Fairfax City Council
January 19, 2022

AGENDA ITEM #13

TOWN OF FAIRFAX

STAFF REPORT
January 19, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Ben Berto, Director of Planning and Building Services Ande Flower, Project Lead, EMC Planning Group
SUBJECT: Housing Sites Draft Inventory Discussion and Engagement Update ___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Approve the draft Housing Sites Inventory List for equity analysis and policy discussion

2. Comment on engagement efforts

BACKGROUND
The Town has been working on the Housing and Safety Element updates for the last 10 months, in order to fulfill the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), the State of California’s mandatory housing production planning effort for all local jurisdictions in California. The deadline for the Town to approve the 6th cycle RHNA is December 2022. Once the Housing and Safety Elements are approved by the Town and then the Safety Element is accepted by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Housing Element will take effect in 2023 and govern local housing-related planning efforts through 2031.

The Planning Commission met on December 16 to review the draft Housing Sites Inventory that are the primary focus of this report (see Attachment D 12/16/21 draft PC meeting minutes).

DISCUSSION
This report focuses on two main topics:
- Draft Housing Sites Inventory Table
- Outreach and Engagement
Outreach and engagement
Staff and the consultants consider public engagement an important facet of the site selection and discussion process. Outreach efforts have resulted in a large amount of public feedback using online/virtual approaches. These outreach and engagement efforts are ongoing and will continue to be implemented throughout the lifetime of this project.

One of the over-arching themes of the State’s current RHNA program is the need to expand the segments of the public that participate in the housing planning effort. Especially important per AB 686 requirements (see November 20 Town Council discussion on this topic via the following link: https://www.townoffairfax.org/meetings/town-council-special-meeting-october- 2 20-2021/#/tab-video ) is the need to meaningfully engage heretofore historically underrepresented individuals and groups in the process.

Efforts focused on Spanish speakers
Staff is integrating AB 686 requirements into our Housing Element update efforts, including the following:
• December 20, 2021 dual-language (Spanish and English) in-person workshop at the Library Community Space to engage Fairfaxians living in multi-family units following personal delivery of 352 paper invitations.
• Spanish-language information on the FairfaxSpeaks.com website 11/20 Community Workshop
Staff and the consultants conducted a virtual workshop on November 20, 2021. It provided a comprehensive overview of what the Housing Element and Safety Element Updates are about, and unveiled the Town’s Housing Opportunity sites to the public, with a tool that enabled deeper knowledge for each site and a selection function with an ability to collect comments, specific to each site. Information for each site has also been available on the Fairfaxspeaks.com site, with a survey option for each site (see Attachment C for public comments on sites).

To promote and inform the public about the November 20 virtual workshop, information about the workshop was provided at multiple prior meetings including your Council and the Planning Commission, as well as other committees, groups, and individuals. The workshop was also announced on the Town’s newsletter, other web-based social media such as the Town’s Facebook site. Close to 3,000 postcards were mailed to Fairfax households, announcing the details of the workshop, and encouraging participation and use of the Fairfax Speaks website, including its new interactive features.

The workshop had a peak of 40 attendees, and most attendees stayed for the entire workshop.

Attendees learned about the importance of the Housing Element update process, their participation, and the current draft of the sites inventory list. They were able to learn how to use the Plan Fairfax Housing tool (formerly referred to as Balancing Act tool) as a group, as well as participate in several Q&A sessions. Attendees could submit questions via chat, the Q&A tool within Zoom, by raising their hand during the live Q&A session, or submitting their question on the Fairfax Speaks website.

At both the beginning of the workshop and at the end of the workshop, we asked the audience the question, "how confident do you feel about your knowledge of the Housing Element Update process?" They could choose from the options of "unsure," "somewhat confident," or "confident." The results are listed in the table below. The key takeaways are that by the end of the workshop, all of the attendees felt somewhat confident or confident in their level of knowledge, which demonstrated that the workshop helped all residents who were unsure in the beginning feel more confident by the end of the workshop.

Confidence Level Beginning of Workshop End of Workshop
3 Unsure 27% 0%
Somewhat Confident 38% 67%
Confident 35% 33%
Video of the workshop is posted to the Town’s YouTube page and is linked on the Fairfax Speaks website (link here: https://fairfaxspeaks.com/about-the-project/news_feed/november20-community-workshop-on-sites-inventory. The slide presentation is also available.

Online Engagement Report
From 12/8 to 1/6, there have been 416 site visits to the FairfaxSpeaks.com website, bringing total visitations to 2,966 since its inception. There have been 233 site registrations since the launching of the website. This shows that substantial numbers of the public have been using the online tools to increase their awareness and knowledge of the Housing and Safety Element update, and providing staff and Town decisionmakers useful feedback.

A total of 65 people completed the Plan Fairfax Housing simulation tool prior to its December 31 closing on December 31, 2021. Information derived from both the Balancing Act tool (Fairfax Housing Simulator) and the Fairfaxspeaks.com survey include: Narrative comments from both the website and the tool (Attachment C), and suggested numbers of housing units associated with each of the sites (Table below).

Site # Site Name Popularity*
Average # of
Units desired
by public
Minimum
Capacity # of
Total Units
1 White Hill School (portion) H 71% 42 50
2 Kingdom Hall D 82% 16 15
3 10 Olema A 88% 16 22
4 St. Rita's Church J 67% 27 40
5 Westside Commercial E 78% 23 33
6 Fairfax Market (portion) F 76% 22 20
7 School Street Plaza A 88% 76 100
8 Marinda Heights M 49% 9 10
9 Deer Park Villa L 53% 18 30
10 Pancho Villa B 84% 6 10
11 O'Donnell's Nursery I 69% 9 10
12 Eastside Commercial G 75% 11 20
13 Fair-Anselm Shopping Center F 76% 42 50
14 Town & Country C 84% 166 100
15 Jolly Hill N/A N/A 15
16 Central Commercial Downtown I 69% 14 130
Accessory Dwelling Units K 63% 63 100
Total
Capacity: 560 755**
4 * Popularity ranking according to percentage of submissions that chose to add housing units to a site. ** This total does not reflect the different between the number of proposed and existing units on the site. Having a capacity greater than the base RHNA at this point in the process enables flexibility for further zoning, policy, and ODDS discussions for specific sites.

Housing Element Update
Since the last time the Town Council met to discuss the Housing Element, on October 20 2021, staff and EMC have focused on exploration and evaluation of appropriate housing sites, incorporating public outreach and engagement into this effort. Specific activities include:
• Meetings with the Affordable Housing Committee, the Planning Commission Housing Element subcommittee, and the Planning Commission, to review Housing and Safety Element activities including draft Housing Opportunity Sites • Conducted virtual community workshop on the Housing Element that included Housing Opportunity Sites, on November 20, 2021
• Posted Housing Opportunity sites on the Fairfax Speaks website. • Plan Fairfax Housing interactive housing site preference and mapping tool made available on Fairfax Speaks
• Prepared background sections including the Town's demographics, progress in implementing the prior Housing Element programs;
• Met with the Council Communication and Engagement subcommittee focusing on discuss community outreach and engagement
• Met with multi-family and Spanish-speaking Fairfax residents to discuss housing opportunities and challenges
• Continued Good Earth Market Spanish-speaking employee engagement efforts • Developed Spanish-language pages and interactive features on FairfaxSpeaks.com website
• Meetings/communication with property owners/representatives • Participation in ABAG webinars on Fire Safety and ‘Missing Middle’ Housing Draft Housing Sites Inventory List
The purpose of the Draft Sites Inventory List is to identify and analyze specific sites that may be suitable for residential development during the eight-year Cycle 2023-2031 in order to accommodate Fairfax’s allocated 490 future housing units. The Town doesn’t build the housing but is responsible for the programs and policies to plan for where it should go and how many units could be on potential sites.

Potential housing sites are a critical part of Housing Element efforts. Efforts will continue through 2022 towards identifying and refining the list of sites. The initial direction provided by the Affordable Housing Committee was to apply a ‘big picture’ in identifying potential housing sites – capture a broad range of potential sites, and refine consideration of housing sites as the site review process continues.

The Draft Sites Inventory List identifies 16 separate sites in Fairfax, plus sites Town-wide opportunities for housing, such as Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs. Detailed diagrams of each housing opportunity site are included as Attachment A, and are also shown with 5 additional linked location data on the FairfaxSpeaks.com website via the following link:
https://fairfaxspeaks.com/sites-surveys
The Planning Commission recommended moving forward with continued feasibility analysis for the current Draft Sites Inventory List at their meeting on December 16, 2021 (see Attachment B for PC 12/16/21 draft meeting minutes). Staff and consultants concur with the Planning Commission that the analysis and public dialogue continue to be carried forward with the draft list of sites included with this report (Attachment B).

Site Selection Process and Consideration Factors
Safety concerns have been the initial and most important factors into determining whether sites would be considered for future housing in Fairfax.

Initial Safety consideration factors included:
• Mapping all parcels accessible by only one means of vehicular ingress/egress • Streets less than 20 feet in width
• Fire hazard severity zone and wildland-urban interface maps The Town utilized their map of all parcels accessible by only one means of vehicular ingress/egress to remove potential housing sites, with only one exception (the White Hill School site). For example, the Deer Park School site was eliminated from consideration for future housing due to its long and circuitous access and egress on narrow roads.

Additionally, the Town has developed a preliminary map of streets of less than 20 feet in width and is applying that to any parcels that might otherwise be subject to the State’s new SB 9 lot split and duplex land use allowance for heretofore single-family zoned parcels.

Further consideration factors used in site selection:
• Currently included with the Fairfax 2014-2022 Housing Element • Property owners/representatives have expressed interest in developing housing • Currently vacant or underutilized status
• Proximity to the downtown and transportation corridor • Minimize displacement potential
• Minimize loss to natural features such as large trees, or hillsides • Increase opportunities for alternative housing models such as eco-village and tiny homes
Number of Units
An initial number of potential housing units for each site is included with the Draft Sites Inventory List has been analyzed using density as a proxy for affordability to provide a check for meeting HCD specific affordability requirements. For suburban jurisdictions, 20 dwelling units per acre is considered appropriate to accommodate low and very low-income units. For sites along Sir Francis Drake, the initial density assumption for further study is between 30 and 50 dwelling units per acre. Potential sites that are surrounded by existing single-family homes such as Deer Park Villas and White Hill School carry assumed densities between 10-12 dwelling units per acre, and the Town and Country site is suggested at less than 5 dwelling 6 units per acre. All assumptions will be tested with next steps in the feasibility and policy consideration steps in the Housing Element update process.

The total number of units proposed with this draft list does not reflect the difference between the number of units proposed and the housing units that currently exist at each site. Although an intention to minimize displacement of existing homes and commercial units was an initial consideration factor, there will be deeper analysis of potential for displacement for each site as we begin to discuss policy options. When possible and practical, our initial assumptions either consider retention of businesses and homes, or that specific site considerations for displacement plans will be discussed during policy analysis phase of this update development.

The preliminary anticipated affordability levels and potential zoning change descriptions included in columns for the Attachment B, Draft Sites Inventory Table are subject to change during the equity and policy analysis phase of this update process. These categories are informational as a snapshot of initial starting-point analysis for these sites in order to enable the next steps of review and to initiate discussion among the Planning Commission as part of the process next steps. The Council is not being asked to comment or take action with that information at this time. Thorough descriptions of these future analysis steps will be included with the Draft Inventory Sites Report, forthcoming.

During past meetings, the Planning Commission also reviewed and favorably commented on applying single family residential-scale structures to use for ‘missing middle’ housing development and conversions for duplex to sixplex housing. The understanding is that the smaller per-unit sizes within sfd-scale buildings will maintain a best fit with the Town’s existing residential neighborhoods.

Safety Element Update
Staff and consultants compiled the comments and direction from the November 18 Planning Commission meeting and the December 15 Town Council meeting, and the revised draft Safety Element will be posted FairfaxSpeaks.com website prior to this Council meeting. As noted previously, staff and consultants understand and empathize with the everyone’s deep concerns about safety, particularly fiire safety, and Safety and Housing Elements are both imbued with how best to respond to such concerns.

Video from the meetings are available on both the FairfaxSpeaks.com website and the Town’s Planning Commission and Town Council meeting archive webpages. The following are links to the staff reports for the two meetings:
https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/uploads/2021/12/Item-5-Safety-Element.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/proudcity/fairfaxca/uploads/2021/11/Item_3_- Safety_Element_Update.pdf
Next Steps
Sites will be further analyzed for feasibility, affordability, and equity. The Marin County Collaborative has an Equity Specialist, Veronica Tam, who will analyze the Fairfax Draft Sites Inventory and provide a report that studies site selection through the lens of equity, according to state law AB 686. Ms. Tam’s analysis is available to Fairfax for two rounds of review, anticipating 7 first a draft, and a later final Sites Inventory List. Spring 2022 will include several opportunities for the public to participate in policy discussions with the Planning Commission and via focus groups such as the one beginning at the Good Earth grocery. Summer 2022, a draft Housing Element update plan will be available to the public for review with a 30-day comment period prior to the state‘s 90-day review period. While HCD is reviewing the draft document, the Town may resume with a third draft Safety Element review period. The Town remains on-time for an anticipated December or January Council adoption date for a final draft Housing and Safety Element update.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that Council accept the Draft Sites Inventory List for further feasibilty and policy analysis. A considerable amount of work has been undertaken, and data collected and analyzed in the ten months since the formal Housing and Safety Element process has started.

Commissions, Committees, and Council have contributed to the process with more than 20 meetings to date. Online engagement continues to unfold throughout the process to invite more voices to contribute to the discussion. As shown above, the public is definitely taking notice and participating in this process. This welcome participation is crucial in informing staff’s housing site recommendations, and as the deliberative process continues for future housing in Fairfax.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Town of Fairfax Sites Inventory Map and sites details B. Draft Sites Inventory Table
C. Public online comments on housing sites
D. Planning Commission December 16, 2021 draft meeting minutes Attachment A
1 Town of Fairfax Sites Inventory Study for CEQA Analysis

Sites Details
This section provides information on each of the 16 sites selected for inclusion in the inventory of vacant/partial vacant and available sites.

Site 1: White Hill School
Address: 101 Glen Drive Size: 5 acres
Existing Zoning: Public Domain (PD)
Potential Range of Housing Units: 50-80
Rationale: Creating housing opportunities for Marin’s 18 school districts’ 6,000 employees will help address the ongoing challenge of attracting and retaining school employees.

Constraints: The site is located at the end of Glen Drive, a one-way in-out road. There is school-related traffic. Potential fire safety and egress issues related to the one-way-in and one-way out aspect of Glen Drive, but the level of service, immediate proximity to a community refuge area (White Hill School grounds) and Glenn Drive’s modern design as well as close proximity to other roads help alleviate these issues.

This site would not require re-zoning in order to accommodate housing units.

Figure D-2 shows an aerial view of the White Hill School Site.

Figure D-1 White Hill School (Site 1)
Site 2: Portion of Kingdom Hall
Address: 2600 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Size: 1.3 acres
Existing Zoning: Upland Residential 7 ac/du (UR-7)
Potential Range of Housing Units: 15-25
Rationale: Successful re-use for housing of a former religious worship site has already been demonstrated in Fairfax with the Victory Village development. While the Town has received no indication that the site’s use could be changing in the near future, it may be an under-utilized site with 1.3 acres that are potentially developable.

Constraints: This site would require re-zoning in order to accommodate housing units.

Figure D-3 shows an aerial view of the Kingdom Hall Site.

Figure D-2 Kingdom Hall (Site 2)
Site 3: 10 Olema Road
Address: 2170 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Size: 1.11 acres
Existing Zoning: Limited Commercial
Potential Range of Housing Units: 22-30
Rationale: There has been a long-standing vision for this site to become affordable housing and it has been listed as a potential site in previous housing element updates.

This site would not require re-zoning in order to accommodate housing units.

Constraints: The site would need to meet updated requirements in order to be used again as a potential site in this 6th Cycle Housing Element. A portion of the property is located in a floodplain, so any potential housing units would need to comply with relevant local and federal flood regulations. The site contains a structure that may be a historic resource if designated, so any potential housing units may need to be designed with this potential resource.

Figure D-4 shows an aerial view of the 10 Olema Road site.

Figure D-3 10 Olema Road (Site 3)
Site 4: St. Rita’s Church
Address: 100 Marinda Drive Size: 1.78 acres
Existing Zoning: Planned Development District
Potential Range of Housing Units: 40-60
Rationale: Successful reuse of a former religious worship site has already occurred in Fairfax with the Victory Village development. The Town has received no indication that the site’s current multiple uses could be changing in the near future, however a portion of the site may be under-utilized, with approximately 1.9 acres currently occupied by the church, rectory, and meeting hall that are flat and potentially re-developable. This site would not require re-zoning in order to accommodate housing units.

Constraints: The site contains two buildings that may have historic designation pending the approval of the Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS), so any potential housing units may need to be designed around these portions of the site. The site is also currently used by an active Catholic church of long standing in the community.

Figure D-5 shows an aerial view of the St. Rita’s Church site.

Figure D-4 St. Rita’s Church (Site 4)
Site 5: Westside Commercial
Address: Multiple properties fronting on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. from the parcel immediately adjacent to the St. Rita’s Church meeting hall to the former Ernst Automotive site. Size: 1.81 acres
Existing Zoning: Highway Commercial
Potential Range of Housing Units: 33-40
Rationale: This site does not include the northern parking lot portion of the Fairfax Market or the Marin County Bicycle Museum site. This site includes an already vacant parcel. There has been a long-standing vision for this site to become affordable housing and it has been listed as a potential site in previous housing element updates.

Constraints: Programs and/or policies would need to be implemented in order to avoid displacement of existing commercial tenants. The vacant parcel would need to overcome geological challenges in order to be developed. The site would need to meet updated requirements in order to be used again as a potential site in this 6th Cycle Housing Element. This site may require re-zoning in order to accommodate housing units on the ground floor.

Figure D-6 shows an aerial view of the Westside Commercial site.

Figure D-5 Westside Commercial (Site 5)
Site 6: Fairfax Market
Address: 2040 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Size: 0.62 acres
Existing Zoning: Highway Commercial
Potential Range of Housing Units: 20-40
Rationale: This portion of the larger overall site would not displace the existing Fairfax Market and commercial tenants. There has been a long-standing vision for this site to become affordable housing and it has been listed as a potential site in previous housing element updates. The site has received specific development interest in the past. The parking lot is somewhat under-utilized but portions would still be preserved for a shared parking arrangement.

Constraints: Programs and/or policies would need to be implemented in order to avoid displacing existing commercial tenants. The site would need to meet updated requirements in order to be used again as a potential site in this 6th Cycle Housing Element. This site may require re-zoning in order to accommodate housing units on the ground floor.

Figure D-7 shows an aerial view of the Fairfax Market site.

Figure D-6 Fairfax Market (Site 6)
Site 7: School Street Plaza
Address: 6-12 School Street Drive Size: 1.92 acres
Existing Zoning: Limited Commercial
Potential Range of Housing Units: 100-140
Rationale: This site would have high access to existing transit and the downtown commercial area. The site would not require re-zoning in order to accommodate additional housing units. The property owner has expressed interest in adding affordable housing units. Programs and/or policies to avoid displacement of existing residential and live/work tenants could include required phased development.

Constraints: Additional programs and/or policies would need to be implemented in order to avoid displacement of existing residential and live/work tenants.

Figure D-8 shows an aerial view of the School Street Plaza site.

Figure D-7 School Street Plaza (Site 7)
Site 8: Marinda Heights (aka Wall Property)
Address: Marinda Drive and Upper Ridgeway Ave Size: 91.21 acres Existing Zoning: Upland Residential (10ac/du) (UR- 10)
Potential Range of Housing Units: 10-30
Rationale: This site could accommodate 10 parcels with current zoning, with each parcel having a single-family home as well as potentially an Accessory Dwelling Unit and a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU and JADU). The property owner has submitted an application for development.

Constraints: An Environmental Impact Report would need to be conducted concurrent with any development application due to the geotechnical, fire, water availability and storm drainage challenges present on the site.

Figure D-9 shows an aerial view of the Marinda Heights site.

Figure D-8 Marinda Heights (Site 8)
Site 9: Deer Park Villa
Address: 367 Bolinas Rd Size: 3.57 acres
Existing Zoning: Limited Commercial
Potential Range of Housing Units: 30-70
Rationale: This site is level, includes adequate egress access to a main arterial street, contains several undeveloped acres, and would not require re-zoning in order to accommodate housing units.

Constraints: The site is surrounded by existing residential zoning on two sides and egress is currently limited to one-way-in/one-way-out.

Figure D-10 shows an aerial view of the Deer Park Villa site.

Figure D-9 Deer Park Villa (Site 9)
Site 10: Former Pancho Villas
Address: 1625 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Size: 0.26 acres
Existing Zoning: Highway Commercial/ Residential (RD 5.5- 7) Potential Range of Housing Units: 10 - 20
Rationale: It is a vacant, level, and under-utilized site with direct access to Francis Drake Blvd. It is within walking distance to community amenities and has a bus stop in front of the site. Developers have previously expressed interest and were confident in the feasibility of building 10 housing units on the site, pending updated zoning.

Constraints: This site is relatively small in size and will require re-zoning in order to accommodate ground floor housing units.

Figure D-11 shows an aerial view of the Former Pancho Villas site.

Figure D-10 Former Pancho Villas (Site 10)
Site 11: O’Donnell’s Nursery
Address: 1700 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Size: 0.37 acres
Existing Zoning: Highway Commercial
Potential Range of Housing Units: 10-20
Rationale: It is a vacant and level site with direct access to Francis Drake Blvd. The property owner is willing to consider housing development on the site.

Constraints: This site is relatively small, in proximity to existing single-family residential properties, and will require re-zoning in order to accommodate ground-floor housing units. Traffic circulation needs will need to be analyzed and addressed.

Figure D-12 shows an aerial view of the O’Donnell’s Nursery site.

Figure D-11 O’Donnell’s Nursery (Site 11)
Site 12: Eastside Commercial
Address: Sir Frances Drake Blvd east of Pastori Ave Size: 2.05 acres Existing Zoning: Highway Commercial
Potential Range of Housing Units: 20-40
Rationale: There has been a long-standing vision for this area to accommodate additional housing units and it has been listed as a potential site in previous housing element updates.

Constraints: The area would need to meet updated requirements in order to be used again as a potential site in this 6th Cycle Housing Element. Programs and/or policies would need to avoid displacement of existing residential and commercial tenants. This area will require re-zoning in order to accommodate ground-floor housing units.

Figure D-13 shows an aerial view of the Eastside Commercial site.

Figure D-12 Eastside Commercial (Site 12)
Site 13: Fair-Anselm Shopping Center
Address: 711 & 760 Center Blvd Size: 3.27 acres
Existing Zoning: Highway Commercial
Potential Range of Housing Units: 50-90
Rationale: This is a large and flat site with direct access to Sir Francis Drake Blvd and other characteristics that make accommodating housing units feasible. Developers have expressed interest in creating residential units on this site.

Constraints: Programs and/or policies would need to avoid displacement of existing commercial tenants. This site would require re-zoning in order to accommodate groundfloor housing units.

Figure D-14 shows an aerial view of the Fair-Anselm Shopping Center site.

Figure D-13 Fair-Anselm Shopping Center (Site 13)
Site 14: Town and Country
Address: Pastori Avenue Size: 25.16 acres
Existing Zoning: Commercial Recreation
Potential Range of Housing Units: 100-450
Rationale: The Fairfax Town and Country site is the premier underdeveloped property in Fairfax, containing 25 acres of mostly level, mostly undeveloped property, located in close proximity to central Fairfax transit, services and amenities. It is currently occupied by dozens of rental units without the benefit of formal approval. The property owner has insisted that the property be considered as part of the Housing Element update. There is potential for a substantial number of housing units that occupy only a small portion of the site, leaving the remainder undeveloped or for other community purposes.

Constraints: Zoning on the property was established by Fairfax voter initiative. Rezoning to allow a substantial number of housing units would require voter approval, unless otherwise determined by legal proceeding. A portion of the site is the mainstem San Anselmo Creek and is within the 100-year floodplain. Vehicular access to the site is currently via a lowcapacity bridge and should be supplemented by another access/egress point. A portion of the site may have historic resource value. A portion of the site may have environmental resource value. Prior proposals for reuse of the site have not been successful.

Figure D-15 shows an aerial view of the Town and Country site.

Figure D-14 Town and Country (Site 14)
Site 15: Jolly Hill
Address: Open space adjacent to 53 Taylor Ave (Bennett House) Size: 1.55 acres Existing Zoning: Single Family Residential (RS 7.5)
More Details: Jolly Hill is not currently being considered as a potential site to accommodate housing units due to its open space status and potential as a park. If there is strong public support, it could be added as a potential site.

Figure D-16 shows an aerial view of the Jolly Hill site.

Figure D-15 Jolly Hill (Site 15)
Site 16: Central Commercial Downtown
Address: all sites zoned Central Commercial in the Downtown area, including BOA site Existing Zoning: Central Commercial Size: 10.30 acres
Potential Range of Housing Units: 130 - 145
Rationale: The Central Commercial (CC)-zoned area is the core Fairfax downtown area with an extensive range of services, amenities, and direct access to transit. Housing already occurs in this district, and there are a variety of sites with unrealized upstairs housing potential.

Constraints: Low availability of underutilized sites, small parcel sizes, lack of onsite parking, evening and late-night activity, need for careful design to successfully integrate into the downtown visual styles.

Figure D-17 shows an aerial view of the Central Commercial Downtown site.

Figure D-16 Central Commercial Downtown (Site 16)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs and Junior ADUs)
Address: Various Locations
Potential Range of Housing Units: 80+ (projection based on recent ADU construction) Rationale: Accommodating new ADUs and Junior ADUs would not require rezoning.

Increased regulatory and/or policy incentives would be necessary for more than the allowed projection to count towards RHNA.

Constraints: A significant percentage of Fairfax parcels are already constrained by small size, slope-related development challenges, or existing development. The cost of constructing new housing also represents a significant obstacle, and small-scale landlords are challenged by rental laws.

Draft Sites Inventory Table Attachment B
Site # Site Address
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(Gross
Acres)
Potential Zoning Change
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Minimum
Capacity
1 White Hill School (portion) 5.00 50
101 Glen Dr PD 0.0 5.00
Two zones on single parcel.

Add RM with ODDS for that
portion. no 50 50
2 Kingdom Hall 1.30 15
2600 Sir Francis Drake Blvd UR‐7 12.0 1.30
Change zoning to RM with
ODDS. no 15 15
3 10 Olema 1.11 22
2170 Sir Francis Drake Blvd PDD 20.0 1.11
Change CL language to allow
MF and incorporate ODDS. yes 2 20 22
4 St. Rita's Church 1.78 40
100 Marinda Dr PDD 20.0 0.80 no 18 18
PDD 20.0 0.98 no 22 22
5 Westside Commercial 1.81 33
2090 Sir Francis Drake Blvd 20.0 0.17 yes 3 3
2096 Sir Francis Drake Blvd 20.0 0.18 yes 3 3

20.0 0.41 no 8 8
2000 Sir Francis Drake Blvd 20.0 0.51 yes 10 10
2086 Sir Francis Drake Blvd 20.0 0.19 yes 3 3
2100 Sir Francis Drake Blvd PDD 20.0 0.16 no 3 3
2082 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.19 yes 3 3
6 Fairfax Market (portion) 0.62 20
2040 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 30.0 0.62
Change HC to incorporate
ODDS. yes 2 5 13 20
7 School Street Plaza 1.92 100
6 School St PDD 50.0 1.92
Change CL language to allow
MF or change to RM. yes 33 33 34 100
8 Marinda Heights 91.21 10
UR‐10 0.1 73.75 yes 7 7
UR‐10 0.1 16.86 yes 1 1
PD 20.0 0.60 no 2 2
9 Deer Park Villa 3.57 30
367 Bolinas Rd CL 8.0 3.57
Change CL language to allow
MF or change to RM. no 30 30
10 Pancho Villa 0.26 10
1625 Sir Francis Drake Blvd RD‐5.5‐7 38.0 0.26
Change zoning to RM with
ODDS. yes 5 5 10
11 O'Donnell's Nursery 0.37 10
1700 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 27.0 0.37
Change zoning to CC with
ODDS. no 5 5 10
12 Eastside Commercial 2.05 20
1585 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.10 yes 1 1
1573 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.20 yes 3 3
1583 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.08 yes 1 1
1581 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.25 yes 3 3
1599 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.21 yes 3 3
1591 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.09 yes 1 1
1607 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.11 yes 2 2
1613 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 0.0 0.09 yes 0 0
1621 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.06 yes 1 1
2 Willow Ave CH 0.0 0.06 no 0 0
12 Willow Ave RD‐5.5‐7 0.0 0.12 no 0 0
1569 Sir Francis Drake Blvd RD‐5.5‐7 0.0 0.26 yes 0 0
1589 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.05 yes 1 1
1601 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.23 yes 3 3
1615 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 0.0 0.06 yes 0 0
1620 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.08 no 1 1
Change HC to incorporate
ODDS.

Change zoning to CC with
ODDS.

Change zoning to RM with
ODDS.

CH
Change zoning to RM with
ODDS.

Not yet addressed
Draft Sites Inventory Table Attachment B
Site # Site Address
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(Gross
Acres)
Potential Zoning Change
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Minimum
Capacity
13 Fair‐Anselm Shopping Center 3.27 50
760 Center Blvd CH 20.0 0.57 yes 2 4 5 11
711 Center Blvd CH 20.0 2.70 yes 20 10 9 39
14 Town & Country 25.16 100
CR 4.0 11.75 no 10 15 22 47
40 Pastori Ave CR 4.0 13.41 no 10 20 23 53
15 Jolly Hill 1.55 15
RS‐7.5 0.0 1.55
Change zoning to RM with
ODDS. no 15 15
16 Central Commercial Downtown 10.30 130
69 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.07 no 1 1
29 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.13 no 2 2
9 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.48 no 0 0
17 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.18 no 3 3
19 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.22 no 4 4
CC 20.0 0.01 no 0 0
23 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.08 no 1 1
25 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.10 no 2 2
CC 20.0 0.12 no 2 2
33 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.06 no 1 1
35 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.04 no 0 0
1 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.17 no 3 3
28 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.09 no 1 1
20 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.06 no 1 1
14 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.06 no 1 1
45 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.10 no 2 2
77 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.14 no 2 2
69 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.14 no 2 2
61 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.06 no 1 1
65 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.09 no 1 1
55 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.03 no 0 0
57 Broadway Blvd CC 20.0 0.04 no 0 0
89 Broadway Blvd (BOA) CC 60.0 0.35 no 11 5 5 21
CC 20.0 0.08 no 1 1
CC 20.0 0.07 no 1 1
52 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.14 no 2 2
42 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.14 no 2 2
64 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.12 no 2 2
54 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.14 no 2 2
101 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.17 no 3 3
95 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.51 no 2 2
63 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.09 no 1 1
59 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.08 no 1 1
51 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.15 no 3 3
47 Bolinas Rd CC 0.0 0.07 no 2 2
31 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.34 no 6 6
29 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.08 no 1 1
32 Rocca Dr CC 0.0 0.36 no 0 0
CC 20.0 0.41 no 4 4 8
Keep zoning if necessary.

Legal advisors are
discovering possible path to
development.

Change CC zoning language
to allow
residential on
ground floor without a
Conditional Use Permit
Add a story to CH zoning and
incorporate ODDS.

Draft Sites Inventory Table Attachment B
Site # Site Address
Zoning
Designation
(Current)
Minimum
Density
Allowed
(units/
acre)
Parcel
Size
(Gross
Acres)
Potential Zoning Change
Identified in
Last/Last Two
Planning
Cycle(s)
Lower
Income
Capacity
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Above
Moderate
Income
Capacity
Total
Minimum
Capacity
CC 20.0 0.17 no 3 3
1810 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 20.0 0.33 no 6 6
1820 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 20.0 0.07 no 1 1
1822 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 0.0 0.05 no 0 0
1824 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 20.0 0.07 no 1 1
1826 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 20.0 0.12 no 2 2
10 Taylor Dr CC 0.0 0.03 no 0 0
1902 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 20.0 0.27 no 5 5
1942 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 20.0 0.38 no 0 0
1930 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 20.0 0.13 no 2 2
1916 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 20.0 0.14 no 2 2
CC 20.0 0.40 no 8 8
1914 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CC 20.0 0.07 no 1 1
125 Mono Ave CC 0.0 0.13 no 0 0
137 Mono Ave CC 0.0 0.20 no 0 0
107 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.13 no 2 2
4 Sherman Ave CC 0.0 0.11 no 0 0
131 Bolinas Rd CC 0.0 0.13 no 0 0
135 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.15 no 3 3
119 Bolinas Rd CC 20.0 0.14 no 2 2
141 Bolinas Rd CC 0.0 0.07 no 0 0
145 Bolinas Rd CC 0.0 0.09 no 0 0
107 Mono Ave CC 0.0 0.17 no 0 0
9 Pacheco Ave CC 0.0 0.18 no 0 0
131 Mono Ave CC 0.0 0.14 no 0 0
127 Mono Ave CC 0.0 0.13 no 0 0
111 Mono Ave CC 0.0 0.10 no 0 0
115 Mono Ave CC 0.0 0.10 no 0 0
117 Mono Ave CC 20.0 0.06 no 1 1
121 Mono Ave CC 0.0 0.18 no 0 0
2094 Sir Francis Drake Blvd CH 20.0 0.17 yes 3 3
17 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) N/A 100
Citywide N/A N/A N/A N/A no 100 100
Grand Total 208 259 288 755
RHNA 235 71 184 490
(see above)
** Having a capacity greater than the base RHNA at this point in the process enables flexibility for further zoning, policy, and ODDS discussions for specific sites.

Attachment C
1 Public Comments collected from both the Fairfax Housing Simulator and Fairfaxspeaks.com website.  Fairfax Speaks Website—Sites Inventory Page: 98 total page visitors, 64 contributors, 439 comments submitted.
 Fairfax Housing Simulator: 51 total submissions, with 69 comments; including 2 Spanish submissions (did not leave comments)
1 ‐ White Hill School ‐ 101 Glen Drive
Simulator Stats:
71% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 42 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 Use this real estate to expand the school
 clustered housing, modest multi‐family units.
 No additional housing, use this area for additional schools. It is reasonable to expect more students will need schools if 490 housing units are added to the town. This area can also be used to accommodate Ross Valley Charter/St. Rita’s school, which I propose me used for housing instead of a school. See other comments.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy ‐‐Please make sure that teachers are prioritized  Happy ‐‐I bicycle past there and see that it is open space that could accommodate housing.  Happy ‐‐Teacher housing would be a fantastic earmark to ensure housing is provided by a population in need.
 Happy ‐‐Challenge will be flooding at front of property and access across creek.  Does not appear this property would be developed by school district and as long as they maintain their other properties, they still have flexibility to increase capacity.  This site will need bridges installed over creek area and some improvements to prevent future flooding which could benefit the school also.

The residents would need to avoid peak drop‐off and pick‐up times at the school.  Would be great for one‐ or two‐bedroom units, or small units.
 Happy ‐‐Teachers and workers need housing. SCHOOL TRAFFIC SHOULD BE ADDRESSED because it is part of the problem. Kids need to carpool, bus, bike, etc. to school instead of having mommy or daddy pick up each child.
 Happy ‐‐I like the idea of educator housing and hope that no trees will be killed in this process.  Happy ‐‐We need quality teachers and having affordable housing would be huge.  Happy ‐‐Not in the thick of traffic. Convenient for teachers/staff  Happy ‐‐Would be great to build sweat equity housing like was done many years ago on that street.  Happy ‐‐Although it would impinge a bit on open space adjacent to already designated areas, this large parcel could accommodate a large number of residential units.  Neutral ‐‐Site is removed from the town center and could mean more vehicle traffic congestion and VMT. Teacher housing doesn't need to be near a school ‐‐ assuming those in these units aren't WH teachers.

Attachment C
2  Neutral ‐‐This site is so far removed from town and if it is already zoned for housing, then there is no net new. Housing walking distance to transit would be better (the teachers living here are just going to end up driving to their schools).
 Neutral ‐‐It is designated as a potential site for flood mitigation.  It could also be an alternative field space if White Hill is ever utilized for the needed flood protections in downtown.  Neutral ‐‐Nice idea to provide housing for school district employees (and other public servants.) Transit options are extremely limited, so it would really be a commuter type of situation for those who didn't work at White Hill School which, I assume, is a small subset?  Very Unhappy ‐‐My largest concern about ALL of the sites is the fact that getting in and out of our Valley‐‐‐the entire Ross Valley for that matter‐‐‐ is that we have one main artery and Center Blvd. that are already at over MAX.  In the event of a fire or earthquake WHO gets to leave the area?  It would be next to impossible first to get to the main artery, and to escape or exit safely without another main artery with really good access.  I am an old girl and lived in Fairfax since 1955.  There was a movement at one time (before Sir Francis Drake was made into two lanes in each direction) to extend Freitas Parkway from Terra Linda and at least take the West Marin traffic off of Sir Francis Drake through our towns that make a parking lot out of it on weekends and evenings.  That would not solve the problem of getting everyone off of the hillsides (in the event of a fire or other disaster) without tremendous roadwork, putting a limit on the number of cars, adding some form of electric transit and parking lots, and bicycle paths that were NOT in traffic zones.  We already have restricted and dangerous road access for residents and emergency vehicles.   If we are to increase housing in our already congested neighborhoods, how are we going to reduce household vehicle numbers per unit.   As it is now one household generally has multiple vehicles and drivers.  Look at some of the examples in recent wildfire behavior that was in the urban‐forested lands, particularly Paradise, the Dixie fire, and so many others where people lost their lives or were seriously at risk while attempting to flee fast moving wildfires which are more likely to occur with each passing year.
 I am in full support of increasing affordable and accessible housing in our area but not at the cost of safety and more roadway congestion.   How do we address these concerns?   We need to have a big picture and long‐range plan for the inevitable increased dangers from climate change and its effect on our drought and micro burst weather phenomena.   Egress is critical to that planning.  Can we make new housing non‐vehicular?   How do we encourage existing residents to reduce vehicular use in our communities?   Adding more housing on our hillsides is a planned future disaster.   We had better think long and hard about the steps we take in the next 10 years.  Very Unhappy ‐‐will contribute to disastrous gridlock in event of emergency. Do not want less open space around middle school kids who need as much calm and quiet as possible plus sports space.  Very Unhappy ‐‐Teachers should be paid a decent salary, instead of trying to bribe them with housing. It's not fair to the teachers, if they lose their housing when switching jobs. If it was general housing I would only support it if you could build a road over the hill to Northgate. My main concern with any new developments is traffic, especially during a fire. We would all be dead stuck in traffic trying to get out of town. So send the message to the state roads dept and tell them that the roads infrastructure needs to be improved to accommodate the number of residents prior to increasing the number of residents trying to escape a potential fire.  Very Unhappy ‐‐It’s open and beautiful now.  Housing will destroy Attachment C
3  Very Unhappy ‐‐SFD is going to be enough of a bottleneck in the case of a disaster, such as wildfire.

Glen Drive is far enough away from SFD to make egress much more difficult.  Very Unhappy ‐‐Someday, the Town will wish that this land could have been used to expand the school. The idea that teachers would wish to live in a  corporate community  right next to the school is regressive, almost to the degree of Marxist. Remember teachers do not always come in pairs, so a household of one teacher may comprise of someone else who is not a teacher. Use of this land for homes open to anyone is not necessary, and will crowd the neighborhood. There are other options to provide workforce housing for the education sector.
 Very Unhappy ‐‐The egress issues in an emergency are being minimized in this description. This street regularly has school traffic backing up and escape in an emergency on to a left turn for the evacuation route will not be alleviated by proximity to the only other road (through Canon). White hill grounds will not be a community spot if neighborhood is evacuating.  Very Unhappy ‐‐Too small to make impact, traffic issues and better options to increase housing without losing character of town
 Very Unhappy ‐‐No room for more traffic in an already congested area. That road does NOT need more cars. It would seriously degrade the quality of life for residents and would be gridlocked in an evacuation when fire arrives.
 Very Unhappy ‐‐Traffic is horrendous.  If there were to be a fire of paradise type a thousand people will die
 Very Unhappy ‐‐Too far from town and services. Too dense in high‐risk fire zone area with limited ingress/egress capacity including onto SFD in an emergency. High environmental impact too close to designated open space.
 Very Unhappy ‐‐Are you out of your mind?  1.  The heavy traffic generated by White Hill School makes this location undesirable 2.  The increasing danger of wildfires generated by drought and human activity makes this location undesirable 3.  Imagine a fire during school hours, with residents of 40 more housing units, trying to evacuate from a dead‐end street onto Sir Francis Drake Blvd.

This is insane! 4.  The land under consideration is beautiful and a gateway to Loma Alta preserve.

Native wildlife and fauna would be eradicated.  This walking, hiking, and biking recreational area would become crowded, traffic would become unbearable and those seeking a bit of respite from the hustle and bustle of a crowded environment would be snuffed out.  Just remember how frequented this area has become since the Covid‐19 pandemic started.  It has become quite a refuge.  Housing will completely ruin it!
 Very Unhappy ‐‐Glen Drive is dead end road that services white hill school and the local residents.

Traffic during school hours is at unbearable. Adding additional numbers of residents using the would gaining entrance to sir Francis Drake road a night mare. This area is prime recreational area as well as an excellent fire break in the event of a wildfire. This area is open space frequented by hikers, bikers and wildlife. Adding additional housing units would on this property would take away from its natural attraction. Furthermore, in the event of a wildfire getting residents out safely would compounded by the additional residents. This is a very bad site for all of the above reasons and for many more reasons not mentioned above.
 Very Unhappy ‐‐Traffic would be untenable
 Very Unhappy ‐‐Congestion is already a *huge* problem at the Glen Dr./SFD intersection, adding more cars via more housing wouldn’t be helpful at all. That parcel of land is not big enough to support 80 housing units!
Attachment C
4  Very Unhappy ‐‐Traffic, fire evacuation safety
 Very Unhappy ‐‐Traffic would be a nightmare!
 Very Unhappy ‐‐Unless parking is supplied for these 50‐80 units, street parking is going to be impossible.
 Unhappy ‐‐The traffic is already impossible in this area  Unhappy ‐‐Use for school
 Unhappy ‐‐Far from shops and basic necessities, which means more cars on the road.  Unhappy ‐‐Fire safety issues
 Unhappy ‐‐Another quiet peaceful neighborhood impacted with more traffic and people. 2 ‐ Portion of Kingdom Hall ‐ 2600 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Simulator Stats:
 82% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 16 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 Use as a potential school or community site
 clustered multifamily housing units
 Use this site for additional schools or community‐oriented facilities.  At least it is close to town and SFD
Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   As indicated, this area seems incredibly underutilized, as I hardly ever see cars in the parking lot. It is also along SFD, so evacuation/egress concerns are not problematic. Also, public transportation is readily available along SFD, so is inclusive to folks who might not own a vehicle. Yes yes yes!
 Very Happy   This would be an ideal site to develop.
 Very Happy   Good spot for this use.
 Very Happy   We need housing for those who work in our communities. NIMBY people do not understand the horrible long commutes service people have.  Very Happy   Perfect for this location.
 Very Happy   I honestly cannot recall ever seeing that building utilized.  Happy   Great site close to town and transportation.
 Happy   Under‐utilized site
 Happy   While I'm concerned about SFD being overloaded with traffic in case of a disaster; as it is right on SFD, there is potential to evacuate more quickly than say, the site north of White Hill School.  Drake is way too busy now ‐ today it took me about 20 minutes to get from Village West to the Women's Fitness Center at 3, when the schools let out.  But that lot is similar to Victory Village, which has worked out well.  I would hope that any new construction includes rain run‐off mitigation, so that the houses down‐slope don't get inundated.  Fairfax Creek doesn't have to flood for some of the condos to flood if an atmospheric river comes along.  Happy   It's on a main road with easier access to public transportation.  Good place for multi unit structure.

Attachment C
5  Happy   Not in a high traffic are, with good access  Happy    This site has minimal environmental impact and is close to transportation corridor.  Happy   Should this parcel of a portion of it become available, it would provide already disturbed/developed acreage for reuse.
 Neutral   Site is removed from the town center.
 Neutral   Not in a very walkable or transit friendly location.  Neutral   Seems like an odd option to list if the owner isn’t interested in changing this land.  Unhappy   Use of this site for housing may be an option. It is near other mid‐density senior housing, apartments and condos. Zoning as multifamily not as single family. However, because other institutional sites may be gobbled up by housing, perhaps leaving this site for institutional purposes may be a better choice.
 Very Unhappy   make emergency evacuations much much worse.  Very Unhappy   Not a very big property and better sites are available 3 ‐ 10 Olema Road ‐ 2170 Sir Francis Drake Blvd
Simulator Stats:
 88% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 16 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 eco village housing units, parking clustered.
 Use the spoil from earthwork at Fong Family Hill site near Fairfax Market to fill in floodplain area to the extent environmental regulations permit. It is more climate friendly to move earth a few hundred feet than all the way to a landfill. This is an excellent site for an eco‐village style site, like Monolithic IO domes.
 I think this site can house many more units than 24.
 Historic Home should be preserved.
 At least it is close to town and SFD
Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   great infill site near amenities and transit  Very Happy   Great location, but design needs to specifically account for flooding. Also, it seems a bit ridiculous that a random older building is dictated as historic and would take priority over affordable housing.
 Very Happy   Great location for infill housing.
 Very Happy   Perhaps this site could incorporate the historic element by being used specifically for assisted living, supportive housing and/or housing first.  Very Happy   Would be a great place for some mid‐density housing, provided the community and historic character of the site and surroundings was respected.  Very Happy   Current structure is an eyesore and it’s a large property that could handle a nice housing structure
 Very Happy   Another underutilized site that would be perfect for and apartment building.  Very Happy   It's a perfect location for housing.

Attachment C
6  Happy   The historic building should be required to be restored by developer of the site.  Happy   Along the SFD corridor.
 Happy   Good infill location near the library and bus stop and existing neighborhood  Happy   We need housing for those who work in our communities. NIMBY people do not understand the horrible long commutes service people have. Turn the historical buildings into housing!  Happy   Under‐utilized site with good pedestrian and cycle access to downtown and buses.  Happy   I'm really somewhere between neutral and happy.  22‐30 units seem too much for this site, and I am concerned with all of these sites, about hard‐scaping that compromises natural rain run‐off and absorption in the soil.
 Happy   Empty lot close to downtown services and transportation  Happy   Please make sure stream restoration is built into this plan. Flooding recently caused a sink hold right near here.
 Happy   If we MUST be forced to add housing at least this in on SFD and close to town so people can walk downtown. However, adding more cars and people to our town is a bad idea. We should be fighting the state.
 Happy   Close to town, underused space.
 Happy   I think the historic structure should be preserved (oldest house in Fairfax?).  As well the stream corridor should be protected. The other developed structure hasn't been used for decades and likely is dilapidated and should be removed, especially as it hovers over the creek.  The remaining acreage is essentially a dumping ground/ junk yard/parking lot.  That certainly could be developed.
 Neutral   We would like to see the historic home preserved, but maybe some added units could be installed.  No more than two stories, but ideally small units with some parking.  (At least one parking spot per unit‐ as we don't believe that the public transportation system really supports no vehicle at all....)
 Neutral   A bit challenging to exit and enter than other areas  Neutral   More impact and degradation of a creek bank.  Neutral   Fairfax needs more housing, but not wild about this parcel being that heavily developed.

Much of what is there should never have been built in the first place.  The adjoining creek needs to meander and it will.  Mitigating the flood plane is a myth.  Also, traffic is already too fast and scary on SFD.  Speed limit should be lowered to 20 mph with the new law.  A permanent traffic light should be installed where the sink hole is now, slowing traffic, big deal.  Safety.  Neutral   could accommodate some housing NOT 22‐30
 Unhappy   I am concerned that the scale of the project will over‐run the neighborhood. Parking and multistory units are of particular concern as that portion of Olema Road is a busy thoroughfare for pedestrians, cyclists, deer and kids making their way to Manor and White Hill schools. Putting more units than can realistically be serviced in the boundaries of the property will greatly impact the safety of this busy corridor. In conversations I’ve had with the owner, he has stated more modest goals of 7‐8 cottages style homes for elder folks. This is a vision I think neighbors can and would support. Twenty‐ two to 30 units on this property with the creek/flood plain interface is a design challenge I do not feel comfortable trusting developers and our planning commission with. I feel that these entities are more concerned about shoehorning as many units as possible into a space with much disregard for the impact such a scale of a project would have on the neighbors and public safety. Overbuilding has the potential to destroy the neighborhood! Attachment C
7  Very Unhappy   make evacuations much worse and have to remove redwoods!  Very Unhappy   It seems like there are better alternatives that do not have creek setback issues, historic structures issues.
 Very Unhappy   Would create heavier traffic flow into a now relatively quiet neighborhood plus increase traffic congestion on Sir Francis Drake.
4 ‐  St. Rita's Church ‐ 100 Marinda Dr
Simulator Stats:
 67% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 27 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 Preserve this beautiful church, relocate the school, build where the school site is.  multi‐family housing units
 This church building should remain, or converted as some former fire stations, Masonic Temples, and others have been into a large residence, brewery, new Town Hall, or some other fantastic project seen on Dwell Magazine. It is really the school that is the primo property. The school is within 1/4 mile of transit, the church is actually slightly outside the 1/4‐mile walking distance. The church is right on the visual corridor, the school is hidden from the visual corridor it’s really hard to tell its even there without the signs and the AM/PM traffic. The school site is large enough for another Bennett House project. This housing unit allocation is meant for the school grounds, not the church grounds.
 But, there you go, the Town purchases the property from the Archdiocese, makes the church the new Town Hall, distribute the church grounds the Town's own way and the housing could then be classified as PUBLIC HOUSING. The existing Town Hall and even the Community Center could have a makeover, dealing with the culvert and establishing a facility for the un‐housed community as a Housing First program. I'll speak for myself, but I think you'd have not problem conjuring up volunteers!
 Historic Buildings should be preserved.
 At least it is close to town and SFD
Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   This is one of the best redevelopment sites in the town, and the school should be included. It is close to transit, the core district and has excellent multi‐use potential. Far more housing can fit here than the balancing act tool allows. The existing historic building is iconic and could be preserved and repurposed for other public good.  Very Happy   A great spot for some medium density apartments, integrated gracefully with the neighborhood and the site.
 Very Happy   Has any one reached out to the church about the possibility of creating low‐income housing on part of their parking lot? How can we go about starting that conversation?  Very Happy   Great location for housing.
 Happy   Keep the beautiful church
 Happy   But aside from the church building itself, good Attachment C
8  Neutral   I like the concept of adding housing here, or housing with commercial uses, but it doesn't seem realistic to have a 5‐year plan for housing here unless the church has plans to leave. Though, maybe some sort of highly supportive housing could be collocated?  Neutral   The two buildings on Sir Francis Drake should be classified as historic and should not be allowed to be altered.
 Neutral   At least it is close to town and transportation corridor.  Unhappy   While I'd like to support housing here, if the church has no intention of leaving, then there is no benefit to assuming these units would ever get constructed.  Unhappy   Not sure how St. Rita's feels about this.  It's an active community space.  Unhappy   It's already a very scary intersection, and hard to access the church and the little strip mall beside it (nail salon, vet, thrift store)
 Unhappy   I don't know ‐ I say, leave the church to use this land as they want.  Unhappy   St. Rita's historical significance should be respected  Unhappy   Not happy about destroying a historical property  Very Unhappy   What are you thinking? It’s a church! I have 4 generations that have been a part of that church. My husband a 5 siblings went to school there.. I was married there. All family members have deep roots there..HANDS OFF.! What’s next Grace Cathedral????  Very Unhappy   With Ross Valley Charter School residing behind St. Rita's church, the parking available in the parking lot is often not enough for parents coming to pick up or drop off children as it is. The traffic light in front of St. Rita's, with the crosswalk to the library, is often a traffic nightmare during school drop off and pickup as is. Adding residents to this area feels like a disastrous traffic overflow.
 Very Unhappy   Historic Buildings are more important than housing here.  Cannot imagine that Catholic Church would sell the property anyway.  Wouldn't support many units here even if that were to happen as the parking is important to the school.  Would be better to open more space to the school than housing.
 Very Unhappy   In use by great school. Dumb spot that would increase gridlock in emergency not to mention strain on thin resources like water, sewer, etc.  Very Unhappy   My main concern with any new developments is traffic, especially during a fire. We would all be dead stuck in traffic trying to get out of town. So, send the message to the state roads dept and tell them that the roads infrastructure needs to be improved to accommodate the number of residents prior to increasing the number of residents trying to escape a potential fire.  Very Unhappy   What happens to Ross Valley Charter School? Irrespective of the loss of parking spaces, access to the school itself seems like it would be cut off.  Very Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   Part of it used by a local public school, including the parking areas.  Very Unhappy   Site is currently utilized by a school and a church, both of which have a high percentage of BIPOC community members with whom, we are hoping to be inclusive ... not displace. 5 ‐ Westside commercial
Simulator Stats:
 78% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 23 units suggested Attachment C
9 Simulator Comments:
 apt. condos, no autos.
 Westside commercial does not include the Fairfax Market properties, but does include Ernst Automotive, the strip mall and Fong Family Hill. As mentioned, the spoil from leveling the hill could be used locally for floodplain fill, contour grading the adjoining sites or even a raw building material for eco‐friendly construction such as cob, strawbale cottages. I envision this area to be an overlay zone allowing cottage courts which are 100% affordable.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   I think these are excellent sites for higher‐density housing or higher‐density housing with commercial functions. However, I think these sites need to be developed thoughtfully and in context with the Fairfax Market site. IMHO, west side commercial sites, Fairfax Market, and Split Rock should all be sites that eventually get redeveloped as more pedestrian‐oriented housing and mixed use. The Bike Museum should also be considered as a part of these sites for redevelopment.  Very Happy   These sites should be developed as mixed use. There is opportunity to bring more life to SFD in this location by adding storefronts below housing and mandating parking in the rear if needed.
 Very Happy   This site should be maximized for housing with some limited locations for ground floor retail (maybe at the old gas station. The Bike Museum should also be added to this site. Overall, the planning should consider how this ultimately relates to the potential for housing on the Fairfax Market site.
 Very Happy   Multipurpose development with residential over Commercial could offer lots of advantages. Good access to amenities.
 Very Happy   This site is exactly what Opticos is talking about when the subject of obsolete strip malls being redeveloped as housing or multipurpose missing middle housing. Several of the spaces are already vacant or vacating. The old automotive shop is a blight as it is a relic right in the middle of town, and the uses over the last year really belong somewhere else, like in a CS zone.  Very Happy   Underutilized commercial zone with great access to services  Very Happy
 Very Happy   These seem like dead zones, mostly parking lots, very unfriendly fir pedestrians. Would be nice to have more life there. Close to downtown, so hopefully people would t use car to go downtown.
 Very Happy   Current structure is unappealing
 Very Happy   Please develop these eyesores.
 Happy
 Happy   If there were a way to maintain the commercial spaces downstairs, I can imagine housing above them‐ or if the commercial businesses were relocated it could be apartments (2 stories max.)  Happy   I'd be more enthusiastic if it was a mixed‐use development and not limited to just housing  Happy   This feels like a great spot for infill housing. Not great for adding cars to a busy SFD but doable
 Happy   Keep retail at the ground level and housing above.  30‐40 seems like a lot.  Whether we add any new development, we need better public transportation, and a serious effort to make taking public transportation a more agreeable option than a car.

Attachment C
10  Happy   We need to encourage something on the site of the former garage. Perfect spot‐‐right downtown. But I am worried about any toxins from it having been a garage.  Happy   Under‐utilized and can be a mixed‐use development maintaining retail services with housing above
 Happy   This is along the SFD corridor and is underutilized.  Housing could be developed on this already disturbed site.
 Neutral   This could be a GREAT place for housing provided it also enhances the commercial district.

We SHOULD NOT merely park affordable housing complex(s) on prime commercial property, depriving the rest of the citizens of the immediate use and tax benefits of a well‐developed downtown. Such  projects  also isolate the residents in a very public  ghetto.  Mixed use all the way!  Neutral
 Neutral   More traffic concerns than other sites.
 Neutral   At least this is walking distance to town and the barely existent public transit. However, it is a bad idea to add any more vehicles to an already congested road.  Neutral   Where is the vet going to go?
 Neutral   ok for small number not 30‐40 The number projected is ridiculous  Unhappy   Not into resolving   geologic challenges  ...don't like it. Use land that has none.  Very Unhappy
 Very Unhappy
6 ‐ Fairfax Market ‐ 2040 Sir Francis Drake Blvd
Simulator Stats:
 76% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 22 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 Multi‐family housing units, minimal cars.
 I see a concentration of affordable only overly housing here, to complement Fong Family Hill and the other housing along SFD north side. I have suggested a parking structure across SFD, the top level accessed from SFD, the bottom level accessed from Broadway to minimize the need of parking on this site itself, so the entire area can be landscaped and courtyards. I see that the parking lot adjoining Split Rock is not a candidate ‐ all the more reason to demonstrate Fairfax affordable housing does not always have to have half a site covered with parking lots or the first floor to be a parking lot. Limited commercial retail shops could be on a small portion of the ground floor, along with at least one public bathroom.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   Great site to be redeveloped as pedestrian‐oriented housing and mixed use. The actual Fairfax Market building should be included in this redevelopment site ‐‐ ground floor supermarket with housing above and structured parking in the rear. The Faletti market on Oak in SF does this.  Very Happy   This site is underutilized and should be developed with mixed use buildings. The buildings should be oriented near SFD with commercial use on the ground floor, housing above and parking behind.

Attachment C
11  Very Happy   Maximize housing here and include the actual structure of the market in the footprint.

It should be a ground floor grocery store with housing above...like the Falettis Market in SF  Very Happy   great spot!
 Very Happy   Close to transit. Ideal for a walkable neighborhood and affordable housing, along with the dirt hill next door. A must do.
 Very Happy
 Happy   Good access to amenities, and I have never seen the parking lot full so some can surely be built on.
 Happy   Looks like a good location, but the potential numbers seem high.  This location seems like a good possibility for parking for those who want to go to downtown Fairfax, especially for cyclists and tourists who want to see our unique town ‐ and the parkade is overloaded.  Happy   Good spot to add housing, but even better to make it mixed use. Commercially‐oriented properties have the opportunity to expand/enhance the  downtown village  experience for all (residents, visitors, etc.) by being developed as they were historically, rather than segregated into housing vs. commercial. Large  affordable  housing complexes in highly visible locations become zoos of the poor.  Much better to make the space accessible and welcoming to all.  Happy   Parking out oversized and never full. Excellent location to services and densifying commercial areas protects surrounding hills
 Happy   Though there are entry and exit challenges, there are other housing units in the back of the lot
 Happy   This is another eyesore and would be good for housing.  Happy
 Neutral   Need to make sure this wouldn't hurt Fairfax Market business.  Neutral
 Neutral   Concerns:  Traffic.  Market could lose business during construction and impact jobs.

Although when completed could enhance business.
 Neutral   40 units is too many
 Very Unhappy
 What does this mean………The parking lot is somewhat under‐utilized but portions would still be preserved for a shared parking arrangement.
 I park next to the dirt mound when I shop and there are always cars parked around me…  So, I don’t understand the above statement somewhat underutilized…cars don’t need to be crammed in like the San Rafael Trader Joe’s parking lot.  And it’s not easy to pull in and out there. More cars would be unbearable.  Very Unhappy   Can't imagine why this parking lot would be considered.  As long as the market it there, they need all of the parking.  Would dislike the idea of units built above the whole parking lot (it would feel too out of character with the town.)
 Very Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   Leave parking alone
 Very Unhappy   I like having the parking lot available for shopping at Fairfax market  Very Unhappy
 Very Unhappy
Attachment C
12 7 ‐ School Street Plaza  ‐ 6‐12 School Street Dr
Simulator Stats:
 88% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 76 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 Density bonuses.
 clustered multi‐family units. problem with program.... less than 60  I'm going to go with 70‐80 units here. As much as I'd like to see maximum density bonuses build up, I know that the owner if fond of the 80‐unit proposal he submitted several years ago. I'd very much like to see this being affordable, but the owner is very hesitant to allow the deed restriction.  At least it is close to town and SFD
Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Happy   Can see the potential for housing here.  Only concern is about current tenants and how they might be accommodated.  Also, always thought this would be a better location for the town hall, police/fire departments to get them out of the flood zone.  Maybe relocate town hall and build apartments over parking where they currently are.
 Happy   Seems like a great use of this space.  I'd give it a very happy if it was able to be done while maintaining the vibe there and the mixed‐use quality of live work spaces.  Happy   Main concern is traffic, that’s potentially an extra 100 plus cars going through downtown everyday
 Happy
 Happy   Extremely underutilized centrally located parcel.  Happy   I do appreciate the Fairfax funky factor at School Street Plaza, and still believe it is the best location for a school ‐ but given current needs and proximity to town this looks like a great option.  Neutral   Seems to be fully used and congested at times. Adding a few more units may work, but not many.
 Neutral   Not great but not horrible. Could be done well. Would require some change to the site to allow cars to enter from side road
 Neutral   Tenants who are already there need to be able to stay!  Neutral   At least it is close to town. But you would be adding more pollution to the creek which is already struggling. Fight the mandate.
 Neutral
 Unhappy   OMG!  Where did you get those numbers?  Yes, it's close to downtown and transit, but what would be the impact on infrastructure?
 Unhappy   Congested area already. If a very small number of units it could be O.K.  Unhappy   100‐140units is too many
 Very Happy   This is a great housing site because it is walkable and bikeable to downtown and transit and other amenities. The buildings on this site are really crappy though ‐‐ it should be torn down and wholly redeveloped into a coherent mixed income housing project that has frontage on Broadway and Merwin to activate the street a bit more. Maybe the rear portions near the ball field and creek could be more deliberately planned as open space to preserve the existing public path.

Attachment C
13  Very Happy   This is a great site for housing. A housing only project will displace valuable commercial tenants and a proposed project should be mandated to include new commercial to replace what is there now.
 Very Happy   The buildings on this site are in terrible condition. The entire site should be redeveloped with new housing that has a better relationship to Broadway, the creek and the ball field. It is a great, walkable location that aligns housing with transportation and GHG goals.  Very Happy   Will eliminate existing illegal residential use and some of the illegitimate  businesses that are an attempt to cover their  actual use as residences on this property.  Very Happy   It is time to redevelop this site into the highest density within town limits. It is close to transit, walking distance from the core downtown and at least one of the structures is near end of life. There is also an open space behind that may be able to be put to better use such as a dog park for a further density bonus. The sizes of units should support a broad spectrum of family sizes of affordable housing to the maximum extent possible.
 Very Happy   This is a great opportunity to improve/enhance what it already there, provided it is done in this manner and not turned into a  cookie cutter  apartment complex. Herald our creative community and offer more like‐minded folks the opportunity to stay here and thrive! Apartments, yes, but live/work, perhaps community workshop space, recording studio, etc. Have the developers improve the inventory of resources the Town has available for recreation opportunities and classes.

Wouldn't it be amazing if we had a music/recording studio, for example, accessible to our residents, young and old alike! THAT is Fairfax!
 Very Happy
 Very Happy   Another eyesore and if anybody has been in Frogs it cries out for demolition.  Very Unhappy   How would you fit that many units there? And does it include parking? The town has been taking away parking for a while and they need to work on infrastructure first to make sure the roads and parking will support a ton of new houses, who will one day be fleeing from a fire together with the rest of us
 Very Unhappy   This place has lots of character and I’d like to see it being used as public plaza with a park or garden, not more buildings. The businesses add to the character of the town  Very Unhappy
8 ‐ Marinda Heights (aka Wall Property)
Simulator Stats:
 49% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 9 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 Require inclusionary housing or surcharges
 absolutely no more housing here!!!!! safety issues.
 This developer already has a lot invested for luxury housing up here. Okay, add a $1,000,000 in affordable housing mitigation fees to each one. They would still get built, and we could have the inclusionary grant funding we to keep people in affordable Fairfax housing. As Michael McIntosh suggested, big homes are going to get built, but only if affordable housing can also be built in our community.

Attachment C
14  Leave open space alone. No one wants this developed if you live here. Too steep, no water, fire issues. Wildlife lives here.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Happy   Good site for homes
 Neutral   I would like to see this property purchased and set aside for open space, undeveloped.  Neutral   Doesn't really solve our issues with regards to housing.  Would prefer it to stay as open space or clustered with open space deeded.
 Unhappy   Would rather see this maintained to serve as a fire break.  Unhappy   This project should be purchased by the town and made perpetual public park property. If this site is listed, the number of units should not be allowed to increase over what has been recently proposed.
 Unhappy   Don't really consider this to be a viable solution for this problem.  People don't want much built here in general and it is mostly hillside property.  Unhappy   build housing in downtown, not sprawled sites.  Unhappy   Building on greenfield sites should be avoided until brownfield redevelopment options are exhausted. Does not seem to be an efficient land use (low number of possible units for its area)  Unhappy   I think the best use for the Wall property is open space, however smaller dwellings than McMansions may work for portions of the land. So much soft money has already been spent that is hard to imagine no housing at all. Maybe a rich celebrity will build one castle on it and place a conservation easement on most of the land. Lots of other people in town have much to say about this land, let them, as long as its just talk, don't count on this land for any help with the RHNA numbers.
 Unhappy   Keep undeveloped
 Unhappy   I don't want greenfield development. But if the housing can be clustered near the existing residences and we can preserve a bunch of it as public open space, that could be okay.  Unhappy   Not affordable housing, and low density. Property should not be allowed to build out along open hills
 Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   Absolutely not! There are ridge tops that can’t be developed up on this property. I live on the street I know how much water comes off that hill. We know how hard it is to get out of the driveway now.
 The lights would absolutely disrupt the wild life up there.  Did you think about how many cars that would add to the environment .. And exiting onto SFD.  Building on this property is like building on Mt. Tamalpais for our town.  Very Unhappy   No no no. This doesn't sound like affordable housing  Very Unhappy   Open space is a precious and limited resource. If the town is really concerned with housing affordability, improving the use of existing developed property, near/on transit lines, is the path. This would just be used to create larger, luxury homes, the opposite of the stated goals! Further, cutting Jolly Hill off from the end of Ridgeway  islands  it and reduces its usability by the public ‐ very few people enter Jolly Hill to walk part way up. Also, the path upwards from Ridgeway to Oak Springs Drive is a local treasure and part of a network of beloved hiking trails.

Attachment C
15  Very Unhappy   With only 10 parcels and 30 units this is never going to be 'affordable' housing.

Would prefer to see development on parcels that already have development. Turn this to open space.
 Very Unhappy   Unless you limit them to tiny houses there is no way this will be affordable housing.  Very Unhappy   This should remain open space. There is no infrastructure to support more population on these hillsides. It is unsustainable. Leave it for the wildlife.  Very Unhappy   The cost to build would be to great, and the hillside is prone to slides  Very Unhappy   Fire escape route is already overburdened. Drainage issues exist today during storms. Also, a potentially hazardous location for fires to start.  Very Unhappy   Very negative environmental cost.
 Very Unhappy   So rich people can get a home? Not in our communities’ interest and does nothing to help middle to low‐income residents find housing.
 Very Unhappy   This property is inappropriate for development, especially those portion  along  the ridgelines.  Trails on the property have been sued for 50+ years for recreation.  Much of the property is visually distinctive when viewed from SFD, Broadway, and many other public areas of town.
 Very Unhappy   Many of us moved to this part of Fairfax because of the natural beauty of this wide‐ open space. It's heaven for hiking, dog walking, and contemplation. More importantly, it's teeming with wildlife that would be displaced should development be permitted. I say,  NO!  please, please, please, no.
 Very Unhappy   The range/quantity of housing units does not justify the change in character of the area.
 Very Unhappy   THE WORST OF THE WORST. YOU PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF ADDING ANY HOUSING TO FAIRFAX ARE NEWCOMER GHOULS. YOUR PLANS ARE DISGUSTING IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD.

WE ALREADY SUFFER FROM INSANE TRAFFIC AND POLLUTION. I PICK UP GARBAGE EVERY DAY BECAUSE ENTITLED NEWCOMERS COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THIS PLACE. JAMMING MORE PEOPLE IN HERE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE HAVE TO EVACUATE?! WE'D BE DEAD BEFORE GETTING OUT OF TOWN AS IS. WHY NOT LOAD UP CASCADE CANYON SOME MORE? #DANGEROUS  I can't believe after all this time there hasn't been an EIR.  An Environmental Impact Report would need to be conducted concurrent with any development application due to the geotechnical, fire, water availability and storm drainage challenges present on the site. Also, as a 15 year resident of Fairfax, my gut reaction to McMansions on the hill is ‐ NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!  People with big houses generate way more vehicular traffic than your average homeowner or renter.  We don't need more gardeners, nannies, housekeepers, home construction and handyman cars and trucks adding to the SFD congestion.  This should NEVER be developed as with all wild open space in our area. Too steep, narrow streets, no water, animals live there. Fight the mandate. 9 ‐ Deer Park Villa ‐ 367 Bolinas Rd
Simulator Stats:
 53% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 18 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 eco housing multi‐family units clustered.

Attachment C
16  Leave this gem alone.
 Too much traffic congestion already downtown.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   This would be a wonderful location. Please plan for some tiny houses with tiny yards.  Happy   Good location. Should be better used.
 Happy   Traffic constraints aside, good use of space
 Happy   Sounds like easy to develop this property
 Happy   Good location for housing.
 Neutral   Adding density in this area seems challenging given deer park's narrow streets and one‐ way in/on Bolinas. Though, maybe a good site for a couple single family houses  Neutral   Feel it is a historic site for Fairfax but can see that maybe some housing could be built to replace the onsite current housing to provide some additional units without overly impacting the site.  Transportation is more of an issue, but there is plenty of onsite parking.  Neutral   Maybe a good location for single family houses, but too isolated in a fire zone.  Neutral
 Unhappy   This would be a good site if not for it creating a more dangerous exiting strategy on Bolinas Road in an emergency event.
 Unhappy   This site is the furthest from public transportation and schools, and also far from in town shopping amenities. Thus, it would have the greatest impact on traffic since the residents would rely on motor vehicle transportation for many basic needs.
 Unhappy   That would just make me sad to see it go and I shudder to think about the battles from all the neighbors.
 Unhappy   Bolinas road will need to be widened toward the center of town. Parklets will need to be removed.
 Unhappy   Deer Park Villa is an under‐appreciated treasure. It's a wonderful space for events and/or meals. Some workforce/employee housing is great, but that end of town is basically a suburb (SF housing only, no amenities) and this could be more than it is, in terms of serving the community.

Dare to dream? What about an event space/restaurant/workforce housing AND a community pool?! Can you imagine how vibrant that would be in summer? Like a mini T&C club back in the day...  Unhappy   Better locations in the downtown core, scale needed won't fit within neighborhood  Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   Iconic family heritage land.
 Very Unhappy   Too many housing already located here. No public transit. Too close to wild lands  Very Unhappy   No.
 Very Unhappy   It is crazy to think that this property could be redeveloped into 30‐70 housing units.

If it is ever sold, and redevelopment is considered, only a small neighborhood of less than 10 units.

But DPV is a town treasure, so it should not be on the list this time.  Very Unhappy   For access reasons pointed out.
 Very Unhappy   It wouldn’t fit in the character of the neighborhood, deer park Villa is very much alive and a part of the community
 Very Unhappy   It would destroy the quiet nature of the neighborhood, and add traffic to an already constricted street.  There is already a strain on the nearby streets as more people drive to access the Attachment C
17 trails at Deer Park.  It would also require the destruction of several large heritage redwood and oak trees.
 Very Unhappy   THAT YOU WOULD EVEN SUGGESTION THIS LOCATION IS TRULY UNCONSCIONABLE.

YOU CUT DOWN TRESS AS IF THEY DON'T MATTER TO OUR SURVIVAL. THIS IS TRULY CRIMINAL. AND

DON'T MIND THE ANIMALS WHO LIVE HERE ALREADY, JUST GRAB EVERYTHING DOLLAR YOU CAN AT THE EXPENSE OF PEOPLE WHO WERE BORN HERE. NO MIND ABOUT US. 10 ‐ Former Pancho Villas ‐ 1625 Sir Francis Drake Blvd Simulator Stats:
 84% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 6 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 multi‐family units, no cars
 There will be a fair amount of pressure to keep this development 2 floors or less. As it is so close to transit, AB1763 density bonuses can apply to minimize parking requirements. I think this site is ideal to be included in the affordable housing overlay district and also be allowed to have residential uses on the ground floor.
 At least it is close to town and SFD. But the area is already congested  I live on Willow Ave. I have huge concerns re building at the intersection of Willow and SFD. This is an already congested intersection with cars/bikes/pedestrians. On a regular basis I see cars driving too fast to get through the intersection or turning when there are pedestrians in the walkway.

Increasing housing here with 3 sights (!!) seems crazy. I am on the WIllow Firewise Committee and we already have evacuation concerns getting onto SFD since Willow borders open space and is a narrow winding road with only one way out.  Adding multiple housing at this location will make it very difficult if not deadly in the event of a fire for folks trying to get out.  I am very opposed to increasing housing in this location.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   What an incredible location for the residents to be able to walk across the street to the Good Earth! Curious about parking ‐ perhaps these units could multiple stories with parking garage under them?
 Very Happy   Great idea!
 Very Happy   Perfect property and location for small housing project.  Very Happy   The location makes sense, and the number of units seems reasonable.  Just don't forget to mandate adequate parking.
 Very Happy   Good spot for housing, but it would be great to include some commercial use on the ground floor.
 Very Happy   Empty commercial space for years and along primary road which already is developed.

Density preserves open space
 Very Happy   It would be the ideal location for new and affordable housing in Fairfax. Centrally located with immediate access to public transit. I can't think of a better area in town.  Very Happy   Property is vacant and perfect for housing.  The entire property is a two‐parcel property on the corner.

Attachment C
18  Very Happy
 Happy   Improving this would make a better gateway into town, but it is such a busy intersection ‐‐ maybe better for commercial uses or commercial with some upstairs apartments or commercial on SFD and housing on Belle
 Happy   Sir Francis Drake is so busy. Maybe part of the site could be reserved for some commercial to provide a buffer to the housing.
 Happy   Seems very reasonable site for housing
 Happy   Ideal for housing or multi‐use. Close to transit, walkable. However, since it is right along an egress route, special consideration should be made to evaluate whether or not the site may benefit rapid egress somehow.
 Happy
 Happy
 Happy   Proximity to downtown, stores etc, walkable. Underused.  Neutral   If housing was built here, I wouldn't feel strongly one way or another if no more than two stories.
 Neutral   I don't know where people would park if there were 10 units here. I think some units here would be nice but I would like to see some thought put into parking in this neighborhood.  Neutral   Seems like a small property to develop
 Neutral   Really small for the disruption building would create.  Neutral
 Unhappy   This is a town gateway site that would better serve the town with commercial or public uses.
 Unhappy   In the book on Fairfax history produced by the Sagars, this building is noted as an historic tavern called Reception back in the 1920's. Can someone check on its historic significance?  Unhappy   Traffic at this corner was significantly effected by the opening of good earth.  Increasing housing at this site will cause significant traffic issues both during construction and once occupied.  Very Unhappy   Try to pull out onto SFD now. It’s crazy.. And people are working from home ???  Very Unhappy
11 ‐ O'Donnell's Nursery ‐ 1700 Sir Francis Drake Blvd
Simulator Stats:
 69% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 9 units suggested Comments:
 multi‐family units, no automobiles
 Ditto Pancho Villa here. Bigger site, easier to blend in height so more units.  Traffic already is terrible. We should support small family‐owned business and reject the mandate by the developer lobby.
 I live on Willow Ave. I have huge concerns re building at the intersection of Willow and SFD. This is an already congested intersection with cars/bikes/pedestrians. On a regular basis I see cars driving too fast to get through the intersection or turning when there are pedestrians in the walkway.

Increasing housing here with 3 sights (!!) seems crazy. I am on the WIllow Firewise Committee and we already have evacuation concerns getting onto SFD since Willow borders open space and is a Attachment C
19 narrow winding road with only one way out.  Adding multiple housing at this location will make it very difficult if not deadly in the event of a fire for folks trying to get out.  I am very opposed to increasing housing in this location.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   We have to explore all options to reach the RHNA numbers, and this site is ideal for a good size chunk. Multi‐use ground floor may not be very attractive for any business, so rezone to allow ground use multi‐family sounds good. Affordable sounds better.  Happy   Could make a better gateway into town and give Mr. O’Donnell some retirement savings.  Happy   Great opportunity to improve the entrance to Willow with housing next to transit.  Happy   OK for housing but also important to anchor some additional commercial uses to widen the downtown.
 Happy   Good spot right downtown‐‐flat for the most part.  I would miss the nursery. The ingress and egress are a bit tricky. Hope nothing gets built on the hill.  Happy   Primary access to services, underutilized area within core of town  Happy   Great location
 Neutral   If the owner is open to putting a few units onsite and would still be able to maintain the business, I am not opposed.
 Neutral   Good location for public transportation access, but 20 units seems too much.  Neutral   parking and traffic need to be considered here.  Neutral
 Neutral   Another small property but why not.
 Neutral
 Unhappy   Love this nursery‐ I'd be sad to see it go, but it is a good spot.  Unhappy   I'd be sad to see it go, but it os a good spot, once you deal with the traffic complications.  Unhappy   I live across the street, and I love the nursery. Willow Ave is the entry way for hundreds of homes. This will make it much more challenging for people to evacuate from up the hill, and make it much harder for me to even turn into my driveway. Plus no one wants construction next door.  Unhappy   The school also uses the brown church. School makes use of parking lots to full capacity at peak times. Note traffic flow patterns also, Marinda Dr and driveway exit.  A before, after school, summer camp Thunder blast also uses part if the space. The site also includes the St Vincent’s food cupboard and financial assistance for low‐income community members. The church also (pre covid) filled lots on weekends for funerals, events, meetings, weddings. Deer Park also did more events pre covid. Are we pushing out any community, business establishments for housing? Are we diminishing anything that makes Fairfax, Fairfax? Covid has affected some sites, businesses, so a correct reading may not be available. Marin Town and Country Club was not one the first list. Another historic site.

Again, traffic concerns. But owner could help if there were less restrictions. Work force housing is easy to tout, but how many high paying jobs are there in Fairfax? We cannot legally match residents with Fairfax jobs. Odds are all family members will Not be working in Fairfax. Just what prices would a new residence rent for? Are they apartments, condos, purchased homes? What realistic percentage of Fairfax jobs can cover expenses? What percentage of people actually will work in Fairfax when we use this catch phrase?  Work force . Sounds good, but realistic or history? No control where people work…or change jobs out of area. Saying housing on or near school site can be for teachers is probably just not true or equal opportunity for all. How affordable are these new Attachment C
20 homes?  Or are we more realistically just adding more housing at market rates. Have we identified every buildable lot in Fairfax, hills, etc. that will eventually be built and what will future traffic impacts be on those alone? Maybe we should just show availability, not construction. How will traffic through Fairfax, San Anselmo and cities to corridors hwy 101 be effected? What growth, traffic can be expected from over White’s Hill in the next 50‐100 years? What effect would Fairfax suffer if San Geronimo built 500‐3000 housing units in all that open valley floor? Could state  force them ? After we added 500+.There needs to be a County wide discussion (with city leaders and state) to connect all cities with a maximum traffic plan. We live in valleys that can only handle so much. Should the main corridor of Sir Francis Drake be retail and service related over housing? Retail (and correct retail) is what keeps our town alive, keeps community, character the character of the town, connection and consistent styles of structures. State and developers should not dictate our town. At minimum housing should be placed over retail for new construction in the main business areas. Identify historic buildings, homes, structures. Conduct traffic studies, include future growth. Calculate current population and what percentage are we adding within a few years.

Population count will grow 2‐3 times the amount of unit’s proposed. This also means cars. Don’t assume people will take public transportation. Unfortunately current public transportation is not time effective, can not always get to every destination, people can not easily shop, bring multiple things home in a single trip, especially with multiple stops. Not as safe as private transportation.

Does not offer personal space and other issues. Fairfax does not offer everything needed to shop in town or complete with chain stores. School street plaza is probably best… could even be designed to mimic original large school structure. High enough from flood zone to build underground parking.

However, why did the presenter not identify each property? At least some. Many properties are zoned other than residential. Are we just willy‐nilly rezoning to meet housing numbers? Are we following years of work on general plan? How much say will residents really have vs state? What limits can we put on structures, height, etc? Water and other issues. Traffic, evacuation. Will more traffic effect cars coming off hills, or will hills become gridlock because lower surface roads are stopped? What are quality of life and other issues connected to types, designs of housing? Input survey from police, fire. Fire department responds to senior housing almost daily. What impacts will they have? What impacts will 1000+ people have on Fairfax? Will state be asking for 500 more units in ten years? Again and again? We must set limits unless something else changes. Will extreme population shifts mean higher taxes to schools for bonds to increase schools and other services? Biggest concerns ‐ Survey… was no button for  all of the above .  Very Unhappy   So where do we buy plants without a proper nursery? Fairfax lumber is not a real nursery. Do we have to drive to San Rafael and Kentfield to find a nursery?  Very Unhappy   This is a town gateway site that would better serve the town with commercial or public uses.
 Very Unhappy   Traffic at this corner was significantly affected by the opening of good earth.

Increasing housing at this site will cause significant traffic issues both during construction and once occupied.  Also, this would cause backups on willow which is the only egress for hundreds of households.
 Very Unhappy   Ingress and Egress from this location will congest an intersection that already has issues. This traffic signal is a major point of congestion. It is also ridiculous to consider that any of these residents will use the almost nonexistent bus service.  We should also be supporting businesses like these. Small Family‐Owned businesses.

Attachment C
21  Very Unhappy   Major traffic issues today at the intersection of SFD, Willow and Pastori  Very Unhappy   Bad Idea. This intersection is already a major chokepoint and area of mass congestion. The residents of this neighborhood should be in charge of this decision. Not developers nor our weak town government. You are going to paralyze traffic on SFD and make life miserable for all current residents of the area.
 Very Unhappy   DISPLACING BUSINESS THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR DECADES IS GHOULISH. 12 ‐ Eastside Commercial
Simulator Stats:
 75% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 11 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 I can really only see one site along this area, that is the car wash. I think a courtyard apartment might fit, again utilizing density bonuses, affordable overlay and minimum parking because its so close to transit. I think offering the developer some type of additional bonus if emergency evacuation vehicles are garaged there may be a good idea. And not just with this site. Special needs housing usually has a fleet of paratransit, which is also addressed in AB1763, and this site, as well as School St, O’Donnell’s may be suitable candidates for this bonus with an incentive for the fleet to have excessive capacity to evacuate other residents, too.  I live on Willow Ave. I have huge concerns re building at the intersection of Willow and SFD. This is an already congested intersection with cars/bikes/pedestrians. On a regular basis I see cars driving too fast to get through the intersection or turning when there are pedestrians in the walkway.

Increasing housing here with 3 sights (!!) seems crazy. I am on the Willow Firewise Committee and we already have evacuation concerns getting onto SFD since Willow borders open space and is a narrow winding road with only one way out.  Adding multiple housing at this location will make it very difficult if not deadly in the event of a fire for folks trying to get out.  I am very opposed to increasing housing in this location. (I would like to add that some of the increased housing numbers could be gotten by discouraging so many air bnb's in our town. Also give amnesty to people who have created illegal 2nd units and creative ways for them to upgrade if necessary.) Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   The location and number of units seems reasonable.  Again, please include adequate parking.
 Very Happy   Great to add upper floor housing with ground floor commercial.  Very Happy   I like that this one is very centralized and will have less impact on commute time traffic in Fairfax. I would like thoughtful consideration for the current tenants and business owners.  Happy   Good walkable location, but development should be accompanied by a streetscape improvement to widen the sidewalks. Also, it may be nice to reserve some space in the zoning for small scale neighborhood commercial so this side of town has a corner store or other retail for quick stops.
 Happy   This area needs better sidewalks to support making it a walkable corridor. Maybe allow for ground floor retail so that the neighborhood could have a corner market that doesn’t require them to go all the way to town ‐‐ this could reduce car trips Attachment C
22  Happy   I like the idea of a redo of housing above some retail in this area  Happy   Whatever happens here, allowing for the widening of SFD should be compulsory, this stretch is a major bottleneck for evacuation, the parking along this stretch should be restricted during red‐flag warnings. The car wash is a prime site for and apartment building and should help get parking off the street. Some type of rezoning with a mix of housing and neighborhood‐oriented retail may work here. I think other business uses hurt the rest of the community as this is the main route out of town.
 Happy   It would be a better use of the property to have housing  Neutral
 This area could be appropriate for apartments if no higher than two stories.  Neutral   Lots of missing details on how this could happen.  Neutral   Seems reasonable.  Y'all could make it easier for we respondents if you let us get back into the line for comments without having to go back to the beginning and scroll down 14 times.  Also, I can't see where I've already commented.
 Neutral
 Neutral
 Unhappy   This construction would be next door to my house. I get that no one wants it in their backyard. But I have to chime in if they’re going to!
 Unhappy   I am concerned with the egress on willow and believe development on the parcels on the north east corner of Willow and SFD would cause significant traffic issues.  Very Unhappy   This area should be developed with public and commercial uses  Very Unhappy
13 ‐ Fair‐Anselm Shopping Center Site ‐ 701‐760 Sir Francis Drake Site Simulator Stats:
 76% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 42 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 Multi‐family units, business street level. no autos.
 I cannot envision a housing project here without it being  five floors , so based on what I know about the building and its owners, that is what I'll plug in. Again, additional incentive to garage and evacuation transit fleet.
 The height restrictions in the Fair‐Anselm site should be raised (not as an exception in response to requests vis a vis state‐mandated density bonuses) to accommodate additional units.  At least it is close to town and SFD.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   This seems like an easy win if it is flat, has good access, and developers are interested.

Maximize the # of units! Consider including the post office site and incorporating a replacement post office.

Attachment C
23  Very Happy   This seems like an easy win for actually achieving new housing, if a developer is interested and the site is well located. Good opportunity to better connect the Good Earth with downtown fairfax with a more pleasant uses along the street.  Very Happy   This area seems like a great spot to start getting our numbers up!  Needs more detail.

Also‐ parking lot...couldn't we add more above the parking lot with parking below buildings at Drake Blvd. level?
 Very Happy   Great spot for some housing, along with commercial! That end of Fairfax is very auto‐ oriented, a terrible use of prime real estate in close proximity to downtown and transit.  Very Happy   This site has so much potential but I really think sticking to the side of the road with iron springs and the laundry matt. I don't think it would be wise to build on the side with the good earth parking lot, parking is very limited in this area sometimes.  Very Happy   This site makes a lot of sense and is underutilized… low impact / big potential‐ especially if could be connected with adjacent portions of The Town and Country parcel right behind it.
 Very Happy   I would love to see commercial business on the street ground level and housing in back and above.
 Happy   Now that I'm almost to the end, I'm exhausted, and thinking of the accumulation of units by now is mortifying.  With all these additional units, Fairfax will look more like L.A. than Fairfax.  And I shout to the rooftops for all of these sites:  INCLUDE ADEQUATE FIRE, POLICE, TRANSPORTATION, SEWAGE, WASTE MANAGEMENT, PARKING, AND OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES.  How will these added units affect our schools, and what will be the increased demand for public services?  Happy   This is definitely a candidate for ugliest commercial building. It is a relic from another age.

Figure out where to relocate the brewery and redevelop the site. Close to transit, walkable, and well suited for multi‐use.
 Happy   Underutilized shop fronts, but maybe an issue with toxins due to the dry‐cleaning chemicals leak?  Anyways, right downtown and flat.
 Happy
 Happy   Underutilized commercial zone   allows town to densify and keep growth from destroying surrounding open space
 Happy
 Happy   Walking distance to downtown. A lot of empty spaces. Close to shops.  Neutral   This area needs to continue with a commercial zone. If this site can be mandated as mixed use, I would be in favor of it.
 Neutral   Good location but what happens to the businesses?  Neutral   So long as development does not exceed 2 stories ‐ maybe commercial on 1st floor ‐ and as long as it provides/opens up creek access.
 Unhappy   Unless there is a way to add apartments over the existing businesses, I can't see adding housing in these areas.  The parking space is too critical and covered parking is out of character for the town.
 Unhappy   Too many units. Where would they park? Please don't take away our parking. And please don't make it any more than 2 stories,
 My main concern with any new development is traffic, especially during a fire. We would all be dead stuck in traffic trying to get out of town. So send the message to the state roads dept and tell them Attachment C
24 that the roads infrastructure needs to be improved to accommodate the number of residents prior to increasing the number of residents trying to escape a potential fire.  Unhappy   I like having this as commercial property
 Very Unhappy
14 ‐ Town and Country ‐ 40 Pastori Ave
Simulator Stats:
 84% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 166 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 eco housing clusters, no autos.   community garden patch  This number is only to make the simulator more workable, actual number is zero. I do not think housing at this site will be expanded this time around, either. The actual location of the housing units listed here: Existing ADUs which are added by way of legalizing them by having a in‐town housing official ferret them out, by controlling and occupancy tax on AirBnB and listing applicable AirBnB JADU as housing units toward this RHNA cycle. New home construction scattered around town we could anticipate based on past interest. Adding sites as in the comments About 80 units total.
 So long as this remains in private hands, further consideration of this site is a waste of time.  There is no room for more traffic here. It is a flood zone and this area should be a public park.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   The historic anti‐development sentiment is why we are in a housing crisis. If this site can be developed safely and without impacting the health of the creek, then it should be included. It is walkable to downtown and amenities, including transit, and the owner seems interested in finding a development partner. I’d love to see the historic site, but as is, it’s behind a locked gate. Would be great to have connections to Pastori and Pacheco and walking paths/stairs up to Forrest.  Very Happy   As stated, this feels like THE golden ticket in Fairfax's Affordable Housing conundrum.

This is a premier location for a tiny home village. They could even be tiny homes on wheels and have a lottery for folks to be able to build/bring their tiny home into the village. I sure hope this finally gets utilized to its potential.
 Very Happy   Assuming it can be developed to avoid impacts to the creek, this site seems like the best chance to provide realistic housing site options. It is walkable to transit and downtown, so housing here would help with climate transportation goals. The only way to address housing affordability and access is to allow more housing at all levels, including on central sites like these.  Very Happy   As described this is the premier location for development as long as distance from the 100‐year floodplain is accounted for.  I think the city should be pursuing this property as the number one option for additional housing.  The size, flatness, and location close to town are ideal for infill.

Also, not being directly on Sir Francis Drake is a positive think I think because the street is busy, noisy, and unpleasant.
 Very Happy   It's time! It's time!
Attachment C
25  Very Happy   This site has long been known to rent substandard dwellings and could better serve as an affordable living, and elderly dwelling site all within walking distance to downtown businesses and services.
 Very Happy   The scale allows for condensed housing development within the core of town with easy access to services. Maintains the surrounding hills and environment  Very Happy   This has been underutilized for at least the 40 years I have lived in Fairfax. It is perfect for housing, close to stores, transportation and downtown. It is time to turn this property into housing.
 Happy   Good location. This land should serve more people.  Happy   This site has great historical cultural value to the Town of Fairfax. Development should be allowed with the condition that the developer restore existing buildings and adjacent land to become public uses.
 Happy   Something needs to happen here.  It has the potential to be a model project for flood issues, housing issues, public recreation issues and urban wildlife.  Needs a thoughtful, caring development plan for me to be  very happy  about it.  But the numbers look promising.  Happy   But NOT 450 units, unless you include a helicopter pad to get people in and out of there.

And please, please, please, with any of these developments, include green space and landscaping.  Happy
 Happy   It would be great to see something done here that also served the greater community and honored the roots of this place, which was an anchor for Fairfax. Don't care much about adding more market rate single family houses for sale, but apartments, along with getting Fairfax A SWIMMING POOL AGAIN would be nice. Perhaps some event space and short‐term rentals for visitors too? T&C Club lives again?!
 Happy
 Happy   This site might make a lot of sense if partially re‐developed along with and connected to denser redevelopment of parcel 13 adjacent.
 Neutral   I can see that it might be possible to add housing here if they are smaller units.  There would obviously need to be better bridges to the site.  I would like to see much of the open field preserved, and maybe it could become a public park along with the housing added.  Really, after all of these years I have little hope for anything meaningful to happen here so housing may be the best option after all, especially if it is affordable and available to local residents/seniors.  I would like to see as much of the historic part of the property preserved as possible, but maybe some of it is too far gone at this point to really save it unless the current owner can make some money to reinvest in these parts of the property.
 Neutral   It is a wildlife refuge currently, also great memories as a resort open to the public.  Neutral   If you widened Center ave I might feel more positive.  Neutral   It is absolutely over the top crazy to think 450 units would fit here. There is already housing at this site and a net gain is unlikely, since if the referendum is ever overturned, it would almost certainly become upscale housing only. This site should not be on the inventory list at all.  Neutral   I would be interested in supporting the thoughtful redevelopment of this site if it were owned by the town or county. I am not sure the current landowner has upheld the current units in a good condition. We do not want our low‐income housing in the hands of someone who doesn't thoughtfully manage the property. I would love to see this site bought up by the county and turned into low‐income housing land trust with a community garden site, and restoration of the Attachment C
26 neighboring creek. The one bridge in and out is a huge problem. But this site could even strategically connect the fair anselm property so that all of the units have easy access to a community garden or park area.
 Neutral
 Neutral   I would support some development that is along the side of the property farthest from the creek, provided that it is out of the flood plain and is low‐income housing.  The existing dilapidated low‐income housing should be removed and the occupants given priority for any new low‐income housing.  If developed there should be protected parklands along the creek/floodplain and public access to it.  The property does have historical value for Fairfax and while the buildings seem too far gone to save, this historical value should be preserved in some meaningful way  Unhappy   this one has the lower impact on gridlock in event of emergency.  Unhappy   Do not use, historical
 Unhappy   I would worry about existing tenants and historical buildings being displaced. If the existing buildings with tenants were refurbished and became deed‐restricted affordable housing, with modest addition of deed‐restricted affordable units, with the rest open space or public amenities, that would be great. But I think the owner wants to make a lot of profit off of this parcel so I doubt there will be affordable housing uses for this one. Not up for it being covered in luxury condos. It should be a school or something.
 Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   This should be a park. It is in a flood zone and ingress/egress is limited. No more vehicle traffic should be added to an already congested area. There is NO ROOM for more cars on our roads.
 Very Unhappy   Unless the entry and exit issue is solved (new bridge on Pastori, and exit from the rear of the property it is unworkable. With that the traffic issue would be significant unless it was majority senior/senior assisted living.
 Very Unhappy   This should be made into a public park. It is a flood zone, ingress/egress are a problem. This area does NOT need any more cars. Traffic is terrible in Fairfax already. Fight the mandate.
 Very Unhappy   I’d like to see this as public recreational area for Fairfax, not housing. It is the one chance for the town to have a public space for sports, pool, park, close to town.  Very Unhappy   Environmental costs‐ these are seasonal wetlands.  The  legal proceeding  wording in the proposal seems like a veiled threat to override existing zoning.  Very Unhappy   VILE THAT YOU WOULD DISPLACE HUMANS FROM THEIR HOMES. 15 ‐ Jolly Hill – (there was only an option to say yes to this site via comment) Simulator Comments:
 Leave as open space
 I think we could have multi‐family units along the base of the hill.  Jolly Hill is an important open space, do not develop.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Happy   Seems like a good spot adjacent to downtown.  Needs more detail.  Neutral
Attachment C
27  Unhappy   Can't really see developing this hillside for the few units that could be added.  Unhappy   Bad traffic area already. Very scary.
 Unhappy   Keep as open space
 Unhappy
 Unhappy
 Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   Walk down SFD and admire the beauty of the Hill..  Very Unhappy   This site is too prominent within the Town landscape. This site is far too valuable in the psyche of The Town and should NOT be developed.
 Very Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   An important open space we all notice any day we are downtown. It is really too steep to yield any meaningful contribution to housing, and actually may even be hazardous.  Very Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   We should not be using open space. This site is also very prone to landslides and seems like a silly place to build.
 Very Unhappy   The hillside is too steep. The hills should remain open. Those trees should not be cut down. No new development on hillsides or ridgelines.  No room for more cars on SFD.  Very Unhappy   stop developing our open spaces
 Very Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   Absolutely not! Protect open space and parks! 16 ‐ Central Commercial
Simulator Stats:
 69% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 14 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 Look, there has been no new construction since housing element zero, I doubt this housing element will change that
 upstairs apartments and condos, no autos.
 I'm going to focus on the recently burned‐out dry cleaners’ site here. Transit corridor bonuses, very least parking, affordable overlay. Next door to a two‐story building with some nice trees. This is the only CC site I would acknowledge. Note, not a single new structure has been built in the core districts since the first housing element ‐ we finally have our first chance ‐ let’s make it count!  The height restrictions in Central Commercial should be raised (not as an exception in response to requests vis a vis state‐mandated density bonuses) to accommodate additional units. A mere 24 units for this enormous parcel is obviously insufficient, especially given that all of these units, due to close proximity to public transport, could be built with minimal need for additional parking. It’s already cramped and I don’t think we can get enough houses to justify disruption to town and flow  Adding any height to the downtown area would forever change the character of Fairfax. Strongly opposed to this.

Attachment C
28 Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   I'd like to see more housing options like apartments over ground floor retail in 3‐5 story buildings ‐‐ it allows for more of a car‐free existence in Marin and Downtown Fairfax is one of the few that offer enough amenity options for someone to live car free. It seems like you could get more than 30 units downtown, especially if the Bank of America, Rino Gas, Fairfax Inn, Sorella, French Laundry, and 85 Bolinas building could be redeveloped. Would be great if the houses on Mono could add ADUs or four plexes that have frontages along Center Street to make a more cohesive streetscape between the movie theater and Fair‐Anselm. Consider including the Waystation site in case the restaurant fails. Bolinas needs wider sidewalks though ‐‐ remove the on‐ street parking on Bolinas.
 Very Happy   Absolutely every commercial space in town, if they have an upstairs not being utilized, ought to be required to have their space be upgraded (with costs subsidized by town or state affordable housing unit funds) to be eligible to be an affordable housing site.  Very Happy   Downtown should allow 3‐5 story buildings with ground floor retail and apartments above. 30 units seems very low ‐‐ Sorella, 85 Bolinas, the Bank of America, the laundry mat, the Rino Gas, the dry cleaner, and the Fairfax Inn all seem like great opportunities to redevelop as higher‐ quality buildings with ground floor commercial with housing above. It would be interesting to see ADUs with stoops along Center between Pacheco and the Post Office as a way to link Downtown with the Fair Anselm. Include the Waystation parcel.
 Very Happy   Do it!  It will be great.
 Very Happy   Yes! It's time! Downtown has so many  For Lease  buildings anyway  Very Happy   This is a prime location for second story housing! The concerns echoed above should be concerns for ANY housing added in commercial locations throughout town, i.e. careful integration into the fabric, pedestrian/transit focus, enhancement and protection of public amenities.
 Very Happy   Location is close to public transit
 Happy   Bank of America is closing. That's a goodly chunk of space. The French Laundry is burned now, and the offices next door seem underutilized. Those spots could be good for housing above retail or offices, or just housing. Maybe the Town could dedicate that little strip of parking near the Way Station for non‐profit affordable housing or artist housing through ArtSpace or something?  Happy
 Neutral   Only support housing here that can be added without changing the historic character of the town.  Maybe there are upstairs units that are businesses that could become residential?  There are a few buildings that might support a second story that don't currently have one (1830 SF Drake Blvd used to have a second story but it burnt down.)  There are some historic buildings (in terms of Fairfax historic) that I would want to be assured would not be torn down.  Is there a way to identify second story only additions and not make the whole property available to tear down?  Parking is also the main issue here though.  It is already tough to find parking, and I often shop out of town for this reason.  I mainly only support the eating establishments anyway, as most of the other shops are not selling the kind of things I need to buy at this stage in my life.  Neutral   May have the potential for some units but not as much potential as some of the other sites. I do think it would be of value to look into the unused potential in this area but some of the Attachment C
29 other sites have more potential. I also think that parking is a problem in this area and would need to be part of the plan.
 Neutral
 Neutral
 Unhappy   All of this zone should be required to maintain commercial or public uses at the ground floor.

Unhappy   Let’s stay away from downtown changes. It’s already cramped and I don’t think we can get enough houses to justify disruption to town and flow  Unhappy   Except for the recently burned‐out dry cleaners, when was the last time a new building was built here? This IS the Fairfax everyone would agree IS Fairfax. Get real, none of the property owners here will add any housing. Several of the owners could and have kept perfectly good housing off the market. Commission Newton once proposed a penalty for withholding housing from the market, this is the epitome of that. Even the dry cleaner site has several heritage trees adjoining it and could only fit so much housing, but somehow ground floor housing could be allowed on the site if an affordable requirement was satisfied.
 Unhappy   No place to park downtown now. Fine to have apartments over the businesses but not tearing up the downtown.
 Unhappy   Undoubtedly there are some opportunities for adding infill housing, but replacing or altering existing buildings likely would significantly affect the character of the downtown.  Unhappy
 Unhappy   Lack of downtown parking, especially with recent 'bump outs ' makes this complicated.

Perhaps the few sites with potential can apply through the ADU/JADU process.  Very Unhappy   Lack of parking, already congested with cars  Very Unhappy
 Very Unhappy   This would change the character of the town. It would affect so many businesses, it would be a tough work to figure out each parcel and work out the details. Too complicated and wouldn’t give a lot of units?
 Very Unhappy
 Unless you can build live/work space for the folks who live here, with commercial on the ground floor.  But what about parking?
Accessory Dwelling Units (across town)
Simulator Stats:
 63% of submissions selected housing units for this site with an average of 63 units suggested Simulator Comments:
 Most ADU sites do not have safe fire access, I think it would not be wise to rely too much on new ADUs
 Future ADU/JADU should only be permitted in neighborhoods with more than one way out.

California Fire Code Appendix D should be adopted by Town Council independent of the Safety Element, which eliminates any further units being added to one way out neighborhoods. SB9 would have an affordable housing check and balance this way. 50 moderate ADU is a reasonable number for the remaining neighborhoods which have more than one existing way out.

Attachment C
30  ADUs, unless permitted only within walkable range of public transport, are only going to increase traffic and parking issues. They should not play a significant role in this plan.

Website responses (How do you feel about this site being selected?)  Very Happy   I think we all know, there are countless properties with illegal ADUs throughout Fairfax.

Bringing these above board and waiving all the fees, being sure to promote this amnesty to the public with a banner in town, etc. would address SO many of our housing unit needs!  Very Happy   Great thing to encourage and assist. Also helps non‐wealthy homeowners so it increases affordability in two ways ‐ win/win!
 Very Happy   Makes housing more affordable for owners because some of the mortgage can be offset by renting the ADU.
 Very Happy   I like the idea of allowing development on existing developed properties. I think Fairfax needs its own land trust (like CLAM) to assure that units are available for our low‐income residents.  Very Happy   Distributed location of ADUs could be ideal solution.  Very Happy   If you could streamline the process and not create fees that make it impossible for seniors to add an ADU it might have a prayer of helping create housing.  Right now, it is too expensive for anyone but a wealthy person to add an ADU.  Happy   Sure. But how does that help
 Happy   ADUs should form a portion of the plan and could provide a useful number, but private individuals shouldn’t be relied upon to make up for the affordable housing shortfall.  Happy   Lest impact way to add many housing opportunities. High‐density development will change the nature and feel of Fairfax negatively, while relaxed restrictions on ADU/JDU's is a way to allow residents to continue to afford to live here.
 Happy   If a landlord can and wants to build in‐fill housing ‐ let them.  But don't forget parking.  Happy
 Happy   As ADU/JADU addition is voluntary, each homeowner would factor whether the cost/feasibility of an extra unit works for their situation.  Also, as these are 'smaller' units they will hopefully provide housing that is more affordable, or for family members that can no longer afford rent in the area.
 Neutral   Seems like a good option to have in the tool box, but it doesn't seem like we'd get many added units given the topography and cost of construction. Though, for some major whole‐house remodels it could make sense to require ADUs with certain exceptions. We need more constrained density immediately around Bolinas/Broadway in order to justify more high‐capacity transit options that support the town.
 Neutral   These are out there, and there are probably hundreds that could be legalized to meet the quota.  Not sure how to get them legalized though as people are so unclear as to what might be required of them, what added fees they might have to pay, how to add a new one, etc.  Maybe there can be incentives to legalize them by making them 'fee free' if the rental amount makes them meet the 'low income' criteria.
 Neutral   I like the concept, but I don’t think people doing ADU's are doing them for housing...they're making them home offices, extra bedrooms and the like.  This is a great idea with a limited ability to solve the issues at hand.  It can come at the expense of fire/water/egress issues as well in some neighborhoods.  It should be a tool in our tool kit, but it does not solve our issues on housing.  The Attachment C
31 numbers of 100+ seem inflated given what I am seeing from ADU creation within the design/construction field.
 Neutral   Existing ADUs and amnesty units only. Do not rely heavily on new ADU development.

Factor in the affordability and safety elements.
 Neutral    small‐scale landlords are challenged by rental laws.  What does that mean?  Very Unhappy   This is crazy. You must think about evacuation during fires, privacy of neighbors.

Structures shading neighbor’s vegetable gardens. Mass parking on the street. Water, water, water.  If Fairfax made the already illegal ADUs (de facto extra housing units) legal we would have way more than the 490 units we need. Force home owners who have more than the legal limit of people living in their homes (and who are paying them rent) to register those renters as Fairfax residents. The increased number of cars parked on just my street indicates the number of illegal  ADUs  there really are.

Enter your own via comment ‐
Simulator Comments:
 Please ignore all the additional housing units listed for Town and Country, I am only adding there so I can equitably balance and reach 490.
 001‐181‐01 :200 BROADWAY
001‐104‐15:
001‐150‐36 :2398 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD (Fairfax Community Church) 174‐051‐22 :2501 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD
174‐051‐19 :2535 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD
174‐051‐17 :2575 SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD
 There are a few ways additional units I credited to Town and Country could be realized. The current B of A building, downtown, affordable overly, transit bonuses. Maybe 24 more units. Adding about the maximum cap to St Rita school using density bonuses to add another partial floor, 30 more units.
 Make existing nonconforming units legal so we can lower the amount of housing in Fairfax.

Concerns are traffic, water, and population density that will impact the environment.  Adding a floor to selected other sites on this list, such as School St, or making a portion of the property special needs 30 units. I think the minimum unit size needs to be 450 square feet and a representative mix of 1‐2‐3‐4‐bedroom units cannot be ignored and should be written into the overlay requirements. There are low‐income families, not just individuals, so even though RHNA does not differentiate between 1 and 4 bedroom ‐ they all count the same ‐ our society does, so please, allow for the additional square footage units with more than one‐bedroom units will need.  Include Airbnbs
 SB 9 Lot splits‐ 50 units

FAIRFAX PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 16, 2021
1 DRAFT FAIRFAX PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
VIA TELECONFERENCE DUE TO COVID-19
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2021

Call to Order/Roll Call:

Chair Newton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Commissioners Present: Norma Fragoso (in coming Chair)
Robert Jansen
Brett Kelly
Mimi Newton (outgoing Chair)
Cindy Swift
Commissioners Absent: Esther Gonzalez-Parber
Philp Green
Staff Present: Ben Berto, Planning Director

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
M/s, Fragoso/Kelly, motion to approve the agenda as submitted.

AYES: Fragoso, Jansen, Kelly, Swift, Chair Newton
ABSENT: Gonzalez-Parber, Green

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Collin McDonald, owner of the Hen House Brewing Company, stated he looks forward to being a part of the Fairfax community.

ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
M/s, Jansen/Kelly, motion to elect Vice Chair Fragoso as Chair.

AYES: Fragoso, Jansen, Kelly, Swift, Chair Newton
ABSENT: Gonzalez-Parber, Green
M/s, Newton/Kelly, motion to elect Commissioner Swift as Vice Chair.

AYES: Jansen, Kelly, Newton, Swift, Chair Fragoso
ABSENT: Gonzalez-Parber, Green
The Commission thanked Commissioner Newton for her service as Chair.

CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

1. Housing/Safety Element
a. Housing Site Options
b. Housing and Safety Element Update

FAIRFAX PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 16, 2021
2 1. November 20th Workshop

2. Safety Element
Planning Director Berto presented the staff report.

Mr. Andi Flower, representing EMC Planning, gave a PowerPoint presentation that included the following: 1) Housing Sites Inventory Discussion; 2) Housing Element Update; 3) Outreach Update; 4) Changes in Housing Law; 5) Potential Site Review; 6) Table of Potential Sites; 7) Accessory Dwelling Units and SB 9; 8) Draft Initial Affordability Table; 9) Staff Requests for Planning Commission Direction; 10) What is a Housing Element? 11) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA); 12) How many future units? 13) Where are we in the process? 14) Fairfax Speaks.com Engagement; 15) What is the Fairfax Housing Tool? 16) Website Engagement; 17) Future Discussions; 18) November 20, 2021 Website Feedback; 19) Potential Site Review; 20) What is a Site Inventory? 21) Map of Potential Sites; 22) Site 1- White Hill School; 23) Site 2- Portion of Kingdom Hall; 24) Site 3- 10 Olema Road; 25) Site 4- St. Rita’s Church; 26) Site 5- Westside Commercial; 27) Site 6- Fairfax Market; 28) Site 7- School Street Plaza; 29) Site 8- Marinda Heights, (a.k.a. Wall Property); 30) Site 9- Deer Park Villa; 31) Site 10- Former Poncho Villa’s; 32) Site 11- O’Donnell’s Nursery; 33) Site 12- Eastside Commercial; 34) Site 13- Fair Anselm Shopping Center; 35) Site14- Town and Country; 36) Site 15- Jolly Hill; 37) Site 16- Central Commercial Downtown; 38) Accessory Dwelling Units and SB 9; 39) Missing Middle Opportunities; 40) Carriage House/ADU; 41) Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS).

Planning Director Berto and Mr. Flower answered questions about the sites; whether property owners have been contracted and if they able to object; number of participants in the public outreach, impacts from the deletion of parking areas, possible addition of the Bank of America site; if there has been any CEQA assessments for the sites and when this assessment would be done; which of the sites would need rezoning; whether or not property owners are interested; which sites have multiple ownerships; development potential of the Wall property; if the Town was credited against the RHNA numbers for the prior low income units; use of Town owned sites for housing; status of the ingress/egress map; feasibility of tiny homes; the Objective Development and Design Standards (ODDS) in relation to the middle housing concept; if short-term rentals would affect the numbers.

Chair Fragoso opened the Public Hearing.

Ms. Lisle Blash made the following comments:
• She provided comments on the sites on the Website.
• She wanted the Town to be creative.
• She is more concerned about affordability than meeting the RHNA numbers. • It is difficult to make affordable units “pencil out”. There should be incentives.

Chair Fragoso closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Jansen provided the following comments:
• All the sites have potential.
• They are all very different.
• The downtown sites seem to have more potential but are challenging in terms of the impacts. • He did not want to eliminate the Jolly Hill site from study. • The scoring from the Website is based on developing new housing on empty sites. This is only one of the three ways to reach the numbers. Public input on this is important. • Splitting duplexes into fourplexes and converting Airbnb’s represent a potentially large number of units

FAIRFAX PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 16, 2021
3 Commissioner Kelly provided the following comments:
• An important aspect to consider is how a site fits into the fabric of the town- walkability, etc. • It is not just about the numbers.
• The Jolly Hill site should be evaluated but it did not seem to be a viable site.

Commissioner Swift provided the following comments:
• She is concerned about the elimination of parking.
• She is not prepared to give input about the numbers on each of these sites but the minimum capacity for some is too high.
• She agreed Jolly Hill should be on the list.
• Short-term rentals would be a separate discussion.
• The Draft Safety Element does not adequately address risk factors with respect to road widths, the Storm Drain Master Plan, how to make the business community resilient, etc.

The Commission took a 5-minute break at 9:40 p.m.

Commissioner Newton provided the following comments:
• The Town exceeded the RHNA numbers in the last round for lower income units. • The process is backwards- they should be setting goals based on what is in the Safety Element instead of fitting RHNA numbers into the goals.
• She wants to err on the side of affordability.
• It is premature to comment on Jolly Hill.
• She is concerned about the outreach and did not think 40 participants was a relevant data set. • She did not want to put their eggs in the “Town and Country basket” due to the rezoning requirement.
• She would like to see a more comprehensive approach and include components of the Safety Element.
• They need to look at the capacity of the Town to absorb more residents.

Chair Fragoso provided the following comments:
• This is the early stages. There are no designs. They are simply identifying sites. • All the sites should be included for consideration.
• The goal should include equitably available housing including tiny homes, cottages, etc. • She supported the middle housing concept.

Commissioner Swift provided the following comments:
• She is concerned they are not reaching the vast majority of the community. • Community neighborhood-based meetings would provide a deeper data set than the online process.

Chair Fragoso provided the following comments:
• The outreach is more extensive than it appears and is reaching people that would not ordinarily come to a meeting.
• She asked if there was a way to address the immediate neighborhood around an opportunity site.

Planning Director Berto thanked the Commission for their valuable input.

2. Changing the regularly scheduled monthly Planning Commission meeting date Planning Director Berto presented the staff report.

FAIRFAX PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 16, 2021
4 The Commission discussed holding the Commission meetings either the second or fourthThursday of the month. Commissioner Swift would not be able to attend meeting on the second Thursday. All Commissioners present were preliminarily able to meet on the fourth Thursday. Commissioner Gree should be contacted to determine his availability on the alternative dates. No final decision was made, but the fourth Thursday was deemed to be acceptable if all Commissioners were able to attend.

MINUTES

3. Minutes from the November 18, 2021 Planning Commission meeting M/s, Newton/Swift, motion to approve the November 18, 2021 minutes as corrected.

AYES: Jansen, Kelly, Newton, Swift, Chair Fragoso
ABSENT: Gonzalez-Parber, Green
Planning Directors Report
Planning Director Berto reported the Council met last night and voted to modify the General Plan to eliminate the term “character” and replace it with a more descriptive term. The Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance in response to SB9 which provides for some development standards. Staff is working on a permanent ordinance that will be reviewed by the Commission. Staff is working on another Urgency Ordinance relating to Accessory Dwelling Units.

Commissioner Swift asked staff to make sure they provide copies of the amended General Plan to the Fairfax Library.

Chair Fragoso opened the meeting to public comments.

Mr. Frank Egger made the following comments:
• The 1958 Preliminary General Plan includes the term “character”. • He opposes the elimination of the word “character”.

Chair Fragoso closed the meeting to public comments.

Commissioner Comments and Requests
Chair Fragoso asked staff about the increase in outdoor music. Planning Director Berto stated staff responds on a complaint basis.

Chair Fragoso asked about the status of the new restaurant at the corner of Broadway and Bolinas Road. Planning Director Berto stated he was not sure but would find out.

ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 10:46 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Toni DeFrancis,
Recording Secretary