Civil Grand Jury
Report: The
Worrisome Future of
Marin Housing
Response Due: October 16th, 2025
What is a Civil Grand Jury Report
A civil grand jury report is a public document created by a panel of citizens in California that details their findings and recommendations after investigating local government agencies.
Acting as a "watchdog" for the public, the report identifies problems and offers solutions to improve efficiency, transparency, and public services, requiring the investigated agencies to respond in writing to the findings.
2 Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
The Grand Jury investigated the progress Marin’s housing jurisdictions (Marin’s cities, towns, and the County of Marin) are making to ease the housing crunch by supporting the development of new housing as required by the California Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) program.
The Grand Jury found that while most Marin jurisdictions are making good faith efforts to execute their housing plans, most, if not all, Marin housing jurisdictions will fail to achieve the state-mandated new housing goals for the current planning cycle.
3 Planning vs Constructing
The Town’s Housing Element meets state requirements and the Town fulfills its intended role by identifying housing needs, providing adequate zoning, and implementing policies that support housing development opportunities.
In its response, the Town discusses the difference between planning for housing, which is the jurisdiction’s responsibility, and the actual construction of housing, which is primarily influenced by the private market and other external factors.
4 Our responses reflect a collaborative effort among the Marin jurisdictions. Many face similar challenges and feel similarly that the report…
● did not attribute housing supply challenges to the correct sources, even though we do agree with important statements it makes about the need to increase the supply of housing throughout the County.
● did not come up with adequate solutions. It overestimated staff responsibility and resources.
● did not take into account efforts staff have already made to implement Housing Element programs and the State’s acknowledgement through a mandated Annual Progress Report that determines we are in compliance with our Housing Element.
Planning vs Constructing, continued
5 Summary of Our Responses
Options: Disagree, Partially Disagree, Wholly Disagree or Agree ● We agree with the findings numbered: F3, F4
● We disagree with the findings numbered: F1, F2, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 Options: Implemented, Will be Implemented, or Will not be Implemented ● Recommendation numbered R4 will be implemented
● Recommendations numbered R1 and R2 will not be implemented because they are not warranted or reasonable.
● Recommendations numbered R3, R5, and R6 have been implemented 6 Agree
Disagree
Agree
Disagree
Civil Grand Jury Findings (F1-F4)
Fairfax
Response
7 Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Civil Grand Jury Findings (F5-F9) Fairfax
Response
8 Civil Grand Jury Findings: F1
Why we disagree:
9 ● Our Housing Element goals, as state law requires, plan for and facilitate the development of housing.
● RHNA numbers assigned to Marin jurisdictions are unprecedented. But, a jurisdiction cannot be held responsible for failing to achieve RHNA, and other goals, if they have a compliant Housing Element (we demonstrate we are making efforts towards our goals).
● This finding is phrased in a way that places too much emphasis on the role of jurisdictions in achieving housing goals beyond fulfilling their obligation of adopting and maintaining a compliant Housing Element.
Civil Grand Jury Findings: F2
Why we disagree:
10 ● When the State is determining Housing Element compliance, local jurisdictions are not judged by the number of housing units built, but rather by their ability to identify housing needs, provide adequate zoning capacity, and implement policies and programs that facilitate housing development in alignment with California Government Code Sections 65580–65589.11. ● This finding’s framing, similar to F1, conflicts planning responsibility with market-driven housing production, two related, but distinctly separate aspects of California housing law.
Civil Grand Jury Findings: F3
Why we agree:
11 ● By continuing to meet statutory obligations, such as zoning for adequate housing, addressing governmental constraints, and promoting fair housing, the Town significantly reduces the risk of state enforcement and demonstrates its commitment to meeting state housing requirements. ● However, it is important to clarify that such enforcement actions are primarily triggered by failure to adopt and implement a compliant Housing Element, not by the pace of actual housing production, which is largely driven by private market forces beyond the Town’s control.
Civil Grand Jury Findings: F4
Why we agree:
12 ● The Town is committed to addressing this issue through its certified Housing Element, which includes policies and programs to support a range of housing options. The Town has adopted a Workforce Housing Overlay Ordinance to offer developers a streamlined process for providing affordable units at opportunity sites located within proximity to areas of employment in the Town.
Civil Grand Jury Findings: F5
Why we disagree:
13 ● While state housing law continues to evolve and can be challenging to communicate in detail, the Town of Fairfax has been and continues to be committed to maintaining open and accessible public communication and will continue to refine and expand its outreach efforts accordingly. ● Examples of communication: zoning code amendments to align with Housing Law at noticed Public Hearings, updates, hiring staff to perform engagement with public, and publishing newsletters, FAQs news posts to the Town website, and presentations.
Civil Grand Jury Findings: F6
Why we disagree:
14 ● Gov Code 65940.1 requires a County/City to “request from a development proponent, upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy or the final inspection, whichever occurs last, the total amount of fees and exactions associated with the project for which the certificate was issued." Additionally, "The city or county shall post this information on its internet website, and update it at least twice per year.” The County and 11 cities and towns of Marin are in compliance with this State law.
Civil Grand Jury Findings: F7
Why we disagree:
15 ● The Housing Working Group, made up of the County and 11 cities and towns of Marin, and staffed by the County, has held numerous forums with developers to gather input and share information, for example:
○ April 7, 2022- Countywide Developer Forum to help inform the Housing Elements in the cities and towns and the County
○ April 17, 2025- Infill Builders Developer Forum: Countywide developer forum moderated by the Infill Builders Foundation
● Additionally, the Town of Fairfax has performed outreach and given tours of town opportunity sites to developers such as Habitat for Humanity and PEP Housing. As a part of the Town’s housing element action plan, the Town is committed to continuing outreach and promotion of its opportunity sites (Housing Element Programs 1-C, 3-H, and Program 4-H).
Civil Grand Jury Findings: F8
Why we disagree:
16 ● Permitting Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ministerially is required by State law in all cases. California law mandates a ministerial review process in all other cases. The County and 11 cities and towns of Marin are in compliance with this State law and provide a ministerial path to the construction of ADUs.
Civil Grand Jury Findings: F9
Why we disagree:
17 ● The Town of Fairfax provides a ministerial path to multifamily construction through its Workforce Housing Overlay Ordinance. Projects within the Workforce Overlay zone that include at least 20% of units affordable to lower-income households are entitled to ministerial approval if they meet the ordinance’s objective design and development standards.
● Fairfax is also required to comply with Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), which streamlines the approval process for certain multifamily projects, particularly those with affordable units, that meet specific objective criteria.
Implemented
Implemented
Implemented
Will Implement
Will Not Implement
Will Not Implement
18 Civil Grand Jury Recommendations: R1
Why we Will Not Implement:
19 ● Under State Housing Element law, local jurisdictions are already required to report detailed information on housing production and progress of Housing Element implementation.
● These detailed reports already require extensive staff time to track and process, taking vital time away from processing applications and working directly with developers. Annual reports provide the most accurate and complete picture of progress in meeting housing goals. Reporting quarterly is not warranted and would not provide a more complete or accurate picture for the public.
Civil Grand Jury Recommendations: R2
Why we Will Not Implement:
20 ● This recommendation is unclear. State laws streamline the approval of housing projects including SB330 and SB35. It is important that the public understand State housing laws. Often, updates are provided on more than an annual basis and are reflected in the development code amendment process or if a new law is passed outside of the usual calendar.
● Town staff does provide periodic updates to the Town Council and Planning Commission, at public meetings, on State housing laws.
Civil Grand Jury Recommendations: R3
Why we Implemented:
21 ● This recommendation is already being implemented, as outlined in the response to Finding 7. The County and the cities and towns of Marin will continue to engage with developers both individually and through collaborative efforts under future Housing Working Group initiatives.
Civil Grand Jury Recommendations: R4
Why we Will Implement:
22 ● State law requires jurisdictions to provide this data, see Gov Code 65940.1. Staff is in the process of compiling this information and will be able to provide it by January 1, 2026 and also provide this information for projects in the future.
Civil Grand Jury Recommendations: R5
Why we Implemented:
23 ● State law requires a ministerial path for approval of Accessory Dwelling Units except in some special cases that are explicitly described in state law. Additionally, the Town of Fairfax participates in ADU Marin, a program that provides technical assistance and proactively helps applicants through the ADU review process. ● The Town of Fairfax has committed itself to promoting ADU development through its housing element action plan programs 1-H through 1-M.
Civil Grand Jury Recommendations: R6
Why we Implemented:
24 ● The Town provides a ministerial path for all Housing Element sites, and in some cases state law requires ministerial review of multifamily affordable housing. The Town of Fairfax adopted an ordinance to codify the Workforce Housing Overlay (WHO) to create a ministerial path for affordable housing projects.
What is required of the Town?
Fairfax must formally respond to a Marin County Civil Grand Jury report within 90 days of its submission, as mandated by state law, by providing comments on the findings and recommendations.
Fairfax has received an extension to October 16th from the initial due date of September 24th.
This response must be approved by the town's governing body in a publicly noticed meeting, according to the Brown Act, and then submitted to the Marin County Superior Court and the Grand Jury.
Responses must specify whether findings are agreed with or disagreed with, and recommendations must indicate if they have been, will be, or will not be implemented. 25