county.

Based on the identified disparities of lending patterns for residents of color and a history of discriminatory lending practices, the AI recommended further fair lending investigations/testing into the disparities identified through the HMDA data analysis. More generally, it recommended that HMDA data for Marin County should be monitored on an ongoing basis to analyze overall lending patterns in the county. In addition (and what has not been studied for this AI), lending patterns of individual lenders should be analyzed, to gauge how effective the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) programs of individual lenders are in reaching all communities to ensure that people of all races and ethnicities have equal access to loans. 19 Marinship is a community of workers created by the Bechtel Company which during World War II built nearly 100 liberty ships and tankers. Since Marinship faced a shortfall in local, available workers, Bechtel overlooked the workplace exclusions that were standard at the time and recruited African Americans from southern states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma. A thorough history if Marin City and Marinship is found in the local knowledge section.
252 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
455
249
Local Trends
Loan applications by race/ethnicity in San Anselmo from 2018 to 2019 are presented in Figure7.47 Most home loan applications were submitted by White non-Hispanic residents, a reflection of the overall racial/ethnic composition of the City. Non-Hispanic White applicants represent 71 percent of the application pool, but 85.9 percent of the overall population. Asian and Hispanic residents are also slightly underrepresented in the loan application pool; however, the race or ethnicity of 22.1 percent of loan applicants is unknown.

Approximately 14.6 percent of all loans were denied during this period. Black/African American applications were denied at the highest rate (29 percent), followed by Asian/API applications (18 percent). Non-Hispanic White applicants and Hispanic/Latino applicants were denied at the same rate of 15 percent. As discussed previously, the County AI recommended HMDA data be monitored due to disparities in lending patterns based on race or ethnicity.

Figure 7.47: Loan Applications by Race/Ethnicity – San Anselmo (2018-2019) 253 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
456
250
Disproportionate Needs
The AFFH Rule Guidebook defines disproportionate housing needs as a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area (24 C.F.R. § 5.152). The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing.

The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Marin County. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom According to CHAS data based on the 2013-2017 ACS, approximately 40 percent of Marin County households experience housing problems, compared to 37.2 percent of households in San Anselmo. In both Marin County and town, renters are more likely to be affected by housing problems than owners.

Cost Burden
Regional Trends
As presented in Table 7.21, in Marin County, approximately 38 percent of households experience cost burdens. Renters experience cost burdens at higher rates than owners (48 percent compared to 32 percent), regardless of race. Among renters, American Indian and Pacific Islander households experience the highest rates of cost burdens (63 percent and 86 percent, respectively). Geographically, cost burdened renter households are concentrated census tracts in North and Central Marin in Novato and San Rafael (Figure 7.48). In these tracts, between 60 and 80 percent of renter households experience cost burdens. Throughout the incorporated County census tracts, between 40 and 60 percent of renter households are experiencing cost burdens. Cost-burdened owner households are concentrated in West Marin census tract surrounding Bolinas Bay and Southern Marin within Sausalito.

Table 7.21: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Marin County (2017) White Black Asian Am. Ind. Pac Isl. Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 31.8% 41.1% 30.7% 37.5% 0.0% 52.7% 32.9% Renter-Occupied 47.9% 59.5% 51.2% 62.5% 85.7% 73.7% 53.2% All Households 36.6% 54.5% 38.7% 43.8% 54.5% 67.5% 40.2% With Cost Burden
Owner-Occupied 31.2% 41.1% 29.0% 37.5% 0.0% 49.4% 32.2% Renter-Occupied 45.1% 57.5% 41.5% 62.5% 85.7% 58.9% 47.7% All Households 35.4% 53.1% 33.9% 43.8% 54.5% 56.1% 37.7% Note: Used CHAS data based on 2013-2017 ACS despite more recent available data being available as this dataset is included in the ABAG Housing Data Needs Package.

Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
254 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
457
NOVEMBER 2023
251
Figure 7.48: Regional Cost Burdened Renter Households by Tract (2019) 255 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
458
NOVEMBER 2023
252
Figure 7.49: Regional Cost Burdened Owner Households by Tract (2019) Housing problems and cost burdens can also affect special needs populations disproportionately. Table 7.22 shows that renter elderly and large households experience housing problems and cost burdens at higher rates than all renters, all households, and their owner counterparts.

Table 7.22: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households – Marin County (2017) Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All
Elderly Households Large
Households All Owner Elderly LargeHouseholds All Renters Any Housing Problem 34.0% 30.2% 32.9% 59.3% 74.0% 53.2% 34.0% Cost Burden > 30% 33.6% 26.7% 32.2% 55.9% 50.0% 47.7% 33.6% Source: HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
256 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
459
NOVEMBER 2023
253
Local Trends
Cost burden is less common amongst San Anselmo households compared to the county; 35.7 percent of households in the town are cost burdened compared to 37.7 percent countywide (Table 7.23). Similarly, 47.7 percent of renters in Marin County are cost burdened compared to only 40 percent in the town. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, San Anselmo has a relatively low proportion of renters (32.4 percent), compared to 36 percent in the county and 44 percent in the Bay Area. Renters are more likely to be cost burdened compared to owners.

Hispanic households are the most likely to experience cost burden compared to other racial/ethnic groups in San Anselmo. According to HUD CHAS estimates, 81.3 percent of Hispanic owners and 50 percent of Hispanic renters are cost burdened. White renter-occupied households are also cost burdened at a rate slightly exceeding the citywide average (42.9 percent).

Table 7.23: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – San Anselmo (2017) White Black Asian Am. Ind. Pac Isl. Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 35.0% N/A 10.5% N/A N/A 80.0% 35.6%
Renter-Occupied 43.8% 0.0% 0.0% N/A N/A 50.0% 42.4%
All Households 37.0% 0.0% 7.4% N/A N/A 70.0% 37.2%
With Cost Burden
Owner-Occupied 34.2% N/A 10.5% N/A N/A 81.3% 34.3%
Renter-Occupied 42.9% 0.0% 0.0% N/A N/A 50.0% 40.0%
All Households 36.2% 0.0% 7.4% N/A N/A 70.8% 35.7%
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.

As discussed previously, housing problems and cost burden often affect special needs populations disproportionately. Rates of housing problems and cost burden for elderly and large households in the town are presented in Table 7.24. Large households in San Anselmo are not cost burdened at a rate exceeding the townwide average. Conversely, 34.7 percent of elderly owner-occupied households are cost burdened, compared to 34.3 percent of owners townwide, and 59 percent of elderly renter-occupied households are cost burdened, compared to 40 percent of renters townwide. Elderly households are cost burdened at a higher rate in San Anselmo than the county.

Table 7.24: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households – San Anselmo (2017) Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All
Elderly Households Large
Households All Owner Elderly LargeHouseholds All Renters Any Housing Problem 34.2% 29.3% 35.6% 62.6% 0.0% 42.4% 37.2% Cost Burden > 30% 34.7% 29.3% 34.3% 59.0% 0.0% 40.0% 35.7% Source: HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.

Figure 7.50 and Figure 7.51 show cost burden in the town by tract and tenure. According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, between 40 and 60 percent of renters in all San Anselmo tracts are cost burdened. Similarly, between 20 to 40 percent of owners in all tracts are cost burdened. Since the 2010-2014 ACS, overpayment amongst renters has remained generally constant in all tracts, while overpayment amongst owners has decreased in all tracts. All units of all income levels generated from the RHNA opportunity sites are located in census tracts with 40 to 60 percent of renters that are cost burdened and 20 to 40 percent of owners that are cost burdened. 257 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
460
NOVEMBER 2023
254
NOVEMBER 2023
Figure 7.50: Sites Inventory and Cost Burdened Renters by Tract (2019) 258 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
461
255
NOVEMBER 2023
Figure 7.51: Sites Inventory and Cost Burdened Owners by Tract (2019) 259 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
462
NOVEMBER 2023
256
Overcrowded Households
Regional Trends
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). According to the 2017 five-year ACS estimates, about 6.5 percent of households in the Bay Area region are living in overcrowded conditions (Table 7.28). About 11 percent of renter households are living in overcrowded conditions in the region, compared to three percent of owner households. Overcrowding rates in Marin County are lower than the Bay Area (four percent and 6.5 percent, respectively) and like regional trends, Marin County a higher proportion of renters experience overcrowded conditions compared to owners. Overcrowded households in the region are concentrated in Richmond, Oakland, and San Francisco (Figure 7.50). At the county level, overcrowded households are concentrated North and Central Marin, specifically in downtown Novato and the southeastern tracts of San Rafael (Canal).

While the ACS data shows that overcrowding is not significant problem, it is likely that this data is an undercount, especially with families who may have undocumented members. It is also likely that agriculture worker housing is overcrowded and undercounted.

Table 7.28: Overcrowded Households – Bay
Area and Marin County (2017)
Bay Area Marin County
Owner-Occupied 3.0% 0.8%
Renter Occupied 10.9% 9.4%
All Households 6.5% 3.9%
Note: Overcrowding means more than one person per household.

Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package, HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020. 260 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
463
NOVEMBER 2023
257
Figure 7.52: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract
261 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
464
NOVEMBER 2023
258
Local Trends
Overcrowding is generally not an issue in the town. As shown in Table 7.29, only 0.8 percent of owner-occupied households are overcrowded, all of which are severely overcrowded. Amongst renter households, 2.4 percent are overcrowded, and none are severely overcrowded. Only 1.3 percent of households in San Anselmo are overcrowded, compared to 3.9 percent in the county and 3.5 percent in the Bay Area. The rate of overcrowding in all San Anselmo tracts is also below the statewide average of 8.2 percent. All units generated from the RHNA opportunity sites are in census tracts below the statewide average for overcrowded households.

Table 7.29: Overcrowded Households – San Anselmo (2017) Overcrowded
(>1 person per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons per
room)
Owner-Occupied 0.8% 0.8%
Renter Occupied 2.4% 0.0%
All Households 1.3% 0.5%
Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package, HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.

Figure 7.53: Overcrowded Households by Tract
262 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
465
NOVEMBER 2023
259
Substandard Conditions
Regional Trends
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions. Incomplete facilities and housing age are estimated using the 2015-2019 ACS. In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs.

According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, shown in Table 7.30, 1.3 percent or less of households in the Bay Area and Marin County lack complete kitchen and plumbing facilities. Incomplete kitchen facilities are more common in both the Bay Area and Marin County and affect renter households more than owner households. In Marin County, one percent of households lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.4 percent lack complete plumbing facilities. In the county, more than 2 percent of renters lack complete kitchen facilities while less than one percent of renter households lack plumbing facilities.

Table 7.30: Substandard Housing Conditions –Bay Area and Marin County (2019) Bay Area Marin County
Lacking complete kitchen
facilities
Lacking complete plumbing
facilities
Lacking complete kitchen
facilities
Lacking complete plumbing
facilities
Owner 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%
Renter 2.6% 1.1% 2.4% 0.6%
All Households 1.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates).

Like overcrowding, ACS data may not reflect the reality of substandard housing conditions in the county. Staff have received comments about substandard conditions related to lack of landlord upkeep/care (i.e., moldy carpets) or hot water delays, especially from the Hispanic/Latin community.

Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs. As stated above, structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation. In the county, 86 percent of the housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 58 percent built prior to 1970 (Table 7.32). Figure 7.54 shows median housing age for Marin County cities and Census-designated places (CDPs). Central and Southern Marin, specifically the cities of Ross, Fairfax, and San Anselmo have the oldest housing while Novato, Black Point-Green Point CDP, Nicasio CDP, Muir Beach CDP, and Marin City CDP have the most recently built housing.
263 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
466
NOVEMBER 2023
260
Figure 7.55: Median Housing Age by Marin County Cities and Census-Designated Places (CDPs) Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).

Local Trends
There are no owner-occupied households in San Anselmo lacking complete kitchen facilities (Table 7.31). Compared to Marin County, a smaller proportion of households in San Anselmo lack complete kitchen facilities (0.3 percent). One percent of renters in the town lack complete kitchen facilities, which is less than both the county (2.4 percent) and the Bay Area (2.6 percent).

A slightly larger proportion of owner-occupied and renter-occupied households in the town lack complete plumbing facilities compared to the county. Overall, 0.5 percent of households in San Anselmo lack complete plumbing facilities compared to 0.4 percent in Marin County and 0.6 percent in the Bay Area.

Table 7.31: Substandard Housing Conditions
San Anselmo (2019)
Lacking complete
kitchen facilities
Lacking complete
plumbing facilities
Owner-Occupied Households 0.0% 0.5%
Renter-Occupied
Households 1.0% 0.7%
All Households 0.3% 0.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates). 264 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
467
NOVEMBER 2023
261
Table 7.32 shows housing stock age by block group, town, and county. Nearly 81 percent of housing units in the town were built in 1969 or earlier compared to only 58 percent countywide. As discussed previously, units aged 50 and older are likely to require major rehabilitation. As shown in Figure 7.56, older housing units are most concentrated in block groups in the central and southwestern areas of the town. More than 73 percent of housing units in all San Anselmo block groups were built prior to 1970.

Table 7.32: Housing Stock Age (2019)
Block Group/Jurisdiction 1969 or Earlier
(50+ Years)
1970-1989
(30-50 Years)
1990 or Later (<30
Years)
Total Housing
Units
Block Group 1, Tract 1150 73.4% 19.3% 7.3% 1,195
Block Group 3, Tract 1150 84.4% 15.6% 0.0% 649
Block Group 4, Tract 1150 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 421
Block Group 1, Tract 1160 86.5% 6.6% 6.9% 713
Block Group 2, Tract 1160 75.5% 14.4% 10.1% 645
Block Group 1, Tract 1170 78.1% 15.4% 6.4% 590
Block Group 2, Tract 1170 78.7% 11.0% 10.3% 263
Block Group 3, Tract 1170 76.6% 6.4% 16.9% 590
Block Group 4, Tract 1170 81.8% 12.6% 5.5% 688
San Anselmo 80.7% 12.2% 7.1% 5,450
Marin County 58.0% 28.2% 13.9% 113,084
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates). 265 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
468
NOVEMBER 2023
262
Figure 7.56: Median Housing Age by Block Group (2019)
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
266 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
469
NOVEMBER 2023
263
Displacement Risk
Regional Trends
UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement project defines residential displacement as “the process by which a household is forced to move from its residence - or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control.” As part of this project, the research has identified populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive communities”) in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. The project defines vulnerability based on the share of low-income residents per tract and other criteria including share of renters is above 40 percent, share of people of color is more than 50 percent, share of low-income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps.

Using this methodology, sensitive communities in the Bay Area region were identified in the coastal census tracts of Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco County, specifically in the cities of Vallejo, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco (Figure 7.57). In Marin County, sensitive communities were identified in the cites of Novato and San Rafael, and the unincorporated areas of Marin City, Strawberry, Northern and Central Coastal West Marin and Nicasio.

Figure 7.57: Regional Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement by Tract (2021) 267 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
470
NOVEMBER 2023
264
Local Trends
There are no areas in San Anselmo identified as sensitive communities at risk of displacement. The closest community at risk of displacement is east of San Anselmo in San Rafael.

Figure 7.58: Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement by Tract (2021) 268 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
471
NOVEMBER 2023
265
As discussed previously, vulnerability is measured based on several variables including: share of renters exceeding 40 percent, share of people of color exceeding 50 percent, share of low-income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps. San Anselmo is a predominately owner-occupied household community (67.6 percent) with a large White population (85.9 percent). Since the 2006-2010 ACS, the non-Hispanic White population increased from 83.4 percent, and the share of owner-occupied households increased from 66.9 percent. As presented in Figure 7.50, White householders are significantly more likely to own their home compared to all other racial/ethnic groups in San Anselmo. Over 70 percent of non-Hispanic White households own their homes. In comparison, all Black/African American householders are renters. Similarly, 70.1 percent of householders of a race not listed (“Other race”) or multiple races, 60.8 percent of Hispanic/Latino householders, and 46.5 percent of Asian/API householders are renters in San Anselmo.

Figure 7.59: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder (2019) Source: ABAG Data Needs Package, 2015-2019 ACS.
269 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
472
NOVEMBER 2023
266
Figure 7.60 shows the median contract rent in San Anselmo, Marin County, and the Bay Area from 2009 to 2019. As of 2019, San Anselmo had the lowest median contract rent price of $1,820 when compared to the county ($1,961) and the Bay Area ($1,849). Over the past ten years, median contract rent has increased by 39.3 percent in San Anselmo, a slightly higher increase than Marin County (37.9 percent) but significantly lower than the Bay Area region (54.6 percent). As discussed above, increasing rental prices in the town are more likely to disproportionately affect people of color, specifically Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino households.

Figure 7.60: Median Contract Rent (2009-2019)
Source: ABAG Data Needs Package, 2015-2019 ACS.
270 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
473
NOVEMBER 2023
267
Homelessness
Regional Trends
As presented in Table 7.33, according to the County’s Point-in-Time (PIT) Homeless Count and Survey, there were 1,034 persons experiencing homelessness in Marin County in 2019. Most of the people experiencing homelessness in the county were unsheltered (68.5 percent). Another 16.6 percent were living in emergency shelters, and 14.9 percent were living in transitional housing. Since 2015, the county’s homeless population has decreased by 21 percent (1,309 persons in 2015). However, in 2015, only 64 percent of the homeless population was unsheltered compared to 68 percent in 2019.

Table 7.33: Homelessness by Shelter Status
Marin County (2019)
Persons Percent
Sheltered – Emergency Shelter 172 16.6%
Sheltered – Transitional Housing 154 14.9%
Unsheltered 708 68.5%
Total 1,034 100.0%
Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package, HUD Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Popula- tions and Subpopulations Reports, 2019.

Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations are all overrepresented in the county’s homeless population. Conversely, Asian, White, and “Other race” populations are underrepresented. Black or African American persons are the most overrepresented in the homeless population, accounting for 16.7 percent of the homeless population but only 2.2 percent of the population countywide. Table 7.34 shows the share of people experiencing homelessness and total populations by race and ethnicity.

Table 7.34: Racial/Ethnic Share of General and Homeless Populations Marin County (2019)
Share of Homeless Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 3.5% 0.4% Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 3.1% 6.1%
Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 16.7% 2.2% White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 66.2% 77.8%
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 10.5% 13.5% Hispanic/Latino 18.8% 15.9%
Non-Hispanic/Latino 81.2% 84.1%
Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package – HUD Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports, 2019; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates). 271 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
474
NOVEMBER 2023
268
The number of students in local public schools experiencing homelessness in the county has also increased in recent years. Since the 2016-17 school year, the number of students experiencing homelessness in Marin County has increased from 976 to 1,268 during the 2019-20 school year, a nearly 30 percent increase. Conversely, the Bay Area as a whole has seen a decrease in students experiencing homelessness during the same time period (Figure 7.61).

Figure 7.61: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Source: Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package – California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data.
272 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
475
NOVEMBER 2023
269
The County’s 2019 Homeless PIT Count and Survey found that nearly half (49 percent) of respondents reported that economic issues, such as rent increases or a lost job, were the primary cause of their homelessness. Other causes include personal relationship issues (36 percent), mental health issues (16 percent), substance use issues (14 percent), and physical health issues (11 percent). The 2019 PIT Count and Survey also showed that 73 percent of homeless respondents reported needing rental assistance (Figure 7.62). Additional assistance needed includes more affordable housing (69 percent), money for moving costs (55 percent), help finding an apartment (37 percent), transportation (31 percent), and case management (29 percent). The need for rental assistance reflects the high cost of housing in the county. As discussed previously, nearly half (47.7 percent) of renter-occupied households in the town are cost burdened.

Figure 7.602 Assistance Needed to Obtain Permanent Housing Source: 2019 Marin County Point-in-Time (PIT) Count and Survey Report. 273 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
476
NOVEMBER 2023
270
Local Trends
According to the County’s 2019 PIT Count and Survey, there are no sheltered individuals experiencing homelessness in San Anselmo. There are no emergency shelters in San Anselmo. Emergency shelters located closest to the town are all located in San Rafael and include Homeward Bound of Marin Mill Street Center (55 beds), Homeward Bound of Marin Family Center (25 beds), and Homeward Bound of Marin Voyager Program (10 beds). As shown in Figure 7.63, the town’s homeless population has increased from 13 persons in 2015 to 20 persons in 2019, an increase of 54 percent. In comparison, the unsheltered population in Central Marin decreased 28.6 percent during the same period, from 388 individuals to 277 individuals. The unsheltered homeless population in San Anselmo represents only 3.4 percent of the unsheltered population in Central Marin in 2015, but 7.2 percent in 2019. Persons experiencing homelessness in San Anselmo represent a smaller proportion of the population (0.2 percent) compared to the county (0.4 percent).

Figure 7.63: Population of Unsheltered Homeless Individuals (2015-2019) Source: 2019 Marin County Point-in-Time (PIT) Count and Survey Report. 274 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
477
NOVEMBER 2023
271
Site Inventory
AB 686 requires that a jurisdiction’s site inventory “…shall be used to identify sites throughout the community, consistent with…” its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The number of units, location and assumed affordability of identified sites throughout the community (i.e., lower, moderate, and above moderate-income RHNA) relative to all components of the assessment of fair housing was integrated throughout the discussion in the fair housing assessment section.

A summary of the sites inventory analysis and a further breakdown of the RHNA strategy and AFFH variables by San Anselmo neighborhood is included below and shown in Table 7.35 and Figure 7.62. For the purposes of this analysis, the City has been divided into the following neighborhoods:
• Northern San Anselmo (Tract 1150): Bound by northern, eastern, and western town boundaries and Sie Francis Drake Boulevard and Shaw Drive to the south.
• Central San Anselmo (Tract 1160): Bound by Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to the north, Madrone Avenue and Redwood Road to the south, and the western town boundary.
• Southern San Anselmo (Tract 1170): Bound by the southern, eastern, and western town boundaries and Redwood Road, Madrone Avenue, and Shaw Drive to the north.

Northern San Anselmo
There are only two sites identified in Northern San Anselmo. Most units are allocated towards the lower income RHNA (77 units). An additional 9 units are allocated towards the moderate-income RHNA. This section of the town is a highest resource area with smaller proportions of non-White populations and LMI households. Half of renters and 39.6 percent of owners residing in this area neighborhood are cost burdened and only 0.3 percent of households are overcrowded, significantly lower than that statewide average of 8.2 percent. Less than 10 percent of the population in this tract experiences one or more disability and more than 80 percent of children residing in this tract live in married couple households.

Northern San Anselmo has the largest share of cost burdened renters (39.6 percent) amongst all San Anselmo tracts; however, rates of renter cost burdened are generally comparable to Central San Anselmo (31.4 percent) and Southern San Anselmo (39.4 percent). While the Town’s RHNA strategy places only lower income RHNA units in this area of the town, lower income units are not isolated to this neighborhood alone. An additional 56 lower income units are located in Central San Anselmo and 388 in Southern San Anselmo, ensuring lower income housing is not concentrated in a single area of the town. Further, like San Anselmo as a whole, this section of the town is generally affluent with the highest access to opportunities including educational, environmental, transportation, and economic. Additional affordable units in this area may also serve the existing cost burdened household population residing in this tract. The Town’s RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing fair housing conditions in Northern San Anselmo.

Central San Anselmo
There are four sites located in Central San Anselmo, totaling 5 units (all above moderate-income units). The block group encompassing the sites identified to meet the RHNA has a population of racial/ethnic minorities of 15.1 percent and LMI households of 41.7 percent. Central San Anselmo is considered a highest resource area where 54 percent of renters and 31.4 percent of owners are cost burdened. There are no overcrowded households in this neighborhood.

The Town’s RHNA strategy places above moderate-income income units in Central San Anselmo due to the small size of the sites available for development and relatively lower access to transit and resources in this neighborhood. The five units located in this area represent only two percent of the total above-moderate income units planned in the town. The Town’s strategy ensures that above-moderate income units are interspersed moderate and low-income units throughout several different areas of the town where sites are available for development and in closer proximity to transit and resources. This strategy promotes mixed income communities and reduces segregation. Like trends townwide, Central Anselmo is generally an affluent area with adequate access to opportunities and low to moderate levels of disproportionate housing needs. The Town’s RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing fair housing conditions in this neighborhood. 275 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
478
NOVEMBER 2023
272
Southern San Anselmo
Southern San Anselmo has the highest concentration of sites. Southern San Anselmo contains a total of 164 sites with an allocation of 673 units (213 lower income units, 264 moderate-income units, and 196 above moderate-income units). Southern San Anselmo is also considered a highest resource tract where 55.6 percent of renters and 39.4 percent of owners are cost burdened. Only 2.5 percent of households in this area are overcrowded. Southern San Anselmo also has a higher concentration of persons with disabilities (11.4 percent) compared to the remainder of the town, likely do to the larger elderly population residing there.

Due to the high volume of sites in this area, Southern San Anselmo is compared by block group in this paragraph. Block groups 1 and 2 have the highest concentration of RHNA units (248 units and 258 units, respectively). Block groups 1 and 2 are the highest resource areas with few fair housing issues. Block group 4, generally bound by San Anselmo Avenue to the east, Center Boulevard to the north, and Cedar Street to the west, is the only LMI area in the town where 56 percent of households are low or moderate-income. While the town does place 151 units in this block group, this includes a variety of unit types at various income levels. The town allocates 67 lower income units, 104 moderate-income units, and 77 above moderate-income units in this block group ensuring lower and moderate-income units are not concentrated in an area where LMI households are currently more prevalent. Consistent with the town as a whole, Southern San Anselmo is an affluent, high resource area.

Table 7.35: RHNA Sites by AFFH Variables
Tract/BG
# of
Households
in Tract
Total
Capacity
(Units)
Income Distribution TCAC
Opp.

Category
% NonWhite%
LMI Pop.
% Overcrowded
Renter
Cost
Burden
Owner
Cost
Lower Moderate Burden Above
Moderate
Northern San Anselmo
1150 2,873 120 112 8 0 Highest 13.9% 25.2% 0.3% 50.0% 39.6% Central San Anselmo
1160 1,270 5 0 0 5 Highest 15.1% 41.9% 0.0% 54.0% 31.4% Southern San Anselmo
1170 1,864 673 213 264 196 Highest 17.1% 33.7% 2.5% 55.6% 39.4% 276 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
479
273
NOVEMBER 2023
Figure 7.64: Sites Inventory
277 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
480
NOVEMBER 2023
274
Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Table 7.36, below, shows a summary of the issues identified in this Assessment of Fair Housing. Fair housing issues are most concentrated in tracts in the southern end of the town, primarily in census tract 1170, where there are higher concentrations of low-moderate-income populations (census tract 1170, block group 4 contains 50-75 percent), populations with a disability (10-20 percent), homeowners overpaying for housing (greater than 80 percent), the lowest median income (census tract 1170, block group 4 has a median income of $56,324 which is less than the HCD State median of $87,100), population of individuals 18 years old and older living alone (20-40 percent), and is the only census tract that is not a racially concentrated area of affluence (RCAA).

Table 7.36 Summary of Fair Housing Issues
Fair Housing Issue Summary
Enforcement and Outreach
Fair Housing Records Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California provides free outreach and consultation regarding fair housing issues in Marin County, investigating all aspects of discrimination complaints.

Integration and Segregation
Race/Ethnicity San Anselmo has a relatively homogenous set of census tracts, all having high proportions of white populations. 85.9 percent of residents are White compared to 71.2 percent in Marin County.

Disability 7.6 percent of residents experience a disability compared to 9.1 % in the county.

Familial Status About 27 percent of households in Marin County have children under the age of 18, with 21 percent married-couple households with children and six percent single-parent households.

There are 1,655 households with children in San Anselmo representing 31.7 percent of households townwide. Most of the town contains concentrations of greater than 80 percent households with children, with most of the opportunity sites located in these areas. Over five percent of households in the town are single-parent households, most of which are female-headed single-parent households (3.5 percent).

Income Nearly 55 percent of households in San Anselmo earn more than 100 percent of the area median income (AMI), compared to 50percent in Marin County. Census tract 1140, block group 4 is the only census tract block group in the town, located in along the southern town boundary, that is considered an LMI area. According to the HCD Data Viewer, 56 percent of households residing in this block group are low or moderate-income.

Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)
There are no R/ECAPs in San Anselmo; there are also no tracts categorized as areas of high segregation and poverty by the Fair Housing Task Force.

Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
All of San Anselmo’s tracts have less than or equal to 20% non-white residents.

The block groups in the northern portion of the town have median incomes greater than $100,000 while the block groups in the southern portion of the town have median incomes between $80,000 and $100,000 Census tracts 1150 and 1160 are considered RCAAs and census tract 1170 is not an RCAA.

Access to Opportunities
Economic The entire town scored an economic domain score of 0.5 – 0.75.

Education The entire town scored an education domain score of .75-1, the most positive education outcomes.

Environmental The entire town scored an environmental domain score of .75-1, the most positive environmental outcomes.

Transportation San Anselmo achieves a score of 5.6 according to AllTransit.

Disproportionate Housing Needs
Housing Problem 37.2 percent of the town’s households experience a housing problem, while 40 percent of households in Marin County experience a housing problem.

In both Marin County and the town, renters are more likely to be affected by housing problems than owners.
278 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
481
NOVEMBER 2023
275
Fair Housing Issue Summary
Cost Burden 35.7 percent of households in San Anselmo are cost burdened compared to 37.7 percent countywide. Similarly, 47.7 percent of renters in the county are cost burdened compared to only 40 percent in the town.

Overcrowding 0.8 percent of owner-occupied households are overcrowded, all of which are severely overcrowded.

Amongst renter households, 2.4 percent are overcrowded, and none are severely overcrowded.

In Marin County 3.9 percent of households are overcrowded and a higher proportion of renters experience overcrowded conditions compared to owners.

Incomplete Plumbing and Kitchen
Facilities
In Marin County, one percent of households lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.4 percent lack complete plumbing facilities. More than 2 percent of renters lack complete kitchen facilities compared to less than one percent of renter households lacking plumbing facilities.

There are no owner-occupied households in San Anselmo lacking complete kitchen facilities. A smaller proportion of households in San Anselmo lack complete kitchen facilities (0.3 percent) compared to Marin County (one percent). Only one percent of renters in the town lack complete kitchen facilities (one percent) compared to both the county (2.4 percent) and Bay Area (2.6 percent).

Displacement There are no areas in San Anselmo that have been identified as sensitive communities at risk of displacement.

Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
Lack of Fair Housing Testing, Education, and Outreach
The Town lacks information on fair housing law and discrimination complaint filing procedures on the Town website. Current outreach practices may not provide sufficient information related to fair housing, including federal and state fair housing law and affordable housing opportunities. Cost burdened households throughout San Anselmo may be unaware of affordable housing opportunities. Approximately 74 percent of discrimination complaints filed though FHANC between 2016 and 2021 were related to disability status. The Town may lack sufficient education and outreach related to reasonable accommodation and ADA laws based on the proportion of complaints related to disability status. Further, while fair housing testing was conducted in the county, fair housing tests in San Anselmo may be insufficient for monitoring housing discrimination.

Contributing Factors
• Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations. • Lack of availability and awareness of affordable units in a range of sizes. • Lack of outreach, especially related to reasonable accommodations and ADA laws.

Lack of Housing Choice and Mobility
Most of the community is in the R-1 zoning district which allows for only single-family detached homes and ADUs and JADUs. The lack of housing choice throughout the community perpetuates issues of segregation, especially for the disability community.

Contributing Factors
• Overly restrictive zoning.
• Insufficient access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities. 279 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
482
NOVEMBER 2023
276
Discrimination in Home SalesMarket and Disparities in Homeownership Rates Asian and Hispanic residents may be slightly underrepresented in the home loan application pool; however, the race or ethnicity of nearly a quarter of loan applicants is unknown. The Black/African American population was denied home loans at the highest rate (29 percent), significantly high than the White population (15 percent) and Hispanic population (15 percent). Asian applicants (18 percent) were also denied at a rate exceeding the townwide rate of 14.6 percent. The Hispanic/Latino and Asian populations make up the second and third largest racial/ethnic populations in the town following the White population. Less than 30 percent of non-Hispanic White householders are renters compared to 100 percent of Black/African American householders, 70.1 percent of other/multiple race householders, 60.8 percent of Hispanic/Latino householders, and 46.5 percent of Asian householders.

Contributing Factors
• Private discrimination in the home sales market.
• Availability of affordable housing in all areas of town. • Lack of fair housing testing/monitoring.
• Lack of opportunities for residents to obtain housing in higher opportunity areas.

Community Opposition to Affordable Housing
According to the 2020 County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, community opposition to housing development remains the number one barrier to housing development in the county. The AI cites the following reasons for community resistance to development: concerns about traffic congestion, a desire for the preservation of open spaces, loss of local control, and the impact on schools. According to the 2020 AI, opposition to new housing developments can arise in all neighborhoods of the county, but it is especially the case in majority White neighbor- hoods. As discussed previously, San Anselmo is characterized by a non-Hispanic White population of 85.9 percent, higher than the 71.2 percent countywide.

Contributing Factors
• Community concerns about housing densities and impacts on traffic congestion, open spaces, loss of local control, and schools.

Substandard Housing Conditions
While the City does not have a large proportion of households lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities, approximately 93 percent of housing units are aged 30 years or older, including 80.7 percent aged 50 years or older, and may require minor or major rehabilitation. Aging housing units are mostly concentrated in the southwestern and central areas of the town, but aging housing units are prevalent townwide.

Contributing Factors
• Lack of monitoring.
• Age of housing stock and cost of repairs or rehabilitation. 280 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
483
NOVEMBER 2023
277
Alignment with State AFFH Goals
The State of California passed AFFH related legislation to meet several goals of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, as detailed below. To better clarify the relationship between the fair housing issues/contributing factors and their related policies and actions and the State’s AFFH goals, the following symbols are used.

Fair Housing Services Outreach and Enforcement
Housing Mobility
Place-Based Strategies to Encourage Community Revitalization New Housing Choices in Areas of High Opportunity
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Protecting Existing Residents from Displacement
Community Health Strategies
Environmental Equity Strategies
281 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
484
NOVEMBER 2023
278
Implementation Actions
Table 7.37 identifies specific actions from Table 8-1: Housing Element Action Matrix that affirmatively further fair housing. The table connects the fair housing issues and contributing factors identified above with the associated action to mitigate/resolve the issue.. Additional detail on Town lead, time frame, and quantifiable metrics is available in Action Matrix included in that section.

Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
Fair Housing Issue 1: Lack of Fair Housing Testing, Education, and Outreach Priority: High
CF 1.1: Lack of resources
for fair housing agencies and
organizations.

Action 9.1g: Ensure that information related to fair housing laws is easily available on the Town’s website and at key Town facilities, including Town Hall and the library.

Town-wide Update the Town’s website to include information regarding fair housing law. Annually work with
Marin County Mediation Services to make flyers
and literature regarding fair housing law available
at key Town facilities.

Action 9.1b: Assemble and promote the distribution of
information to landlords regarding fair housing.

Town-wide Update the Town’s website to include information regarding fair housing for landlords.

Action 9.1c: Involve Marin County Mediation Services to aid in housing-related problem resolution.

Town-wide As needed, involve Marin County Mediation
Services to aid in housing-related problem
resolution.

CF 1.2: Lack of availability
and awareness of affordable
units in a range of sizes
(such as lack of family
housing).

Action 5.1a: Work with Marin County and neighboring
jurisdictions to explore the feasibility of establishing a renter match program for ADU owners and prospective tenants.

Town-wide Conduct a feasibility analysis with Marin County and neighboring jurisdictions regarding the
establishment of a renter match program.

Action 9.1h: Ensure that information related to reasonable accommodations for zoning regulations is easily accessible on the Town’s website.

Town-wide Update the Town’s website to include information regarding reasonable accommodations.

Action 9.2a: Require that any development within the
Affordable Housing Overlay District be marketed to the
disability community and non-English speakers, including new-immigrant and refugee communities.

Town-wide As part of the Affordable Housing Overlay District standards adopted as a part of a full Zoning Code
update, establish requirements for affordable units
to be marketed to the disability community and
non- English speakers.

Action 9.2b: Require that any development within the
Affordable Housing Overlay District prepares and publicizes paper and digital versions of multi-lingual applications, and that all websites containing application information be accessible.

Town-wide As a part Affordable Housing Overlay District standards adopted as a part of a full Zoning Code
update, establish requirements for paper and
digital versions of multilingual applications be
made available and accessible.

CF 1.3: Lack of outreach
especially related to
reasonable
accommodations and
ADA laws.

Action 9.1h: Ensure that information related to reasonable accommodations for zoning regulations is easily accessible on the Town’s website.

Town-wide Update the Town’s website to include information regarding reasonable accommodations.
282 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
485
NOVEMBER 2023
279
Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
Fair Housing Issue 2: Lack of Housing Choice and Mobility Priority: High
CF 2.1: Overly restrictive
zoning.

Action 1.2c: Continue ongoing and annual outreach and
coordination with non-profit housing developers and
affordable housing advocates to provide advice and
comment on proposed zoning amendments and other
program implementation.

Town-wide Assess opportunities for non-profit housing
developers and affordable housing advocates to
provide advice on proposed zoning and other
program implementation on an ongoing basis as
items are brought forward.

Include non-profit housing developers and
affordable housing advocates on the Town’s enewsletter mailing list to ensure they are notified of zoning amendments and other program
implementation efforts.

Action 3.1a: Amend the Zoning Code to allow missing
middle housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and
quadplexes in the R-1 and R-2 districts.

R-1 and R-2
Districts
Adopt Zoning Code amendments to allow missing
middle housing types such as duplexes, triplexes,
and quadplexes in the R-1 and R-2 districts.

Action 3.1b: Adopt objective design standards that ensure that the design of new missing middle housing types are sensitive to the established character of San Anselmo’s neighborhood.

R-1 and R-2
Districts
Adopt objective design standards for all housing
types, including missing middle housing types.

Action 3.1c: Adopt pre-approved infill missing middle
housing plans to reduce costs and streamline the approval of missing middle housing.

R-1 and R-2
Districts
Adopt pre-approved infill missing middle housing
plans.

Action 3.3c: Amend the Zoning Code to allow residential buildings containing single-room occupancy (SRO) units as a permitted use in the R-3 zoning district.

R-3 District Adopt a Zoning Code amendment allowing SRO units as a permitted use in the R-3 zoning district.

Action 4.3b: Perform an analysis to compare the Town’s
zoning regulations with housing development on the ground to determine whether amendments are needed to ensure
that infill single-family detached housing is consistent in bulk and mass with other single-family detached housing in the neighborhood to help preserve smaller, naturally affordable housing in the community.

R-1 and R-2
Districts
As a part of a full Zoning Code update, conduct an
analysis to compare the Town’s zoning regulations
with housing development on the ground to
determine whether amendments are needed to
ensure that infill single-family detached housing is
consistent in bulk and mass with other singlefamily detached housing in the neighborhood.

Action 4.4a: Allow for modified development standards
where multifamily projects include the preservation of an existing building.

Townwide As a part of a full Zoning Code update, establish an Administrative Exceptions process to allow for
ministerial approval of minor variances to
development standards under certain
circumstances.

Action 5.1b: Work with Marin County and neighboring
jurisdictions to explore the feasibility of establishing a home share program.

Town-wide Conduct a feasibility analysis with Marin County and neighboring jurisdictions regarding the
establishment of a home share program.

Action 5.2a: Amend the Zoning Code to require all new
development and redevelopment in the C-L and C-3 districts to include residential units by right at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of up to C-L and C-3
Districts
Adopt Zoning Code amendments to require all
new development and redevelopment in the C-L
and C-3 districts to include residential units at a
density minimum density of 20 and maximum
283 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
486
NOVEMBER 2023
280
Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
30 dwelling units per acre in accordance with California Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

In addition, establish minimum densities in the R-2, R-3, P, C-1, and C-2.
density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre.

Action 5.2b: Amend the zoning standards, including
maximum density, maximum building height, and other
requirements, in the C-L and C-3 districts and maximum FAR in the C-1, C-L, and C-3 districts to accommodate mixed-use development by right and require the residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed use project in accordance with California Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i)..

C-1, C-L, and C-3
Districts
Adopt Zoning Code amendments to accommodate
mixed-use development and require the
residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the
total floor area of a mixed use project in the C-L
and C-3 districts.

Action 5.2c: Amend the Zoning Code to eliminate minimum parking requirements for new development and
redevelopment within a half-mile of public transit in
accordance with AB 2097.

Town-wide Adopt Zoning Code amendments to eliminate
minimum parking requirements for new
development and redevelopment within a halfmile of public transit.

Action 5.2d: Amend the Zoning Code to include flexible
parking requirements in areas not located within a half-mile of public transit such as joint use parking, off-site parking (currently allowed), allowances for reduced standards if developers do not bundle the cost of parking with the cost of rent, reducing parking stall dimensions, allowing public overnight parking on Town streets, and “grandfathering” noncompliant buildings and uses.

Town-wide Adopt Zoning Code amendments to establish
minimum parking requirements reductions.

Action 5.3a: Establish an Affordable Housing Overlay District in the Zoning Code for properties zoned SPD, C-3, and R-3 to incentivize the development of affordable housing by allowing greater building height, density, and floor area ratio and by reducing parking requirements for multifamily and mixed-use developments that provide a specified percent of units as affordable to low, very low-income, or extremely lowincome households. In addition, the Town will waive the rezoning fees for property owners’ requests to be rezoned within the Affordable Housing Overlay District to incentivize affordable housing creation. The nondiscretionary,
administrative approval process will utilize objective design standards, as detailed in Actions 3.1b and 3.2a.

Town-wide As a part of a full Zoning Code update, adopt a floating Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Action 5.3b: Conduct a study to determine the appropriate amount of incentive and percent requirement of units
affordable to low, very low-, and extremely low-income
households for the Affordable Housing Overlay District to accommodate private development of affordable housing that does not require subsidy. Consider increasing incentives for affordable units with three or more bedrooms.

Town-wide Prior to the commencement of a full Zoning Code update, conduct a study to determine the
appropriate amount of incentive and percent
requirement of units affordable to low, very low-,
and extremely low-income households for the
Affordable Housing Overlay District, especially
affordable units with three or more bedrooms.

Action 5.3d: Encourage cooperative and joint ventures
between owners, developers, and non-profit groups in the provision of below market rate housing and senior housing.

Work with non-profits and property owners to seek
Town-wide Develop 150 very low and low income housing
units.
284 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
487
NOVEMBER 2023
281
Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
opportunities for affordable housing development on key housing opportunity sites that are close to services, transit, and jobs. Undertake the following actions to encourage
development of multi-family, affordable, and senior housing:
• Meet with non-profit housing developers and
property owners of housing opportunity sites to
identify housing development opportunities,
issues, and needs during 2023.
• Select the most viable sites during 2023 and
2024.
• Undertake community outreach in coordination
with potential developers and property owners
during 2023 and 2024.
• Complete site planning studies, continued
community outreach, and regulatory approvals in
coordination with the development application.
• Facilitate development through regulatory
incentives, reducing or waiving fees, fast track
processing, lot consolidation, and assistance in
development review.
• Apply for and/or allocate state and local
affordable housing funds to the project.

Require affordable units to be affirmatively marketed to communities of color and protected classes. Utilize
publications, venues, and community groups, such as Canal Alliance, that serve Black and Hispanic/Latinx communities, including outside of Marin County.

Action 5.4b: Evaluate requirements for on or offsite
improvements to determine which are feasible to minimize or eliminate in order to reduce construction financing costs for affordable housing development projects.

Town-wide As a part of a full Zoning Code update, evaluate requirements for on or offsite improvements to
determine which are feasible to minimize or
eliminate in order to reduce construction financing
costs for affordable housing development projects.

Action 5.7f: Establish an inclusionary housing ordinance to require affordable housing be provided as a part of all new multifamily and mixed-use development.

Town-wide Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance.

Action 5.9e: Evaluate and update the design review findings in the Zoning Code to be objective in order to remove barriers to housing development.

Remove and replace the following findings with objective findings:
• Is functionally and aesthetically compatible with the existing improvements and the natural elements in
the surrounding area.
• Provides for protection against noise, odors, and
other factors which may make the environment less
desirable.
• Will not tend to cause the surrounding area to
depreciate materially in appearance or value or
otherwise discourage occupancy, investment, or
orderly development in such area.
• Will not unreasonably impair access to light and air
of structures on neighboring properties.
• Will not unreasonably affect the privacy of
neighboring properties including not unreasonably
Town-wide Update the Zoning Code to remove subjective
design review findings.
285 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
488
NOVEMBER 2023
282
Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
affecting such privacy by the placement of windows,
skylights and decks.
• Will be of a bulk, mass and design that complements
the existing character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
• Adequacy of screening.
• Selection of architectural features and colors that
enable the structure to blend with its environment
and which results in a low visual profile.
• Will not be materially visible offsite.
• Is of a scale, intensity, and design that integrates
with the existing character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
• Internal efficiency and/or space utilization problems exist.

Amend the following findings to be objective:
• Will not create unnecessary traffic hazards due to
congestion, distraction of motorists, or other factors
and provides for satisfactory access by emergency
vehicles and personnel.

Will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the
property of the applicant and will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such neighborhood.

Action 6.3a: Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar multiple attached or detached ADU
programs in jurisdictions of similar size and economic and environmental constraints in Marin County and throughout the state.

R-1C, R-1H, and
R-1 Districts
As a part of a full ordinance update, review best
practices and sample ordinance language for
similar multiple attached or detached ADU
programs.

Action 7.2a: Amend the Town’s Zoning Code to allow all
residential care facilities, for the elderly and for persons with a chronic life-threatening illness, both small and large, to be permitted in all zoning districts that allow single family units.

Town-wide Adopt Zoning Code amendments to allow
residential care facilities in all multifamily and
commercial districts.

Action 9.1d: Designate the Town Attorney as the appropriate Town official to receive and administer complaints related to housing discrimination.

Town-wide As needed, direct all complaints related to housing discrimination to the Town Attorney.

Action 9.1e: Amend the Zoning Code to remove barriers for the approval of requests for reasonable accommodation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In particular, the Town will revise the reasonable accommodation
procedures to comply with State law and remove Finding 5 required for reasonable accommodation approval to be
consistent with State law.

Town-wide Amend Chapter 13 (Reasonable Accommodation)
of the Zoning Code to include objective findings and
procedures to facilitate adequate housing conditions
for persons with disabilities.
286 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
489
NOVEMBER 2023
283
Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
Action 9.1f: Provide maximum flexibility in the development of housing for persons with physical disabilities and
developmental disabilities. Establish an Administrative Exceptions process to allow for ministerial approval of minor variances for the development of housing for persons with disabilities and developmental disabilities.

Town-wide As a part of a full Zoning Code update, establish an Administrative Exceptions process to allow for
ministerial approval of minor variances for the
development of housing for persons with disabilities
and developmental disabilities.

Assist with the creation of 20 units for those with
special needs, including those persons with
developmental disabilities, to reduce displacement
risk and expand mobility options.

Action 9.2a: Require that any development within the
Affordable Housing Overlay be marketed to the disability community and non-English speakers, including newimmigrant and refugee communities.

Town-wide As part of the Affordable Housing Overlay District standards adopted as part of a full Zoning Code
update, establish requirements for affordable units
to be marketed to the disability community and nonEnglish speakers.

CF 2.2: Insufficient access to
publicly supported housing for
persons with disabilities.

Action 9.2a: Require that any development within the
Affordable Housing Overlay be marketed to the disability community and non-English speakers, including newimmigrant and refugee communities.

Town-wide As part of the Affordable Housing Overlay District standards adopted as a part of a full Zoning Code
update, establish requirements for affordable units
to be marketed to the disability community and
non- English speakers.

Fair Housing Issue 3: Discrimination in Home Sales Market and Disparities in Homeownership Rate Priority: Medium
CF 3.1: Private discrimination
in the home sales market.

Action 9.1b: Assemble and promote the distribution of
information to landlords regarding fair housing.

Town-wide Update the Town’s website to include information regarding fair housing for landlords.

Action 9.1c: Involve Marin County Mediation Services to aid in housing-related problem resolution.

Town-wide As needed, involve Marin County Mediation
Services to aid in housing-related problem
resolution.

Action 9.1d: Designate the Town Attorney as the appropriate Town official to receive and administer complaints related to housing discrimination.

Town-wide As needed, direct all complaints related to housing discrimination to the Town Attorney.

CF 3.2: Availability of
affordable housing in all areas
of the town.

Action 3.1a: Amend the Zoning Code to allow missing middle housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in the R-1 and R-2 districts.

R-1 and R-2
Districts
Adopt Zoning Code amendments to allow missing
middle housing types such as duplexes, triplexes,
and quadplexes in the R-1 and R-2 districts.

Action 3.1b: Adopt objective design standards that ensure that the design of new missing middle housing types are sensitive to the established character of San Anselmo’s neighborhood.

R-1 and R-2
Districts
Adopt objective design standards for all housing
types, including missing middle housing types.

Action 3.1c: Adopt pre-approved infill missing middle
housing plans to reduce costs and streamline the approval of missing middle housing.

R-1 and R-2
Districts
Adopt pre-approved infill missing middle housing
plans.
287 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
490
NOVEMBER 2023
284
Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
Action 3.3c: Amend the Zoning Code to allow residential buildings containing single-room occupancy (SRO) units as a permitted use in the R-3 zoning district.

R-3 District Adopt a Zoning Code amendment allowing SRO units as a permitted use in the R-3 zoning district.

Action 5.1b: Work with Marin County and neighboring
jurisdictions to explore the feasibility of establishing a home share program.

Town-wide Conduct a feasibility analysis with Marin County and neighboring jurisdictions regarding the
establishment of a home share program.

Action 5.3a: Establish an Affordable Housing Overlay District in the Zoning Code to incentivize the development of
affordable housing by allowing greater building height, density, and floor area ratio and by reducing parking
requirements for multifamily and mixed-use developments that provide a specified percent of units as affordable to low and very low-income households.

Town-wide As a part of a full Zoning Code update, adopt an Affordable Housing Overlay District.

Action 5.3b: Conduct a study to determine the appropriate amount of incentive and percent requirement of units
affordable to low and very low-income households for the Affordable Housing Overlay District to accommodate private development of affordable housing that does not require subsidy. Consider increasing incentives for affordable units with three or more bedrooms.

Town-wide Conduct a study to determine the appropriate
amount of incentive and percent requirement of
units affordable to low and very low-income
households for the Affordable Housing Overlay
District to accommodate private development of
affordable housing that does not require subsidy.

Consider increasing incentives for affordable units
with three or more bedrooms.

Action 5.7f: Establish an inclusionary housing ordinance to require affordable housing be provided as a part of all new multifamily and mixed-use development.

Town-wide Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance.

Program 6.3a: Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar multiple attached or detached ADU
programs in jurisdictions of similar size and economic and environmental constraints in Marin County and throughout the state.

R-1, R-1C, R-1H
Districts
As a part of a full ordinance update, review best
practices and sample ordinance language for
similar multiple attached or detached ADU
programs.

CF 3.3: Lack of fair housing
testing/ monitoring.

Action 9.1d: Designate the Town Attorney as the appropriate Town official to receive and administer complaints related to housing discrimination.

Town-wide As needed, direct all complaints related to housing discrimination to the Town Attorney.

Action 9.1i: Work with the County of Marin and other Marin jurisdictions to develop strategies that protect tenants from rapidly rising rents and displacement. These may include:
• Rent stabilization: Currently, the State imposes rent caps on some residential rental properties (AB
1482) through 2030. Evaluate a permanent policy
and/or expansion to units not covered by AB 1482,
as permitted by law.
• Just cause for eviction: AB 1482 also establishes a
specific set of reasons that a tenancy can be
terminated. These include: 1) default in rent
payment; 2) breach of lease term; 3) nuisance
activity or waste; 4) criminal activity; 5) subletting
without permission; 6) refusal to provide access; 7)
Town-wide Adopt ordinance for tenant protection strategies. 288 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
491
NOVEMBER 2023
285
Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
failure to vacate; 8) refusal to sign lease; and 9)
unlawful purpose. Evaluate expansion on these
protections or extension if State protections expire.
• Local relocation assistance: Evaluate a countywide
relocation assistance program that provides greater
relocation assistance to special needs groups (e.g.,
seniors, disabled, female-headed households) and
reasonable accommodation for persons with
disabilities.
• Right to Purchase: When tenants are being evicted
due to condominium conversion or redevelopment,
offer first right to purchase to displaced tenants to
purchase the units.
• Right to Return: When tenants are being evicted due
to rehabilitation/renovation of the property, offer first right to displaced tenants to return to the improved
property.
• Tenant Bill of Rights: Adopt a tenant’s bill of rights that considers extending protections for subletters
and family members and addresses severe
habitability issues and market pressures. This
provision could also provide anti-retaliation
protection for tenants that assert their rights and a
right to legal representation in the case of evictions.

The Town will take the following actions:

1. Participate in countywide meetings with planning
staff from all Marin jurisdictions to review best
practices and develop model ordinances for the
tenant protection strategies identified above in 2024.

Work with Fair Housing of Northern California and
Legal Aid of Marin to develop strategies and
prepare model ordinances.

2. Conduct study sessions with the Planning
Commission and Town Council to understand needs
and best practices for the tenant protection
strategies identified above in 2025. Invite Fair
Housing of Northern California and Legal Aid of
Marin to present at and participate in the study
sessions.

3. Prepare ordinances at Town Council direction and
bring forward for Planning Commission
recommendation and Town Council adoption in
2025.

CF 3.4: Lack of opportunities
for residents to obtain housing
in higher opportunity areas.

Action 9.2a: Require that any development within the
Affordable Housing Overlay be marketed to the disability community and non-English speakers, including newimmigrant and refugee communities.

Town-wide As part of the Affordable Housing Overlay District standards adopted as a part of a full Zoning Code
update, establish requirements for affordable units
to be marketed to the disability community and
non- English speakers.

Action 9.2b: Require that any development within the
Affordable Housing Overlay make available paper and digital versions of multi-lingual applications available, and that all websites containing application information be accessible.

Town-wide As a part Affordable Housing Overlay District standards adopted as a part of a full Zoning Code
update, establish requirements for paper and
digital versions of multi-lingual applications be
made available and accessible.
289 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
492
NOVEMBER 2023
286
Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
Fair Housing Issue 4: Community Opposition to Affordable Housing Priority: Medium
CF 4.1: Community concern
about housing densities and
impacts on traffic congestion,
open spaces, loss of local
control, and schools.

Action 2.2a: Require developers to have neighborhood
meetings with residents early in the discretionary land use permit process as part of the application submittal to
undertake problem solving and facilitate more informed, faster and constructive development planning and review.

Town-wide Make mailing addresses for properties in close proximity to potential development sites available
to developers in order to facilitate developer
outreach and successful neighborhood meetings.

Action 2.2b: Coordinate with local businesses, housing
advocacy groups, neighborhood groups, and the Chamber of Commerce to build public understanding and support for
workforce, special needs housing and other issues related to housing, including the community benefits of affordable housing, mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented development.

Town-wide In partnership with local businesses, housing advocacy groups, neighborhood groups, and the
Chamber of Commerce develop an annual article
for the Town’s e-newsletter about the community
benefits of recent affordable housing, mixed-use,
and pedestrian-oriented development.

Action 2.2c: Regularly reach out to community groups and residents representing a broad range of socio-economic
groups in the community to solicit ideas for housing
strategies when they are discussed at Planning Commission or Town Council meetings.

Town-wide Coordinate with local community groups and
schools (to send notification to families of students
in an effort to reach out to residents representing
a broad range of socio-economic groups)
regarding new housing and land use policies
under consideration and to solicit feedback.

Fair Housing Issue 5: Substandard Housing Conditions
Priority: Medium
CF 5.1: Lack of monitoring. Action 1.1b: Work with MHA, and local Bay Area and Marin County housing non-profits and affordable housing
developers to implement resale and rental regulations for extremely low, very low-, low- and moderate-income units, and monitor to ensure that these units remain affordable.

Town-wide Establish a database of properties subject to resale and rental regulations for monitoring
purposes.

Action 1.3a: Develop a monitoring mechanism to ensure no net loss of housing occurs during the Housing Element Cycle and adjust zoning as needed.

Town-wide Establish a monitoring mechanism and assign a Planning Department staff person to assess and
identify needed zoning adjustments.

Report annually to the Town Council
recommended zoning adjustments to ensure no
net loss of housing occurs.

Action 1.3b: Develop an online dashboard that includes a mechanism that monitors "no net loss", ADU production,
potential sites, production of affordable and market rate housing, and preserved housing supply.

Town-wide Establish an online dashboard and assign a
Planning Department staff person to update it
regularly for improved transparency on Housing
Element implementation and streamlined annual
reporting.

Action 4.1c: When housing developments are identified as “at-risk” of converting from affordable to market- rate, work with MHA to reduce the potential of conversion and preserve or replace units, as needed, through the following strategies:
• Monitor the status of “at risk” units pursuant to Action

4.1d. If property owners indicate the desire to convert the units, consider providing technical assistance,
when possible, to support preservation of the “at risk” Town-wide Regularly monitor the no net loss monitoring
mechanism (Action 1.3a) and work with MHA to
convert, preserve, or replace units, as needed,
utilizing funding from the Affordable Housing
Impact Fee program (Program 5.5).
290 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
493
NOVEMBER 2023
287
Table 7.37 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Implementation Matrix Contributing Factors Associated Program/ Action
(from Housing Element Action Matrix - see matrix for additional detail) Geographic
Target
Metrics
units at an affordable price.
• Work with Marin Housing Authority and other
agencies and non-profits to seek funding to
subsidize the long-term affordability of the “at risk”
units.

To reduce displacement risk and in accordance with
California Government Code Section 65583.2(g), require
replacement housing units subject to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) on sites identified in the sites inventory when any new development (residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lowerincome households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement applies to non-vacant sites and vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished.

Action 4.1d: Pursuant to AB 1521, designate a staff person responsible for tracking “at risk” units to preserve their affordability.

Town-wide Establish a no net loss monitoring mechanism.

Assign a Planning Department staff person to
update the monitoring mechanism and track “at
risk” units.

CF 5.2: Age of housing stock
and cost of repairs or
rehabilitation.

Action 4.3a: Coordinate with the Marin Housing Authority, PG&E, Marin Clean Energy, and other organizations to
publicize available loan programs to eligible property owners on the Town e-newsletters and on the Town’s website.

Town-wide Include information regarding MHA, PG&E, or
Marin Clean Energy loan programs in the Town’s
e-newsletters and website on a quarterly basis.

Action 4.3b: Perform an analysis to compare the Town’s
zoning regulations with housing development on the ground to determine whether amendments are needed to ensure
that infill single-family detached housing is consistent in bulk and mass with other single-family detached housing in the neighborhood to help preserve smaller, naturally affordable housing in the community.

Town-wide As a part of a full Zoning Code update, conduct an analysis to compare the Town’s zoning regulations
with housing development on the ground to
determine whether amendments are needed to
ensure that infill single-family detached housing is
consistent in bulk and mass with other singlefamily detached housing in the neighborhood.

Action 4.4b: Assess the feasibility of providing property tax incentives for maintaining existing residences.

Town-wide As a part of the nexus study conducted to support the establishment and structure of an Affordable
Housing Impact Fee program (Action 5.5a) assess
the feasibility of utilizing related funds to provide
property tax incentives for maintaining existing
residences.

Action 4.5a: Evaluate, and if appropriate, amend the Zoning Code and other portions of the Municipal Code to remove potential constraints for adaptive reuse, such as the
review/approval process, design requirements, and parking standards.

Town-wide As a part of a full Zoning Code update, evaluate whether barriers to adaptive reuse exist and
eliminate identified barriers as appropriate.

Assist 40 units with rehabilitation opportunities
during the planning period.

Action 7.2b: Work with local non-profits to create a day where volunteers provide free services such as home repairs and renovations for low-income elderly and disabled
homeowners.

Town-wide Establish an annual day where volunteers provide free services such as home repairs and
renovations for low-income elderly and disabled
homeowners in partnership with local non-profits.
291 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
494
NOVEMBER 2023
288
This page left intentionally blank
292 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
495
289

POLICIES,
8 PROGRAMS,

AND ACTIONS
293 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
496
NOVEMBER 2023
290
Policies, Programs, and Actions
The policies, programs, and actions presented in the Action Matrix below provide the Town of San Anselmo with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing throughout the community. The Action Matrix also identifies the town lead, time frame, and quantifiable metrics for each action to ensure the Town is held accountable in Housing Element implementation.

Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Policy 1. Build Local Government Institutional Capacity and Monitor Accomplishments to Respond Effectively to Housing Needs.

Program 1.1: Take a proactive leadership role in working with community groups, other jurisdictions and agencies, non-profit housing sponsors, and the building and real estate industry in following through on identified Housing Element implementation actions in a timely manner.

Action 1.1a: Continue to implement the agreements with the Marin Housing Authority (MHA), for for-sale units and with local Bay Area and Marin County housing non-profits and affordable housing developers for for-rent units, to manage deed restricted affordable housing developments in San
Anselmo.

Planning Department Bi-annually Conduct bi-annual
coordination calls to ensure
continued implementation.

Action 1.1b: Work with MHA, and local Bay Area and Marin County housing non-profits and affordable housing
developers to implement resale and rental regulations for extremely low, very low-, low- and moderate-income units, and monitor to ensure that these units remain affordable.

Planning Department July 2025 Establish a database of
properties subject to resale
and rental regulations for
monitoring purposes.

Action 1.1c: Work with non-profits to assist in achieving the Town’s housing goals and implementing programs.

Coordination should occur on an ongoing basis and as
special opportunities arise through Housing Element
implementation. Facilitate the participation of non-profits as an advisory role to assist the Town’s affordable housing consultant (see Program 1.2) in identifying funding and opportunities for development.

Planning Department Quarterly; Case-by-case
basis
Conduct quarterly
coordination calls to
establish open, ongoing
communication.

Action 1.1d: Work with the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) and the Ross Valley Sanitary District (RVSD) to
ensure the availability and adequate capacity of water and wastewater systems to accommodate the housing needs
during the planning period. Priority shall be granted to proposed developments that include housing affordable to lower-income households. In addition, the Town will
provide a copy of the Housing Element and any future
amendments to MMWD and RVSD immediately after
adoption.

Planning Department; Public
Works Department
Send Housing Element
upon adoption
Send Housing Element to
MMWS and RVSD upon
adoption and subsequently as
future amendments are
adopted.

Program 1.2: Seek ways to organize and allocate staffing and community resources effectively and efficiently to implement the programs of the Housing Element.

Action 1.2a: Provide a report annually to the Town Council to review progress on Housing Element programs. Annually prioritize programs for implementation and include funding in the Town’s budget.

Planning Department Annually Conduct annual meetings with the Planning Commission and
Town Council to report on
progress of Housing Element
implementation.

Action 1.2b: Hire a consultant with expertise in affordable housing to present options for funding affordable housing projects, identifying affordable housing strategies and opportunities in San Anselmo as the Town budget is
developed.

Planning Department Annually Present affordable housing strategies and opportunities to
the Town Council prior to the
adoption of each annual
budget.
294 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
497
NOVEMBER 2023
291
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 1.2c: Continue ongoing and annual outreach and
coordination with non-profit housing developers and
affordable housing advocates to provide advice and comment on proposed zoning amendments and other program
implementation.

Planning Department;
Communications
Annually; Case-by-case
basis
Assess opportunities for nonprofit housing developers and affordable housing advocates
to provide advice on proposed
zoning and other program
implementation on an ongoing
basis as items are brought
forward.

Include non-profit housing
developers and affordable
housing advocates on the
Town’s e-newsletter mailing
list to ensure they are notified
of zoning amendments and
other program implementation
efforts.

Program 1.3: Ensure regular monitoring and reporting, including outreach to the public, on the status of housing in San Anselmo.

Action 1.3a: Develop a monitoring mechanism to ensure no net loss of housing occurs during the Housing Element
planning period and adjust zoning as needed.

Planning Department July 2023; Annually Establish a monitoring mechanism and assign a
Planning Department staff
person to assess and identify
needed zoning adjustments.

Report annually to the Town
Council recommended zoning
adjustments to ensure no net
loss of housing occurs.

Action 1.3b: Develop an online dashboard that includes a mechanism that monitors "no net loss", ADU production,
potential sites, production of affordable and market rate housing, and preserved housing supply.

Planning Department July 2023 Establish an online dashboard and assign a Planning
Department staff person to
update it regularly for improved
transparency on Housing
Element implementation and
streamlined annual reporting.

Action 1.3c: Develop and maintain an up-to-date residential sites inventory and provide interested developers with
information on available housing development opportunities and incentives.

Planning Department July 2023; Quarterly Establish a residential sites inventory as a component of the
online dashboard (Action 1.3b).

Assign a Planning Department
staff person to update the
inventory and notify interested
developers.

Action 1.3d: Complete an evaluation and report of housing development on a regular basis to ensure that adequate
services and facilities, including water, wastewater, and neighborhood infrastructure are available.

Planning Department; Public
Works Department
Annually Provide a status report on
housing development and
infrastructure to the Town
Council annually.

Policy 2. Effectively Engage and Educate the Community
Program 2.1. Undertake effective and informed public participation to engage all economic segments and special needs groups in the community in the formulation and review of housing and land use policy issues.

Action 2.1a: Maintain the Housing Element mailing list and send public hearing notices to all interested public, non-profit agencies and affected property owners.

Planning Department Annually and on an asneeded basisSend public notices related to Housing Element
implementation to the Housing
Element mailing list.

Action 2.1b: Continue to use online tools such as maps. social and Balancing Act to better understand community Planning Department Annually Conduct annual campaigns to promote the use of tools such
295 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
498
NOVEMBER 2023
292
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
preferences and collect feedback about specific housing opportunity sites.
as map.social and Balancing
Act to engage the community on
Housing Element
implementation.

Action 2.1c: Continue to provide housing related surveys to gather a consensus on housing preferences in San Anselmo.

Planning Department Bi-Annually Conduct online questionnaires bi- annually to determine
whether the Town’s housing
preferences have evolved.

Action 2.1d: Work with local schools to share information with the families of students regarding the formulation and review of housing and land use policy issues.

Planning Department Annually and on an asneeded basisCoordinate with local schools to send notification to families of
students at least once per year
regarding new housing and land
use policies under
consideration and to solicit
feedback.

Program 2.2: Build support for the development of new housing in the community.

Action 2.2a: Require developers to have neighborhood
meetings with residents early in the discretionary land use permit process as part of the application submittal to undertake problem solving and facilitate more informed, faster, and constructive development planning and review.

Planning Department Ongoing as project
applications are received
Make mailing addresses for
properties in close proximity to
potential development sites
available to developers in order
to facilitate developer outreach
and successful neighborhood
meetings.

Action 2.2b: Coordinate with local businesses, housing
advocacy groups, neighborhood groups, and the Chamber of Commerce to build public understanding and support for
workforce, special needs housing and other issues related to housing, including the community benefits of affordable housing, mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented development.

Planning Department Annually In partnership with local
businesses, housing advocacy
groups, neighborhood groups,
and the Chamber of Commerce
develop an annual article for the
Town’s e-newsletter about the
community benefits of recent
affordable housing, mixed-use,
and pedestrian-oriented
development.

Action 2.2c: Regularly reach out to community groups and residents representing a broad range of socio-economic
groups in the community to solicit ideas for housing strategies when they are discussed at Planning Commission or Town
Council meetings.

Planning Department Annually and on an asneeded basisCoordinate with local community groups and schools
(to send notification to families
of students in an effort to reach
out to residents representing a
broad range of socio-economic
groups) at least once per year
regarding new housing and
land use policies under
consideration and to solicit
feedback.

Policy 3. Maintain, Protect and Enhance Existing Housing, and Blend Well-Designed New Housing into the Community.

Program 3.1: Seek ways specific to each neighborhood and consistent with the AFFH analysis to provide new housing opportunities as part of each neighborhood’s fair share responsibility and commitment to help achieve community-wide housing goals.

Action 3.1a: Amend the Zoning Code to allow missing middle housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in the R-1 and R-2 districts.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt Zoning Code
amendments to allow missing
middle housing types such as
duplexes, triplexes, and
quadplexes in the R-1 and R-2
districts. The Town estimates
that 20 missing middle housing
units will be constructed during
the planning period, as missing
middle housing types were not
explicitly permitted by right in
these districts previously.
296 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
499
NOVEMBER 2023
293
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 3.1b: Adopt objective design standards that ensure that the design of new missing middle housing types are sensitive to the established character of San Anselmo’s neighborhoods.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt objective design
standards for all housing types,
including missing middle
housing types.

Action 3.1c: Adopt pre-approved infill missing middle housing plans to reduce development costs and streamline the
approval of missing middle housing.

Planning Department July 2024 Adopt pre-approved infill missing middle housing plans.

Program 3.2: Review proposed new housing in order to achieve excellence in development design in an efficient process.

Action 3.2a: Adopt objective design standards for all housing types to clearly communicate San Anselmo’s development
design standards and streamline development approval
processes. Within the objective design standards, include specific written procedures for evaluation of ministerial housing projects, including the Senate Bill 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt objective design
standards for all housing types
including specific written
procedures for evaluation of
ministerial housing projects,
including the Senate Bill 35
Streamlined Ministerial
Approval Process. The Town
estimates that 40 units will be
created during the planning
period through the objective
design standards, as
streamlined, ministerial housing
projects were not previously
permitted by right.

Program 3.3: Encourage innovative design that creates housing opportunities that are complementary to the location of the development. Enhance neighborhood identity and sense of community by ensuring that all new housing transitions sensitively to the surrounding area, avoids unreasonably affecting the privacy of neighboring properties and avoids impairing access to light and air of structures on neighboring properties.

Action 3.3a: Amend the Town’s Planned Unit Development
process to clarify standards for review and streamline
processes to better accommodate innovative housing
opportunities.

Planning Department July 2024 Adopt amended Planned Unit Development (PUD) standards
and procedures. The Town
estimates that 25 units will be
constructed through the PUD
process during the planning
period due, in part, to the
change in regulations.

Action 3.3b: Conduct a feasibility analysis to evaluate the Town’s ability to provide affordable housing through an inclusionary housing program that is consistent with the Town’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Planning Department Completed May 2023
(Presented to the Town
Council and Inclusionary
Ordinance adopted via
Reso- 4497 and Reso4498)
Present the results of the
feasibility analysis and
associated Planning
Department staff
recommendations to the Town
Council for consideration.

Action 3.3c: Amend the Zoning Code to allow residential buildings containing single-room occupancy (SRO) units as a permitted use in the R-3 zoning district.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt a Zoning Code
amendment allowing SRO units
as a permitted use in the R-3
zoning district. The Town
estimates that 20 SROs will be
constructed during the planning
period, as SROs were not
previously a by-right use in the
R-3 zoning district.

Policy 4. Support the Preservation of Housing
Program 4.1: To the extent permitted by law, limit the conversion of residential units to other uses and regulate the conversion of rental developments to nonresidential uses unless there is a clear public benefit or equivalent housing can be provided.

Action 4.1a: Support initiatives that provide tools and funding mechanisms to preserve “at-risk” affordable housing units.

Planning Department Annually As a part of annual budget development, assess
opportunities to support
initiatives that provide tools and
funding mechanisms to
preserve “at-risk” affordable
297 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
500
NOVEMBER 2023
294
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
housing units.

Action 4.1b: Assess the feasibility of adopting strategies to preserve affordable housing stock, such as Right of First Refusal (to give qualified entities priority to purchase a property with an expiring rental subsidy contract), property tax incentives, a one-to-one replacement ordinance, and housing preservation funds.

Planning Department July 2025 Present the results of the feasibility analysis and
associated Planning
Department staff
recommendations to the Town
Council for consideration.

Action 4.1c: When housing developments are identified as “at-risk” of converting from affordable to market- rate, work with MHA to reduce the potential of conversion and preserve or replace units, as needed, through the following strategies:
• Monitor the status of “at risk” units pursuant to Action

4.1d. If property owners indicate the desire to convert the units, consider providing technical assistance, when possible, to support preservation of the “at risk” units at an affordable price.
• Work with Marin Housing Authority and other agencies
and non-profits to seek funding to subsidize the longterm affordability of the “at risk” units.

To reduce displacement risk and in accordance with
California Government Code Section 65583.2(g), require
replacement housing units subject to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) on sites identified in the sites inventory when any new development (residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lowerincome households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement applies to non-vacant sites and vacant sites with previous residential uses that have been vacated or demolished.

Planning Department Ongoing as developments
are identified as “at-risk”
Regularly monitor the no net
loss monitoring mechanism
(Action 1.3a) and work with
MHA to convert, preserve, or
replace units, as needed,
utilizing funding from the
Affordable Housing Impact Fee
program (Program 5.5).

Action 4.1d: Pursuant to AB 1521, designate a staff person responsible for tracking “at risk” units in order to preserve their affordability.

Planning Department July 2023; Annually Establish a no net loss monitoring mechanism.

Assign a Planning Department
staff person to update the
monitoringmechanism and
track “at risk” units.

Program 4.2: Except for limited equity cooperatives and other innovative housing proposals which are affordable to lower income households, conserve existing multifamily rental housing supply.

Action 4.2a: Prohibit conversions of rental developments to condominium ownership unless the proportion of multifamily rental units exceeds 25 percent of the total number of housing units in the Town, or, if the proportion of multifamily units exceeds 20 percent but is less than 25 percent, the tenant is granted a right to continued tenancy for five years at the same rental rate, adjusted for inflation.

Planning Department July 2024 Establish a mechanism to
prohibit conversions of rental
developments to condominium
ownership except under the
identified conditions.

Program 4.3: Encourage good management practices, rehabilitation of viable older housing, and long-term maintenance and improvement of neighborhoods.

Action 4.3a: Coordinate with the MHA, PG&E, Marin Clean Energy, and other organizations to publicize available
loan programs to eligible property owners on the Town enewsletters and on the Town’s website.

Planning Department Quarterly Include information regarding MHA, PG&E, or Marin Clean
Energy loan programs in the
Town’s e-newsletters and
website on a quarterly basis.
298 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
501
NOVEMBER 2023
295
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 4.3b: Perform an analysis to compare the Town’s
zoning regulations with housing development on the ground to determine whether amendments are needed to ensure that infill single-family detached housing is consistent in bulk and mass with other single-family detached housing in the
neighborhood to help preserve smaller, naturally affordable housing in the community.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full Zoning Code update, conduct an analysis to
compare the Town’s zoning
regulations with housing
development on the ground to
determine whether amendments
are needed to ensure that infill
single-family detached housing
is consistent in bulk and mass
with other single-family detached
housing in the neighborhood.

Program 4.4: Facilitate adaptive reuse of existing buildings on small parcels.

Action 4.4a: Allow for modified development standards where multifamily projects include the preservation of an existing building.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full Zoning Code update, establish an
Administrative Exceptions
process to allow for ministerial
approval of minor variances to
development standards under
certain circumstances.

Action 4.4b: Assess the feasibility of providing property tax incentives for maintaining existing residences.

Planning Department October 2024 As a part of the nexus study conducted to support the
establishment and structure of an
Affordable Housing Impact Fee
program (Action 5.5a) assess the
feasibility of utilizing related
funds to provide property tax
incentives for maintaining existing
residences.

Program 4.5: Encourage and carry out creative strategies for the rehabilitation, adaptation, and reuse of residential, commercial, and industrial structures for housing in the spirit of retaining the mass, scale, and character of the Town.

Action 4.5a: Evaluate, and if appropriate, amend the Zoning Code and other portions of the Municipal Code to remove potential constraints for adaptive reuse, such as the
review/approval process, design requirements, and parking standards.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full Zoning Code update, evaluate whether
barriers to adaptive reuse exist
and eliminate identified barriers
as appropriate.

Assist 40 units with rehabilitation
opportunities during the planning
period.

Policy 5. Eliminate Barriers to the Development of Market Rate and Affordable Housing Program 5.1: Strive to provide an adequate supply and variety of housing opportunities to meet the needs of San Anselmo’s workforce and their families, seeking to match housing types and affordability with household income.

Action 5.1a: Work with Marin County and neighboring
jurisdictions to explore the feasibility of establishing a renter match program for ADU owners and prospective tenants.

Planning Department October 2025 Conduct a feasibility analysis with Marin County and neighboring
jurisdictions regarding the
establishment of a renter match
program.

Action 5.1b: Work with Marin County and neighboring
jurisdictions to explore the feasibility of establishing a home share program.

Planning Department October 2025 Conduct a feasibility analysis with Marin County and neighboring
jurisdictions regarding the
establishment of a home share
program.

Action 5.1c: Work with Marin County and neighboring
jurisdiction to explore the feasibility of establishing a multilingual flier and/or email blast regarding housing opportunities.

Planning Department October 2025 Conduct a feasibility analysis with Marin County and neighboring
jurisdictions regarding the
establishment of a multi-lingual
flyer and/or email blast regarding
housing opportunities.
299 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
502
NOVEMBER 2023
296
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Program 5.2: Support mixed-use development, with nonresidential uses on the ground floor and residential uses on upper floors in San Anselmo’s commercially zoned areas in accordance with California Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Action 5.2a: Amend the Zoning Code to require all new
development and redevelopment in the C-L and C-3 districts to include residential units by right at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre in accordance with California Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

In addition, establish minimum densities in the R-2, R-3, P, C-1, and C-2.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt Zoning Code amendments to require all new development
and redevelopment in the C-L
and C-3 districts to include
residential units by right at a
density minimum density of 20
and maximum density of up to 30
dwelling units per acre. In
addition, establish minimum
densities in the R-2, R-3, P, C-1,
and C-2.

Facilitate development
opportunities for 398 lowerincome units, 121 moderateincome units, and 314 above moderate-income units to meet
the Town’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation.

Action 5.2b: Amend the zoning standards, including
maximum density, maximum building height, and other
requirements, in the C-L and C-3 districts and maximum
FAR in the C-1, C-L, and C-3 districts to accommodate
mixed-use development by right and require the residential use to occupy at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed use project in accordance with California
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt Zoning Code amendments to accommodate mixed-use
development by right and require
the residential use to occupy at
least 50 percent of the total floor
area of a mixed use project in the
C-L and C-3 districts.

Facilitate development
opportunities for 398 lowerincome units, 121 moderateincome units, and 314 above moderate-income units to meet
the Town’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation.

Action 5.2c: Amend the Zoning Code to eliminate
minimum parking requirements for new development and
redevelopment within a half-mile of public transit in
accordance with AB 2097.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt Zoning Code amendments to eliminate minimum parking
requirements for new
development and redevelopment
within a half- mile of public
transit.

Facilitate development
opportunities for 398 lowerincome units, 121 moderateincome units, and 314 above moderate-income units within a
half-mile of public transit to meet
the Town’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation.
300 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
503
NOVEMBER 2023
297
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 5.2d: Amend the Zoning Code to include flexible
parking requirements in areas not located within a half-mile of public transit such as joint use parking, off-site parking (currently allowed), allowances for reduced standards if developers do not bundle the cost of parking with the cost of rent, reducing parking stall dimensions, allowing public overnight parking on Town streets, and “grandfathering” non- compliant buildings and uses.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt Zoning Code
amendments to establish
minimum parking requirements
reductions.

Action 5.2e: Promote parcel consolidation for the assembly of new housing sites to ensure minimum densities are
achieved and integrated site planning occurs by (1) identifying priority sites for lot consolidation where common ownership occurs, (2) contacting property owners of contiguous vacant and underutilized sites, (3) conducting outreach to affordable housing developers, (4) offering expedited permit processing for lot consolidations, and (5) offering fee waivers for the consolidation of housing opportunity sites.

Planning Department Annually Conduct an annual assessment to identify priority sites for lot
consolidation where common
ownership occurs, contact
property owners of contiguous
vacant and underutilized sites,
and conduct outreach to
affordable housing developers
when property owners are
interested in redevelopment.

Support 10 lot consolidations
during the planning period to
improve housing mobility and
increase the supply of affordable
housing in higher opportunity
areas.

Action 5.2f: Conduct an analysis of fees collected for recent multifamily housing projects and compare to the actual time it took for plan check and inspections by staff and outside consultants to provide expedited review of desired housing developments and waivers or reductions of development
fees where feasible and necessary.

Planning Department Annually As a part of annual budget development, conduct an
analysis of fees collected for
recent multifamily housing
projects and compare it to the
actual time it took for plan check
and inspections by staff and
outside consultants.

Program 5.3: Incentivize the development of affordable and special needs housing on identified housing opportunity sites.

Action 5.3a: Establish an Affordable Housing Overlay District in the Zoning Code for properties zoned SPD, C-3, and R-3 to incentivize the development of affordable housing by allowing greater building height, density, and floor area ratio and by reducing parking requirements for multifamily and mixed-use developments that provide a specified percent of units as affordable to low, very low-income, or extremely low-income households. In addition, the Town will waive the rezoning fees and expedite the permitting process for property owners’ requests to be rezoned within the Affordable Housing Overlay District to incentivize affordable housing creation. The nondiscretionary, administrative approval process will utilize objective design standards, as detailed in Actions 3.1b and

3.2a.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full Zoning Code update, adopt an Affordable
Housing Overlay District.

Facilitate development
opportunities for 150 affordable
units.

Action 5.3b: Conduct a study to determine the appropriate amount of incentive and percent requirement of units
affordable to low-, very low-, and extremely low-income households for the Affordable Housing Overlay District to accommodate private development of affordable housing that does not require subsidy. Consider increasing incentives for affordable units with three or more bedrooms.

Planning Department July 2024 Prior to the commencement of a full Zoning Code update, conduct
a study to determine the
appropriate amount of incentive
and percent requirement of units
affordable to low-, very low-, and
extremely low-income
households for the Affordable
Housing Overlay District,
especially affordable units with
three or more bedrooms.

Action 5.3c: Apply resale controls and rent and income
restrictions to ensure that affordable housing provided through Planning Department July 2025 As a part Affordable Housing Overlay District standards adopted
301 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
504
NOVEMBER 2023
298
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
incentives and as a condition of development approval
remains affordable over time to the income group for which it is intended. Inclusionary units shall be deed-restricted to maintain affordability on resale to the maximum extent
possible (at least 55 years).
as a part of a full Zoning Code
update, establish requirements for
affordable units to be deed
restricted to the income group for
which it is intended.

Action 5.3d: Encourage cooperative and joint ventures
between owners, developers, and non-profit groups in the provision of below market rate housing and senior housing.

Work with non-profits and property owners to seek
opportunities for affordable housing development on key housing opportunity sites that are close to services, transit, and jobs. Undertake the following actions to encourage
development of multi-family, affordable, and senior housing:
• Meet with non-profit housing developers and
property owners of housing opportunity sites to
identify housing development opportunities,
issues, and needs during 2023.
• Select the most viable sites during 2023 and 2024.
• Undertake community outreach in coordination
with potential developers and property owners
during 2023 and 2024.
• Complete site planning studies, continued
community outreach, and regulatory approvals in
coordination with the development application.
• Facilitate development through regulatory
incentives, reducing or waiving fees, fast track
processing, lot consolidation, and assistance in
development review.
• Apply for and/or allocate state and local affordable
housing funds to the project.
• Require affordable units to be affirmatively
marketed to communities of color and protected
classes. Utilize publications, venues, and
community groups, such as Canal Alliance, that
serve Black and Hispanic/Latinx communities,
including outside of Marin County.

Planning Department Actions as identified in the
action and development of
housing sites by 2030
Develop 150 very low and low
income housing units.

Program 5.4: Modify fees and reduce costs for affordable housing projects.

Action 5.4a: Develop a policy to waive a percentage of
project review, permit, and impact fees based on the project’s level of affordability, up to a maximum of 50 percent for 100 percent affordable housing development projects.

Planning Department;
Administration and
Finance Department
Annually As a part of annual budget
development, assess the impact
of waiving a percentage of project
review, permit, and impact fees
based on the project’s level of
affordability and pass waiver
allowances, as appropriate.

Action 5.4b: Evaluate requirements for on or offsite
improvements to determine which are feasible to minimize or eliminate in order to reduce construction financing costs for affordable housing development projects.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full Zoning Code update, evaluate requirements for
on or offsite improvements to
determine which are feasible to
minimize or eliminate in order to
reduce construction financing
costs for affordable housing
development projects.

Program 5.5: Establish an Affordable Housing Impact Fee Program.

Action 5.5a: Conduct a nexus study to support the
establishment and structure of an Affordable Housing Impact Fee to be levied upon new, above moderate- income housing development and to research and identify funding
mechanisms to subsize underground utilities for affordable housing development.

Planning Department October 2024 Hire a consultant to conduct a nexus study to support the
establishment and structure of an
Affordable Housing Impact Fee
and identify funding mechanisms
for undergrounding utilities for
affordable housing developments.
302 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
505
NOVEMBER 2023
299
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 5.5b: Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar Affordable Housing Impact Fee
programs in jurisdictions of similar size and economic and environmental constraints in Marin County and California and funding mechanisms to subsidize undergrounding utilities for affordable housing development.

Planning Department October 2024 Direct the hired consultant (Action

5.5a) to review best practices and
sample ordinance language for
similar Affordable Housing Impact
Fee programs in jurisdictions of
similar size and economic and
environmental constraints in
Marin County and California and
funding mechanisms to subsidize
undergrounding utilities for
affordable housing development.

Action 5.5c: Draft potential revised ordinance language and conduct community outreach for feedback.

Planning Department January 2024 Direct the hired consultant (Action

5.5a) to draft ordinance language
and facilitate public outreach.

Action 5.5d: Based on the outcomes of Actions 5.5a through

5.5c, present to Town Council for consideration and adoption, language establishing an Affordable Housing Impact Fee
Ordinance.

Planning Department April 2025 Direct the hired consultant to revise the draft ordinance
language per public feedback
received and present the revised
language to Town Council for
consideration and adoption.

Action 5.5e: Upon Town Council approval, establish a
general ledger account for the collection and deposit of Affordable Housing Impact Fee funds.

Planning Department;
Administration and
Finance Department
April 2025 Establish a general ledger
account for the collection and
deposit of Affordable Housing
Impact Fee funds.

Program 5.6: Monitor the disposition of publicly owned land for potential future use for housing development.

Action 5.6a: After the adoption of zoning amendments
proposed herein, fund and conduct a Town-owned property study to identify properties which may be suitable for future redevelopment with housing utilizing the revised standards.

Make the findings available to the public and interested developers via the Town’s website.

Planning Department January 2023 Conduct a Town-owned property study to identify properties which
may be suitable for future
redevelopment with housing
utilizing the revised standards.

Make the findings of the study
available on the online dashboard
(Action 1.3b).

Action 5.6b: Using the findings of the study referenced in Action 5.6a, develop a comprehensive program to support reuse of identified sites for housing purposes.

Planning Department July 2024 Establish a program to support reuse of identified sites for housing
purposes utilizing the online
dashboard (Action 1.3b) and
housing related outreach efforts
(Policy 2).

Program 5.7: Amend the Town’s Zoning Code to accommodate higher density and affordable housing in accordance with California Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Action 5.7a: Rezone the Opportunity Sites to R-2, R-3, C-L, C-3, or SPD as shown in Appendix B to accommodate the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation in accordance with
California Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Planning Department July 2023 Amend the Zoning Map and the General Plan Land Use
Designation Map.

Facilitate development
opportunities for 398 lowerincome units, 121 moderateincome units, and 314 above moderate-income units to meet
the Town’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation.

Action 5.7b: Amend the standards for the R-3 district to allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre by right. The zoning
amendment will include updating other development
standards to accommodate additional density in accordance with California Government Code section 65583.2,
subdivisions (h) and (i).

Planning Department July 2023 Amended standards for the R-3 district to allow up to 30 dwelling
units per acre by right.
303 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
506
NOVEMBER 2023
300
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 5.7c: Amend the standards for the C-L district to require 30 dwelling units per acre by right. The zoning amendment will include updating other development
standards to accommodate additional density in accordance with California Government Code section 65583.2,
subdivisions (h) and (i).

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt amended standards for the C-L district to allow up to 30
dwelling units per acre by right.

Action 5.7d: Amend the standards for the C-3 district to require 30 dwelling units per acre by right. The zoning amendment will include updating other development
standards to accommodate additional density in accordance with California Government Code section 65583.2,
subdivisions (h) and (i).

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt amended standards for the C-3 district require 30 dwelling
units per acre by right.

Action 5.7e: Amend the standards for the SPD district to allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre by right. The zoning amendment will include updating other development
standards to accommodate additional density in accordance with California Government Code section 65583.2,
subdivisions (h) and (i).

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt amended standards for the SPD district to allow up to 30
dwelling units per acre by right.

Action 5.7f: Establish an inclusionary housing ordinance to require affordable housing be provided as a part of all new multifamily and mixed-use development.

Planning Department Completed May 2023
(Presented to the Town
Council and adopted via
Reso- 4497 and Reso4498)
Adopt an inclusionary housing
ordinance. The Town estimates
that 60 units will be constructed
during the planning period, as
inclusionary housing units were
not previously required by the
Town.

Action 5.7g: Permit low-barrier navigation centers for
residents who need housing as a by-right use in areas that the Town has zoned for mixed uses as well as nonresidential zones that permit multifamily land uses pursuant to AB 101.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt amendments to the Zoning Code as needed to comply with
AB 101.

Reach out to non-profits and
affordable housing developers to
provide low-barrier navigation
centers in Town.

Program 5.8: Amend the Town’s Zoning Code to comply with recently adopted state legislation.

Action 5.8a: Amend the Zoning Code to comply with the
Lanterman Disabilities Services Act.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt amendments to the Zoning Code as needed to comply with
the Lanterman Disabilities
Services Act.

Action 5.8b: Amend the Density Bonus section of the Zoning Code to comply with AB 1763, SB 1227, AB 2345, AB 682, AB 1551, and AB 2334.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt amendments to the Zoning Code as needed to comply with AB
1763, SB 1227, AB 2345, AB 682,
AB 1551, and AB 2334.

Action 5.8c: Amend the Zoning Code to comply with the
Employee Housing Act.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt amendments to the Zoning Code as needed to comply with
the Employee Housing Act.

Action 5.8d: Amend the Town’s definition of transitional and supportive housing in the Zoning Code to ensure compliance with State law and allow them in all zoning districts that allow residential uses in accordance with AB 2162.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt amendments to the Zoning Code as needed to comply with AB
2162 and other State law
pertaining to transitional and
supportive housing.

Action 5.8e: Amend the Town’s definition and standards
pertaining to emergency shelters to ensure compliance with SB 2, AB 2339, and AB 139.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt amendments to the Zoning Code as needed to comply with
SB 2 and AB 139.

Program 5.9: Streamline the project review process for housing-related applications.

Action 5.9a: Continue to utilize permit tracking software that is streamlined, user-friendly, web-based, and accessible to applicants 24-hours/day, 365 days/year.

Planning Department Annually Conduct an annual assessment of the Town’s permit tracking
software to ensure it continues to
be streamlined and user-friendly.
304 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
507
NOVEMBER 2023
301
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 5.9b: Update all housing development-related
application forms to ensure accuracy, clarity, and compliance with all State statutes, including the California Housing Accountability Act and Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330).

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt updated housing
development-related application
forms to ensure accuracy, clarity,
and compliance with all State
statutes, including the California
Housing Accountability Act and
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB
330).

Action 5.9c: Continue to evaluate and improve the
streamlined processing system to facilitate residential development.

Planning Department Annually Conduct an annual assessment of the Town’s permit tracking
software to ensure it continues to
be streamlined and user-friendly.

Action 5.9d: Utilize CEQA exemptions for infill development sites to shorten the entitlement review time.

Planning Department Ongoing as applications
are received
As a part of initial application
review, assess whether CEQA
exemptions can be utilized.

Program 5.9: Streamline the project review process for housing-related applications.

Action 5.9e: Evaluate and update the design review findings in the Zoning Code to be objective in order to remove barriers to housing development. Remove and replace the following findings with objective findings:
• Is functionally and aesthetically compatible with the existing improvements and the natural elements in the
surrounding area.
• Provides for protection against noise, odors, and other factors which may make the environment less
desirable.
• Will not tend to cause the surrounding area to
depreciate materially in appearance or value or
otherwise discourage occupancy, investment, or
orderly development in such area.
• Will not unreasonably impair access to light and air of structures on neighboring properties.
• Will not unreasonably affect the privacy of neighboring properties including not unreasonably affecting such
privacy by the placement of windows, skylights and
decks.
• Will be of a bulk, mass and design that complements
the existing character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
• Adequacy of screening.
• Selection of architectural features and colors that
enable the structure to blend with its environment and
which results in a low visual profile.
• Will not be materially visible offsite.
• Is of a scale, intensity, and design that integrates with the existing character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
• Internal efficiency and/or space utilization problems exist.

Amend the following findings to be objective:
• Will not create unnecessary traffic hazards due to
congestion, distraction of motorists, or other factors
and provides for satisfactory access by emergency
vehicles and personnel.

Will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the
property of the applicant and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such neighborhood.

Planning Department July 2024 Update the Zoning Code to remove subjective design review
findings.
305 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
508
NOVEMBER 2023
302
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Policy 6. Promote the Construction and Affordability of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Program 6.1: Adopt pre-approved ADU plans to expedite approval and lower costs associated with ADU construction.

Action 6.1a: Conduct community outreach to determine the preferred ADU design style of San Anselmo residents.

Planning Department July 2024 Facilitate at least one in-person event and conduct web-based
community outreach to determine
the preferred ADU design style of
San Anselmo residents. The inperson and online engagement will be scheduled, formatted, and
located to be accessible and
convenient for community
members, both in person and
online. The online outreach will
use communication techniques to
assist those without time to ability
to attend in person meetings.

Action 6.1b: Adopt sample ADU plans for the construction of ADUs throughout San Anselmo, based on the feedback
received from Action 6.1a.

Planning Department October 2024 Based on the feedback received during outreach (Action 6.1a)
develop ADU plans.

Action 6.1c: Work with the various Town departments to preapprove the ADU plans.Planning Department; Building Department;
Public Works Department
October 2024 Pre-approve the ADU plans
developed as a part of Action

6.1b.

Facilitate the creation of 20 ADUs
annually throughout the town, with
particular emphasis on
geographic areas identified as
racially concentrated areas of
affluence to increase housing
opportunities for minority and
lower and moderate-income
households in these
neighborhoods.

Program 6.2: Further streamline the ADU and JADU permitting process.

Action 6.2a: Assess the feasibility of waiving all fees associated with ADU permitting when the property owner
deed restricts their ADU to be rented at rates affordable to extremely low- and very low-income households.

Planning Department;
Administration and
Finance Department
Annually As a part of annual budget
development, assess the impact of
waiving fees associated with the
development of deed restricted
affordable ADUs and pass waiver
allowances, as appropriate.

Action 6.2b: Establish an ADU Review Team comprised of
representatives from the Town’s various departments
including Planning, Fire, and Public Works and conduct
regular weekly meetings to ensure efficient review of ADU applications.

Planning Department July 2023; Weekly Establish the ADU review team.

Conduct weekly meetings to
review ADU applications,
prioritizing review of permits for
ADUs proposed in geographic
areas identified as racially
concentrated areas of affluence to
increase housing opportunities for
minority and lower and moderateincome households in these neighborhoods.

Action 6.2c: Continue to incentivize ADUs and JADUs to be constructed along with new single-family detached housing by allowing concurrent permit review and approval.

Planning Department Ongoing as applications
are received
Informproperty owners of ADU
allowances and streamline
permitting when applications for
new home construction and
rehabilitation are received.
306 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
509
NOVEMBER 2023
303
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 6.2d: Consider allowing objective, administrative exceptions for specified zoning standards, such as maximum lot coverage, to accommodate ADUs and JADUs. In addition, amend the Zoning Code as needed to comply with State law.

Planning Department July 2025; Ongoing as
State ADU law is adopted
As a part of a full Zoning Code
update, establish an
Administrative Exceptions
process to allow for ministerial
approval of minor variances for
specified zoning standards, such
as maximum lot coverage, to
accommodate ADUs and
JADUs.

Action 6.2e: Enhance the Town’s Summary Guide to ADUs
to include diagrams, calculators, and other tools to help walk residents through the ADU/JADU permitting process.

Planning Department April 2024 Hire a consultant to develop an interactive web-based
tool to guide residents
through the ADU
construction process in a
streamlined and userfriendly manner.

Once established, the webbased tool will facilitate the creation of 10 additional ADUs
annually throughout the town,
with particular emphasis on
geographic areas identified as
racially concentrated areas of
affluence to increase housing
opportunities for minority and
lower and moderate-income
households in these
neighborhoods.

Action 6.2f: Establish an ADU/JADU Information and
Resources webpage on the Town’s website.

Planning Department;
Communications
April 2023 Update the Town’s website to
include an ADU/JADU
Information and Resources
webpage and update it on an asneeded basis.

Program 6.3: Allow one JADU and multiple ADUs on lots one acre and larger in the R-1, R-1C, and R-1H districts.

Action 6.3a: Review best practices and sample ordinance language for similar multiple attached or detached ADU
programs in jurisdictions of similar size and economic and environmental constraints in Marin County and throughout the state.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full ordinance update, review best practices
and sample ordinance language
for similar multiple attached or
detached ADU programs.

Action 6.3b: Based on the findings of Action 6.3a, draft potential ordinance language facilitating allowing a maximum of two ADUs (attached or detached) and one JADU on lots one acre and larger within the R-1, R-1-H, and R-1-C districts and conduct community outreach for feedback.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full ordinance update, draft potential ordinance
language facilitating allowing a
maximum of two ADUs (attached
or detached) and one JADU on
lots one acre and larger within
the R-1, R-1-H, and R-1-C
districts and conduct community
outreach for feedback.

Action 6.3c: Present to Town Council for consideration and adoption, language allowing a maximum of two ADUs
(attached or detached) and one JADU on lots one acre and larger within the R-1 district.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full ordinance update, present to Town Council
for consideration and adoption,
language allowing a maximum of
two ADUs (attached or detached)
and one JADU on lots one acre
and larger within the R-1 district.
307 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
510
NOVEMBER 2023
304
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 6.3d: Amend the Zoning Code to allow ADUs and
JADUs on parcels that use both the authority contained in Government Code Section 65852.21 and the authority
contained in Government Code Section 66411.7.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full ordinance update, amend the Zoning Code
to allow ADUs and JADUs on
parcels that use both the authority
contained in Government Code
Section 65852.21 and the
authority contained in
Government Code Section
66411.7.

Action 6.3e: Conduct a study of jurisdictions of similar size and economic and environmental constraints in Marin County and throughout the state to evaluate the feasibility of deed restrictions for ADUs. Based on this study, consider modifying requirements to implement these changes as appropriate.

Planning Department October 2025; January
2025
After the completion of the full
Zoning Code update, assess the
feasibility of deed restrictions for
ADUs. Present to the Town
Council the feasibility study and
options for implementation.

Policy 7. Provide Housing for Special Needs Populations that is Coordinated with Support Services Program 7.1: As appropriate, assist service providers to link together services for special needs populations to provide the most effective response to persons experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, youth needs, farmworkers, seniors, persons with disabilities and developmental disabilities, substance abuse problems, HIV/AIDS, and multiple diagnoses, veterans, victims of domestic violence, and other economically challenged or underemployed workers.

Action 7.1a: Identify, evaluate, and implement strategies to reduce the number of individuals experiencing homelessness both Town and Countywide in partnership with the Marin
County Health and Human Services, the Marin Homeless
Continuum of Care (CoC), social service providers, and nonprofit organizations.

Planning Department January 2024 Partner with Marin County Health and Human Services, the Marin
Homeless Continuum of Care
(CoC), social service providers,
and non-profit organizations to
develop a regional plan to prevent
and end homelessness.

Action 7.1b: Work with and promote the Marin County Health and Human Services Crisis Stabilization Unit which provides 24-hour service to Marin County residents and visitors
experiencing a mental health crisis.

Planning Department July 2023 Update the Town’s website to include information about the
Marin County Health and Human
Services Crisis Stabilization Unit.

Action 7.1c: Work with housing providers to ensure that housing needs for special needs groups are addressed for seniors, persons with disabilities and developmental
disabilities, single parent-headed households with children, large households, and extremely low-income households.

The Town will seek to meet special housing needs through a combination of regulatory incentives and zoning standards.

Actions 5.7a through 5.7 g, 5.3a, and 6.2c contain additional incentives the Town plans to implement.

Planning Department January 2024; Annually
thereafter
Seek funding opportunities
beginning in 2024 and annually
each year that follows.

Incentivize and support the
creation of 20 units for those with
special needs to reduce
displacement risk and expand
mobility options.

Program 7.2: Ensure that new multifamily housing includes units that are accessible and adaptable for use by disabled persons in conformance with the California Building Code. This will include ways to promote housing design strategies, allowing seniors to “age in place.” Action 7.2a: Amend the Town’s Zoning Code to allow all
residential care facilities, for the elderly and for persons with a chronic life-threatening illness, both small and large, to be permitted in all zoning districts that allow single family units.

Planning Department July 2023 Adopt Zoning Code amendments to allow residential care facilities in
all multifamily and commercial
districts. The Town estimates that
one residential care facility will be
constructed during the planning
period due, in part, to the change
in regulations.
308 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
511
NOVEMBER 2023
305
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 7.2b: Work with local non-profits to create a day where volunteers provide free services such as home
repairs and renovations for low-income elderly and disabled homeowners.

Planning Department Annually Establish an annual day where volunteers provide free services
such as home repairs and
renovations for low-income elderly
and disabled homeowners in
partnership with local non-profits.

The Town estimates that 5 homes
will be repaired or renovated
annually to combat displacement
during the planning period.

Program 7.3: Continue to publicize and create opportunities for using available rental assistance programs, such as the project-based Section 8 program and tenant-based Housing Choice Voucher program, in coordination with the Marin Housing Authority (MHA).

Action 7.3a: Continue to support the use of Marin Community Foundation funds for affordable housing and continue to participate in the Housing Stability program administered through MHA.

Planning Department Ongoing as needed;
Annually
Provide letters of support, as
needed, for the use of Marin
Community Foundation funds for
affordable housing.

Reaffirm annually the Town’s
participation inMHA’s Housing
Stability program.

Action 7.3b: Work with the MHA to promote the Housing
Choice Voucher program regularly through public outreach.

Planning Department;
Communications
July 2023 Update the Town’s website to
include information regarding
Housing Choice Vouchers and
to promote their acceptance by
landlords and use by residents.

A total of 20 lower- and
moderate-income households
access rental opportunities
with Section 8 housing
assistance to facilitate housing
mobility.

Program 7.4: Actively engage with other jurisdictions in Marin County to support long-term housing solutions for homeless individuals and families in Marin County and implement the Marin County Continuum of Care actions in response to the needs of homeless families and individuals.

Action 7.4a: Allocate funds, as appropriate, for County and non-profit programs providing emergency shelter and related support services.

Planning Department;
Administration and
Finance Department
Annually As a part of annual budget
development, consider allocating
funds for County and non-profit
programs providing emergency
shelter and related support
services.

Action 7.4b: Continue to provide resources that support local and regional solutions that meet the needs of
individuals experiencing homelessness. Continue to
collaborate with other agencies to support shelters and programs, such as Housing First and Rapid Rehousing, and provide housing resources and opportunities for individuals experiencing homelessness and displacement.

Planning Department Annually As a part of annual budget development, consider allocating
funds to support local and
regional solutions that meet the
needs of individuals experiencing
homelessness.

Program 7.5: Combat homelessness and support re-housing of people experiencing homelessness.

Action 7.5a: Encourage a dispersion of facilities to avoid an over-concentration of shelters for people experiencing
homelessness in any given area. An over-concentration of such facilities may negatively impact the neighborhood in which they are located and interfere with the “normalization process” for clients residing in such facilities.

Planning Department Ongoing as siting a facility
is discussed or
considered by the Town,
Marin County Health and
Human Services, the
Marin Homeless
Continuum of Care (CoC),
social service providers,
and non- profit
organizations
As needed, advocate for the
dispersion of facilities to avoid
an over-concentration of
shelters for people
experiencing homelessness in
any given area.
309 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
512
NOVEMBER 2023
306
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 7.5b: Encourage positive relations between
neighborhoods and providers of permanent or temporary
emergency shelters. Providers or sponsors of emergency
shelters, transitional housing programs and community care facilities shall be encouraged to establish outreach programs within their neighborhoods and, when necessary, work with the Town or a designated agency to resolve disputes.

Planning Department Annually As a part of housing related community outreach (Policy
2), provide emergency
shelters, transitional housing
programs and community care
facilities with the opportunity to
engage with and build positive
relations with San Anselmo
residents.

Action 7.5c: As the opportunity arises, the Town will
participate in the funding of multi-jurisdictional emergency shelter projects such as the Project Homekey project at 1251 South Eliseo Drive and the Homeward Bound of Marin Workforce and veteran Housing project in Novato.

Planning Department;
Administration and
Finance Department
Annually As a part of annual budget
development, consider
allocating funds for multijurisdictional emergency
shelter projects.

Action 7.5d: Conduct a study to identify appropriate sites in the C-L, C-3, and PF zones with adequate capacity for
emergency shelters in accordance with AB 2339.

Planning Department July 2024 Engage a consultant to
conduct a study to identify
appropriate locations in
residential areas of the
community for emergency
shelters.

Policy 8: Ensure Responsible Development in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Areas Program 8.1: Continue to support Ross Valley Fire Department (RVFD) plan review.

Action 8.1a: Enhance communications to residents
regarding the required RVFD plan review.

Planning Department,
Communications
July 2023 Update the Town’s website to
provide clarified information
regarding required RVFD plan
review.

Action 8.1b: Continue to require all new proposed
landscape plans on properties in designated WUI areas to submit a vegetation management plan and receive approval by RVFD.

Planning Department Ongoing as applications
are received
Update application
requirements to ensure that
properties in designated WUI
areas submit a vegetation
management plan and receive
approval by RVFD.

Program 8.2: Continue to support community participation in the National Firewise USA® Recognition Program of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

Action 8.2a: Establish a “Firewise San Anselmo” webpage to provide residents with valuable information about how to stay wildfire ready.

Administration and
Finance Department;
Fire Department
January 2023 Update the Town’s website to
include a “Firewise San
Anselmo” webpage.

Action 8.2b: Provide a link on the “Firewise San Anselmo” webpage to access information on which residential property insurance companies may be currently offering discounts for fire hardened homes.

Administration and
Finance Department;
Fire Department
January 2023 Establish, post on the
“Firewise San Anselmo”
webpage, and regularly update
a list of insurance companies
that offer discounts for fire
hardened homes.

Action 8.2c: Consider participation in the Firewise USA Community, as recognized by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

Administration and
Finance Department;
Fire Department
January 2023 Assess and present to the
Town Council the advantages
and disadvantages of
participation in the Firewise
USA Community program.

Program 8.3: Establish and enforce safety standards for structures and landscaping in WUI areas.

Action 8.3a: Continue to ensure that RVFD reviews
proposed plans for all new buildings and major additions to ensure the construction complies with fire access
requirements and makes recommendations for modifications to reduce fire hazards.

Planning Department;
Building Department
Ongoing as project
applications are received
Update application
requirements to ensure that
properties in designated WUI
areas submit proposed plans
for all new buildings and major
additions and receive approval
by RVFD.
310 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
513
NOVEMBER 2023
307
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Policy 9: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
Program 9.1: Eliminate discrimination in housing based on age, race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, or occupation.

Action 9.1a: Support fair access to housing for all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

Planning Department Annually Annually adopt a resolution to support fair access to housing
for all persons without regard
to race, color, religion, sex,
marital status, national origin,
or ancestry.

Action 9.1b: Assemble and promote the distribution of
information to landlords regarding fair housing.

Planning Department.

Communications
July 2023; Quarterly Update the Town’s website to
include information regarding fair
housing for landlords.

Provide information on a
quarterly basis in the Town
Manager’s newsletter.

Action 9.1c: Involve Marin County Mediation Services to aid in housing-related problem resolution.

Planning Department Ongoing as requested As needed, involve Marin County Mediation Services to
aid in housing-related problem
resolution.

Action 9.1d: Designate the Town Attorney as the appropriate Town official to receive and administer complaints related to housing discrimination.

Planning Department;
Town Attorney
Ongoing as requested As needed, direct all
complaints related to housing
discrimination to the Town
Attorney.

Action 9.1e: Amend the Zoning Code to remove barriers for the approval of requests for reasonable accommodation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In particular, the Town will revise the reasonable accommodation
procedures to comply with State law and remove Finding 5 required for reasonable accommodation approval to be
consistent with State law.

Planning Department July 2025 Amend Chapter 13
(Reasonable Accommodation)
of the Zoning Code to include
objective findings and
procedures to facilitate
adequate housing conditions
for persons with disabilities.

Action 9.1f: Provide maximum flexibility in the development of housing for persons with physical disabilities and
developmental disabilities. Establish an Administrative Exceptions process to allow for expedited permitting and ministerial approval of minor variances for the development of housing for persons with disabilities and developmental disabilities.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of a full Zoning Code update, establish an Administrative
Exceptions process to allow for
ministerial approval of minor
variances for the development of
housing for persons with disabilities
and developmental disabilities.

Assist with the creation of 20
units for those with special
needs, including those
persons with developmental
disabilities, to reduce
displacement risk and expand
mobility options.

Action 9.1g: Ensure that information related to fair housing laws is easily available on the Town’s website and at key Town facilities, including Town Hall and the library.

Planning Department;
Communications
July 2023; Annually Update the Town’s website to
include information regarding fair
housing law.

Annually work with Marin
County Mediation Services to
make flyers and literature
regarding fair housing law
available at key Town facilities.

Action 9.1h: Ensure that information related to reasonable accommodations for zoning regulations is easily accessible on the Town’s website.

Planning Department;
Communications
July 2023 Update the Town’s website to
include information regarding
reasonable accommodation.
311 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
514
NOVEMBER 2023
308
Table 8.1: Housing Element Action Matrix
Town
Lead
Completion
Time Frame Quantifiable Metric
Action 9.1i: Work with the County of Marin and other Marin jurisdictions to develop strategies that protect tenants from rapidly rising rents and displacement. These may include:
• Rent stabilization: Currently, the State imposes rent caps on some residential rental properties (AB 1482) through 2030. Evaluate a permanent policy and/or expansion to
units not covered by AB 1482, as permitted by law.
• Just cause for eviction: AB 1482 also establishes a
specific set of reasons that a tenancy can be terminated.

These include: 1) default in rent payment; 2) breach of lease term; 3) nuisance activity or waste; 4) criminal
activity; 5) subletting without permission; 6) refusal to provide access; 7) failure to vacate; 8) refusal to sign lease; and 9) unlawful purpose. Evaluate expansion of
these protections or extension if State protections expire. • Local relocation assistance: Evaluate a countywide
relocation assistance program that provides greater
relocation assistance to special needs groups (e.g.,
seniors, disabled, female-headed households) and
reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities. • Right to Purchase: When tenants are being evicted due to condominium conversion or redevelopment, offer first right to purchase to displaced tenants to purchase the
units.
• Right to Return: When tenants are being evicted due to rehabilitation/renovation of the property, offer first right to displaced tenants to return to the improved property.
• Tenant Bill of Rights: Adopt a tenant’s bill of rights that considers extending protections for subletters and family members and addresses severe habitability issues and
market pressures. This provision could also provide antiretaliation protection for tenants that assert their rights and a right to legal representation in the case of
evictions.

The Town will take the following actions:

1. Participate in countywide meetings with planning staff from all Marin jurisdictions to review best practices and develop model ordinances for the tenant protection
strategies identified above in 2024. Work with Fair
Housing of Northern California and Legal Aid of Marin to develop strategies and prepare model ordinances.

2. Conduct study sessions with the Planning Commission
and Town Council to understand needs and best
practices for the tenant protection strategies identified above in 2025. Invite Fair Housing of Northern California and Legal Aid of Marin to present at and participate in the study sessions.

3. Prepare ordinances at Town Council direction and bring forward for Planning Commission recommendation and
Town Council adoption in 2025.

Planning Department December 2024 Adopt ordinance for tenant protection strategies.

Program 9.2: Proactively increase access to affordable housing options for historically marginalized and underrepresented groups.

Action 9.2a: Require that any development within the
Affordable Housing Overlay District be marketed to the
disability community and non-English speakers, including newimmigrant and refugee communities.

Planning Department July 2025 As part of the Affordable Housing Overlay District standards adopted as a part of a full Zoning Code update, establish requirements for
affordable units to be marketed to
the disability community and non- English speakers.

Action 9.2b: Require that any development within the
Affordable Housing Overlay District prepares and publicizes paper and digital versions of multi-lingual applications, and that all websites containing application information be accessible.

Planning Department July 2025 As a part of the Affordable Housing Overlay District
standards adopted as a part of a full Zoning Code update, establish requirements for paper and digital versions of multilingual applications be
made available and accessible.
312 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
515
NOVEMBER 2023
309
Table 8.2: Residential Building Permits Issued (2019-2022) Income
New
Construction1 Rehabilitation1 Conservation/ Preservation1 Extremely Low- 0 0 0
Very Low- 5 0 10
Low- 6 0 12
Moderate- 7 0 12
Above Moderate- 19 0 54
TOTAL 37 0 88 1 Affordability level of permits issued are set by the State density bonus law or California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) direction regarding safe harbor methodology to estimate the anticipated affordability distribution of ADUs.

Table 8.3: Quantified Objectives
Income
New
Construction1 Rehabilitation2 Conservation/ Preservation3 Extremely Low- 126 8 10
Very Low- 127 8 10
Low- 145 8 12
Moderate- 121 8 12
Above Moderate- 314 8 54
TOTAL 833 40 98 1 Corresponds to Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projections. 2 Corresponds to Quantifiable Metric for Action 4.5a. 3 Corresponds to number of Town building permits issued from 2019-2022. 313 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
516
NOVEMBER 2023
310
This page left intentionally blank
314 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
517
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC
A

PARTICIPATION
A-001 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
518
Public Outreach During the 30-Day Public Review
Period
HEAC Meeting 6
The following PowerPoint slides are from the HEAC Meeting 6 on December 15, 2022.

HEAC
MEETING #6
4:00pm
December 15, 2022
San Anselmo Housing Element Update
Meeting Agenda
■ Housing Element Purpose and Update
Process
■ Public Review Draft Housing Element
Overview
■ Next Steps
A-002 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
519

HOUSING ELEMENT

PURPOSE AND UPDATE

PROCESS
What is a Housing
Element?
■ Provides an assessment of the City’s housing needs and identifies how to accommodate the housing needs of existing and future residents. ■ Sets citywide policies, programs, and actions for housing, and identifies housing conditions and needs within the community.
■ Must be reviewed for compliance and certified by State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
MAY 2023
A2
A-003 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
520
Why are Housing Elements Updated?
■ Ensure the City complies with State housing laws
■ Demonstrate San Anselmo’s ability to meet future
housing growth needs
■ To adopt and implement policies addressing local
housing issues
■ Allow the community to further engage in the planning process
What is "RHNA"?
■ Regional Housing Needs Allocation
– Assigned by State via ABAG
– Projected number of new units needed in the region
over 8 years
– Broken into four income categories
– Currently in Cycle 5 or “RHNA 5"
– Planning for Cycle 6 or "RHNA 6"
■ RHNA 5: 2014-2022
■ RHNA 6: 2023-2031
Association of Bay Area
Governments
MAY 2023
A3 San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
A-004 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
521
San Anselmo’s RHNA 6 Allocation
Income Level RHNA 6 Allocation
Very Low Income (0-50% AMI) 253
Low Income (51-79% AMI) 145
Moderate Income (80-119% AMI) 121
Above Moderate Income (120% AMI+) 314
TOTAL: 833
AMI = Area Median Income
AMI for Marin County = $166,000/year for a family of four Units Already
Accounted For
■ ADUs - 160
■ Pipeline Projects - 43
San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
MAY 2023
A4
A-005 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
522
San Anselmo’s RHNA 6 Allocation
Income Level RHNA 6
Allocation
RHNA 6
Allocation
After ADUs
RHNA 6
Allocation
After ADUs
& Pipeline
Very Low Income 253 205 194
Low Income 145 97 88
Moderate Income 121 73 69
Above Moderate Income 314 298 279
TOTAL: 833 673 630
AMI = Area Median Income
AMI for Marin County = $166,000/year for a family of four 20% No Net Loss Buffer
■ 630 units remaining after subtracting ADUs and pipeline projects
■ 630 x .20 = 126
■ Total remaining RHNA and 20% no net loss buffer: 754
MAY 2023
A5 San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
A-006 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
523
Update Process
■ 6/4/2022 – Town Council Introduction
■ 7/11/2022 – HEAC Meeting 1
■ 7/21/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 1
■ 7/25/2022 – HEAC Meeting 2
■ 8/25/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 2
■ 9/1/2022 – HEAC Meeting 3
■ 9/26/2022 – HEAC Meeting 4
■ 10/11/2022 – Town Council Meeting
■ 11/3/2022 – HEAC Meeting 5
■ 12/15/2022 – HEAC Meeting 6
Update Process
■ 6/4/2022 – Town Council Introduction
■ 7/11/2022 – HEAC Meeting 1
■ 7/21/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 1
■ 7/25/2022 – HEAC Meeting 2
■ 8/25/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 2
■ 9/1/2022 – HEAC Meeting 3
■ 9/26/2022 – HEAC Meeting 4
■ 10/11/2022 – Town Council Meeting
■ 11/3/2022 – HEAC Meeting 5
■ 12/15/2022 – HEAC Meeting 6
Introductory and Informational Meetings
San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
MAY 2023
A6
A-007 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
524
Update Process
■ 6/4/2022 – Town Council Introduction
■ 7/11/2022 – HEAC Meeting 1
■ 7/21/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 1
■ 7/25/2022 – HEAC Meeting 2
■ 8/25/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 2
■ 9/1/2022 – HEAC Meeting 3
■ 9/26/2022 – HEAC Meeting 4
■ 10/11/2022 – Town Council Meeting
■ 11/3/2022 – HEAC Meeting 5
■ 12/15/2022 – HEAC Meeting 6
Housing Opportunity Sites Identification
and Discussion
Introductory and Informational Meetings
Update Process
■ 6/4/2022 – Town Council Introduction
■ 7/11/2022 – HEAC Meeting 1
■ 7/21/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 1
■ 7/25/2022 – HEAC Meeting 2
■ 8/25/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 2
■ 9/1/2022 – HEAC Meeting 3
■ 9/26/2022 – HEAC Meeting 4
■ 10/11/2022 – Town Council Meeting
■ 11/3/2022 – HEAC Meeting 5
■ 12/15/2022 – HEAC Meeting 6
Housing Opportunity Sites Identification
and Discussion
Introductory and Informational Meetings
Housing Opportunity Sites Analysis and
Finalization
MAY 2023
A7 San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
A-008 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
525
Update Process
■ 6/4/2022 – Town Council Introduction
■ 7/11/2022 – HEAC Meeting 1
■ 7/21/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 1
■ 7/25/2022 – HEAC Meeting 2
■ 8/25/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 2
■ 9/1/2022 – HEAC Meeting 3
■ 9/26/2022 – HEAC Meeting 4
■ 10/11/2022 – Town Council Meeting
■ 11/3/2022 – HEAC Meeting 5
■ 12/15/2022 – HEAC Meeting 6
Housing Opportunity Sites Identification
and Discussion
Introductory and Informational Meetings
Housing Opportunity Sites Analysis and
Finalization
Policies, Programs, and Actions Discussion
Update Process
■ 6/4/2022 – Town Council Introduction
■ 7/11/2022 – HEAC Meeting 1
■ 7/21/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 1
■ 7/25/2022 – HEAC Meeting 2
■ 8/25/2022 – Town Hall Meeting 2
■ 9/1/2022 – HEAC Meeting 3
■ 9/26/2022 – HEAC Meeting 4
■ 10/11/2022 – Town Council Meeting
■ 11/3/2022 – HEAC Meeting 5
■ 12/15/2022 – HEAC Meeting 6
Housing Opportunity Sites Identification
and Discussion
Introductory and Informational Meetings
Housing Opportunity Sites Analysis and
Finalization
Policies, Programs, and Actions Discussion
Public Review Draft HE Overview
San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
MAY 2023
A8
A-009 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
526

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT

HOUSING ELEMENT

OVERVIEW
Housing Element Outline

1. Introduction

2. Housing Needs and Constraints Executive Summary

3. Housing Needs

4. Housing Constraints

5. Housing Resources

6. Housing Opportunities

7. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

8. Policies, Programs, and Actions
MAY 2023
A9 San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
A-010 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
527
Housing Element Outline

1. Introduction

2. Housing Needs and Constraints Executive Summary

3. Housing Needs

4. Housing Constraints

5. Housing Resources

6. Housing Opportunities

7. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

8. Policies, Programs, and Actions
SETTING THE STAGE: Background and
Identification of Housing Conditions, Needs,
Barriers, and Resources
THE MAIN ACT: Identification of Housing
Opportunity Sites and Plan for Accommodating
Additional Housing in San Anselmo
Housing Element Outline

1. Introduction

2. Housing Needs and Constraints Executive Summary

3. Housing Needs

4. Housing Constraints

5. Housing Resources

6. Housing Opportunities

7. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

8. Policies, Programs, and Actions
SETTING THE STAGE: Background and
Identification of Housing Conditions, Needs,
Barriers, and Resources
San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
MAY 2023
A10
A-011 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
528
Housing Opportunity Sites Identification
Process

1. Preliminary housing opportunity sites were identified by Town staff.

2. Staff identified sites were brought to the HEAC for review and initial consideration.

3. Staff identified sites were brought to the public at a virtual workshop for initial consideration.

4. Staff identified sites were refined based on the feedback from the HEAC and the public.  For example, staff identified sites in the R-1H and R-1C zoning districts were eliminated based on community concerns regarding environmental degradation and wildfire hazard.

5. The refined sites were brought back to the HEAC for further consideration and revision.

6. An objective sites inventory analysis was conducted to determine whether the revised sites were appropriate for new housing, balancing a myriad of factors as detailed in the Sites Inventory Analysis.

Housing Opportunity Sites Identification
Process

1. Preliminary housing opportunity sites were identified by Town staff.

2. Staff identified sites were brought to the HEAC for review and initial consideration.

3. Staff identified sites were brought to the public at a virtual workshop for initial consideration.

4. Staff identified sites were refined based on the feedback from the HEAC and the public.  For example, staff identified sites in the R-1H and R-1C zoning districts were eliminated based on community concerns regarding environmental degradation and wildfire hazard.

5. The refined sites were brought back to the HEAC for further consideration and revision.

6. An objective sites inventory analysis was conducted to determine whether the revised sites were appropriate for new housing, balancing a myriad of factors as detailed in the Sites Inventory Analysis.

MAY 2023
A11 San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
A-012 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
529
Housing Opportunity Sites Identification
Process

7. The results of the sites inventory analysis were presented to the HEAC at their 4th meeting for further review and refinement. Necessary zoning ordinance amendments to accommodate the density needed on the identified housing opportunity sites were also presented to and discussed by the HEAC. At meeting, the HEAC made a motion to recommend the sites to the Town Council.

8. The Town Council considered the sites recommended by the HEAC and made a motion to move forward with all sites with the exception of the dog park.

9. Town staff conducted meetings with the schools to discuss the potential of housing on the portion of their sites included in the Town Council approved list of housing opportunity sites. Based on the feedback received from these meetings, the school sites were removed from the list of housing opportunity sites.

Housing Opportunity Sites Identification
Process

10. To make up for the deficit from eliminating the school sites, Town staff reached out to Side by Side, a local nonprofit organization and major property owner in the community to determine whether they were still interested in constructing affordable housing on a portion of their site. Side by Side had originally proposed affordable housing be constructed on a portion of their site in RHNA Cycle 5 but were met with barriers to development approval. Side by Side expressed continued interest if the Town worked to eliminate the barriers to development approval it had previously faced. Policy 5. Eliminate Barriers to the Development of Market Rate and Affordable Housing includes programs and actions to eliminate said barriers thus the additional site was included.

11. The updated housing opportunity sites were brought to the HEAC for final review and consideration at HEAC meeting 5.

San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
MAY 2023
A12
A-013 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
530
Housing
Opportunity Sites
■ Total Housing Opportunity Sites: 62
■ Total Parcels: 172
■ Total Projected Units: 837
– Lower Income: 354
– Moderate Income: 271
– Above Moderate Income: 212
■ Proposed Zoning Amendments to
Accommodate Development of Projected
Units: increase maximum density in the R-3,
C-3, C-L, and SPD districts from 20 dwelling
units an acre to 30
San Anselmo’s RHNA 6 Allocation
Income Level
RHNA 6 Less
ADUs
& Pipeline, Plus
20% Buffer
Housing
Opportunity Site
Units
Unit Surplus /
Deficit
Very Low Income 233
354 15-unit surplus Low Income 106
Moderate Income 83 271 188-unit surplus
Above Moderate Income 335 212 123-unit deficit
TOTAL: 756 837 80-unit surplus
AMI = Area Median Income
AMI for Marin County = $166,000/year for a family of four MAY 2023
A13 San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
A-014 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
531
QUESTIONS?
Policies, Programs, and Actions
■ Policies: Statements that declare the Town’s goals for increasing housing availability and affordability in the next 8 years.
■ Programs: Programs the Town will employ to realize policy. ■ Actions: Specific actions the Town will take to complete programs and realize policy. ■ Action Matrix:
– Town Lead
– Completion Time Frame
– Quantifiable Metric
San Anselmo Housing Element |
Prepared by Houseal Lavigne
MAY 2023
A14
A-015 Item 2.5 - Attachment 2
532