Fairfax City Council
May 6, 2026

FAIRFAX TOWN COUNCIL MEETING

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE May 6, 2026
PREPARED FOR Mayor and Town Council
PREPARED BY Bryn McKillop, Associate Planner
SUBJECT Progress Report on Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan Update

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council receive a progress report on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan Update (BPMP) project including: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) engagement activities, survey results, and next steps.

BACKGROUND
The Town of Fairfax has long had an interest in effectively integrating biking and walking into the transportation system, so that biking and walking can be a safe means of everyday transport. The purpose of the Fairfax Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan is to guide the implementation of projects and policies that prioritize biking and walking. Preparation of a new masterplan is underway to replace the current plan which was adopted in 2016.

The BPAC is structured as a temporary, goal-oriented body specifically to oversee the 2026 Masterplan update. The committee consists of eleven members total, including seven voting members. To maintain consistent progress, the BPAC structure includes four alternates who can step in to meet quorum requirements. As a project-specific entity, the BPAC is designed to dissolve automatically once the Town Council officially adopts the final Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan. To conduct two surveys to engage the community, staff used $5,000 of grant funds for a one-year Maptionnaire subscription (October 2025 to October 2026).

The committee selection process was designed for transparency and broad representation. Following a public call for applications and interviews held during a Town Council session, members were chosen based on their ability to represent a diverse spectrum of ages, genders, and modes of travel. This balance allows the committee to serve as a vital link between residents, the project consultants, and staff. To maximize community involvement, the Council appointed all eleven applicants to the committee as either voting members (seven) or alternates (four) and specifically included one nonvoting youth seat to broaden the plan's perspective.

DISCUSSION
Summary of Key Engagement Activities
The BPAC and staff have coordinated the following engagement activities since September 2025:
• Seven committee meetings (scheduled as needed, approximately once a month) • A walk audit of the Town Center area
• An on-line survey

• A public workshop held at the Women’s Club
• Four stakeholder interviews with: principals from local schools, the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce, Marin County Bike Coalition, and the Climate Action Committee. Staff attempted to reach Age Friendly Fairfax and local bike shops to hold meetings but have not yet been successful in coordinating meetings.

BPAC Meetings
Community Engagement and Outreach
The BPAC has been instrumental in shaping the project’s outreach strategy by identifying key stakeholders, high-traffic locations for distributing flyers, and community events where project information can be distributed. Members have also volunteered their own time to conduct direct outreach. Following the project’s initial discovery phase, the committee recommended that staff utilize Constant Contact to more proactively engage interested residents. Consequently, staff is now actively collecting emails to distribute the draft plan, upcoming surveys, and other project updates through this dedicated communication channel.

On November 16, 2025, the BPAC hosted a community walk audit in the Town Center area. During the event, BPAC members, Town staff, and residents walked a 1.5-mile route starting and ending at the Fairfax Library. Participants used AARP walk audit worksheets to evaluate the safety and connectivity of the commercial area, focusing on key locations like the Broadway/Center intersection and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. Staff will include a map of the locations highlighted during the walk audit in forthcoming draft of the plan. Future public outreach activities are planned, including a bike audit and hosting a table at one or more of the Fairfax Farmer’s Markets.

Technical Oversight and Project Implementation
In addition to community outreach, the BPAC focuses on project oversight and regulatory compliance. A primary goal for the current update is to overcome previous "implementation barriers" by addressing staff capacity constraints and replacing the 2016 plan’s lack of actionable policies and metrics. Members have frequently noted that many 2016 policies were never realized; consequently, they are prioritizing a schedule that secures grant-tied funding before it expires. To bridge the gap between planning and permanent construction, the committee is exploring "quick-build" strategies, which are low-cost, temporary installations that allow the Town to test safety improvements and gather real-world data. To further this effort, the BPAC will host a presentation from the City of Richmond to learn how they have successfully used low-cost infrastructure to calm traffic and improve safety for active transportation.

During BPAC meetings, residents expressed interest in lowering school zone speeds. Based on this feedback, the BPAC is now exploring a program for the Master Plan update to implement a 15 mph speed limit within 500 feet of schools, as authorized by California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 22358.4(b).

Safety Data and Policy Frameworks
Members critically evaluate collision reports and "Level of Traffic Stress" metrics, often highlighting discrepancies where technical ratings do not reflect the lived experiences or safety concerns of residents. This analysis informs ongoing discussions regarding speed management and the necessary

engineering and legislative steps to reduce speed limits on major arterials, such as Sir Francis Drake Boulevard. To ensure the final plan is both effective and accountable, the BPAC advocated for the consultant to provide a prioritization matrix that weights projects based on safety impact, cost, and feasibility, alongside the development of measurable long-term objectives.

Advocacy and Regional Coordination
By analyzing survey results and workshop feedback, the BPAC identifies safety "hotspots" and barriers to active transportation. A key finding from their review is that perceived safety risks are a much greater deterrent to walking and cycling than travel distance. The committee also emphasizes regional connectivity, frequently stating their desire to connect with neighboring jurisdictions like San Anselmo and various county agencies to address shared corridors. By incorporating diverse perspectives— including those of the committee’s youth representative—the BPAC tries to ensure that its recommendations are grounded in the daily realities of everyone navigating the Town’s transportation network.

On-line Survey Results
The on-line survey was hosted on Maptionnaire and was open between November 2025 and March 2026. It gathered responses across seven topics:
• Mode ratings (how residents rate Fairfax for walking, biking, driving, and accessibility) • Infrastructure ratings (condition of sidewalks, bikeways, crosswalks, signage, and more) • Route mapping (most frequently used walking and biking routes) • Difficult destinations (locations hard to reach on foot or by bike/rolling) • Locations of concern (specific intersections or corridors that feel unsafe) • Vision 2035 priorities (community preferences for long-term improvements) • Demographic information (respondent age, gender, and place of residence) The survey findings point to several clear priorities that will inform the BPMP update:
• The Town Center — particularly the Bolinas Road / Broadway corridor — is the highest-priority area for both pedestrian and bicycle improvements and should be a focus of early project identification.
• Physical infrastructure conditions (sidewalk quality and width, road surface for biking) are rated more critically than navigational elements, suggesting capital investment in maintenance and reconstruction will be essential.
• Universal accessibility is a significant gap. The poor ratings for wheelchair and stroller navigation indicate that ADA and universal design standards should be explicitly addressed throughout the plan.
• Protected infrastructure is a clear community mandate. Painted bike lanes are no longer viewed as adequate; protected “Class 1” facilities are expected on major corridors. • School routes require dedicated attention, with families specifically requesting protected “Green Lanes” near White Hill and Manor Schools.

• The survey sample skews older and may underrepresent younger residents (18–34).

Supplemental outreach to younger demographics should be considered in subsequent engagement phases.

To see the full report of results, see Attachment D.

Public Workshop
The workshop was conducted on Saturday, March 7th, from 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM at the Fairfax Women’s Club. Approximately 15 participants attended, including BPAC members and community members. The workshop was organized in a classroom-style setting and began with a 20-minute presentation. The presentation provided an overview of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update process, existing conditions, Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), and historical collision data from 2015 to 2024. The project schedule and next steps were also shared before transitioning into the interactive workshop activities.

Following the presentation, a series of classroom-style activities were conducted, with a total of three activities planned for participants.

See Attachment E for more details about specific activities and photos.

Status of TJKM Contract and Budget
The Town has executed a Consultant Services Agreement with TJKM (not to exceed $75,000) to carry out the BPMP Update (see Attachment F). With approximately 75 percent of the project budget now expended, the data collection and technical analysis phases are complete, moving the project from its ‘discovery phase’ into its ‘recommendation phase’. The focus has now shifted toward the synthesis of this data into the recommended policies.

While the consultant’s work to date has been of high quality, the depth of the public vetting process will depend on Town resources. If the Town desires an exhaustive review process—including multiple committee meetings and significant structural changes to the draft—it will require substantial oversight from Town staff. Due to currently diminished staffing levels, the Town’s capacity to manage a protracted revision cycle may be limited. Staff will evaluate the initial draft upon receipt to determine if the consultant’s vision aligns with community expectations or if additional internal effort will be required to refine the plan before adoption.

Next Steps
• A preliminary draft is expected within the next two months. As detailed in the Scope of Work in Attachment F, this draft will include policy recommendations aligned with Vision Zero principles, Complete Streets, and appropriate speed limit standards. TJKM will also deliver a ranked list of bicycle and pedestrian network improvements, a funding source matrix identifying local, regional, state, and federal opportunities, and an Implementation Plan with updated GIS maps. • Using Maptionnaire software, the Town will conduct a second survey focused on collecting the community’s input on the plan recommendations received from TJKM.

• Following the delivery of the draft from the consultant (TJKM), Town staff will work with the consultant team to ensure that the draft plan is properly vetted with the BPAC, Planning Commission and Town Council, with significant input expected from the public. • To prepare the final version of the plan the consultant will synthesize the input received into a single round of consolidated revisions.
• A public hearing draft of the plan will be prepared for consideration by the BPAC. The BPAC will make a recommendation to the Town Council.
• Prior to adoption of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Masterplan, the Town Council will conduct a public hearing, and deliberate on any issues that arise.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project is funded through a grant from the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) awarded through the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). The $82,917 grant covers the expense of the transportation consultant and the cost of the on-line surveys.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Resolution 25-15 Forming a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee B - Resolution 25-33 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Revised C - Resolution 25-42 BMPB Contract for Bicycle and Ped Master Plan Update D - Survey #1 Analysis Report (Town of Fairfax Discovery Survey 2026) E - Public Workshop Summary Document
F - TJKM Consultant Services Agreement and Scope of Work RESOLUTION NO. 25-15

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFAX

ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC)
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the BPAC will be to assist in the development of the Town's update Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Town has received grant funds through the Transportation Authority of Marin ("TAM") which will be used to hire a qualified consultant to help with the preparation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian plan by working with the BPAC and Town Staff; and WHEREAS, the Town of Fairfax has General Plan policies to encourage bicycling for both commuting and recreational purposes, and to encourage pedestrian activity; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to provide a public forum and for resident input on bicycle and pedestrian issues and provide advisory guidance to elected officials and staff toward the preparation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the BPAC is not a "project" pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Fairfax does hereby establish the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (BPAC), as follows:

1. The primary duty of the BPAC will be to work with the consultant and Town Staff to help update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

2. Members of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (BPAC) be residents of Town of Fairfax and reside within the Town limits of Fairfax.

3. The BPAC membership shall consist of five (5) to seven (7) members and a youth member, to be appointed by the Town Council, who shall serve without compensation.

The BPAC may include members from other Town commissions and committees.

4. All BPAC meetings shall be noticed, open, and public and in compliance with the Brown Act, Gov. Code Section 54950 et seq.

5. In serving in its advisory role, the BPAC shall act by majority vote. Information requested of staff should derive from the BPAC as a whole rather than individual members.

6. The BPAC will be automatically dissolved upon adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan by the Town Council.

Resolution No. 25-15

ATTACHMENT A

7. A Town staff member may be assigned as a staff liaison to the BPAC by the Town Manager.

The foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Fairfax held in said Town on the 21 st day of May 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Attest:

Coler, Hellman, Blash
Egger, Ghiringhelli
None
None
Chc ~Q Town Clerk
Resolution No. 25-15

Lis~
RESOLUTION NO. 25-33

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFAX RESCINDING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION 25-15 TO ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) WITH ADDITIONAL MEMBERS WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the BPAC will be to assist in the development of the Town's update Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Town has received grant funds through the Transportation Authority of Marin ("TAM") which will be used to hire a qualified consultant to help with the preparation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian plan by working with the BPAC and Town Staff; and WHEREAS, the Town of Fairfax has General Plan policies to encourage bicycling for both commuting and recreational purposes, and to encourage pedestrian activity; and WHEREAS, the Town desires to provide a public forum and for resident input on bicycle and pedestrian issues and provide advisory guidance to elected officials and staff toward the preparation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 25-15, adopted on May 21, 2025 established a BPAC with five members which has been determined to be an insufficient membership to represent the broad range of viewpoints on pedestrian and bicycle issues in Fairfax, and the Council now seeks to increase the membership and include alternates; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of the BPAC is not a "project" pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Fairfax does hereby establish the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), as follows:

1. The primary duty of the BPAC will be to work with the consultant and Town Staff to help update the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

2. Members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) be residents of Town of Fairfax and reside within the Town limits of Fairfax.

3. The BPAC membership shall consist of seven (7) voting members; and four (4) non-voting alternate members to be appointed by the Town Council, who shall serve without compensation.

The BPAC may include members from other Town commissions and committees.

4. BPAC members are expected to attend meetings and if a member misses more than three (3) meetings in a six-month period, the member is automatically removed from the BPAC and the remaining BPAC membership will choose a replacement from the pool of available non-voting members.

5. The BPAC may include one (1) non-voting youth member, who shall be appointed by the BPAC.

The youth member is not eligible to vote and the member's participation in a meeting cannot be used to satisfy quorum requirements. The youth member shall serve without compensation.

Town of Fairfax
Resolution No. 25-33

.

6. The alternative BPAC members may attend and participate at all meetings, and may serve as substitutes for voting members when absent. In the case of absent voting members, alternative members may satisfy quorum requirements.

7. All BPAC meetings shall be noticed, open, and public and in compliance with the Brown Act, Gov. Code Section 54950 et seq.

8. In serving in its advisory role, the BPAC shall act by majority vote. Information requested of staff should derive from the BPAC as a whole rather than individual members.

9. The BPAC will be automatically dissolved upon adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan by the Town Council.

10. A Town staff member will be assigned as a staff liaison to the BPAC by the Town Manager.

11. A Town Council liaison may be assigned by the Town Council to serve on the BPAC.

The foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Fairfax held in said Town on the 6th day of August 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSED:

Attest:

Town of Fairfax
Resolution No. 25-33

Egger, Ghiringhelli, Coler, Hellman, Blash
None
None
None
RESOLUTION NO. 25-42

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFAX

AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT FUNDED CONTRACT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $75,000 FOR THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN UPDATE
WHEREAS, the Town of Fairfax has General Plan policies to encourage bicycling for both commuting and recreational purposes, and to encourage pedestrian activity; and WHEREAS, the Town of Fairfax's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan from 2016 calls for it to be updated every five to ten years; and
WHEREAS, the Town has received grant funds through the Transportation Authority of Marin ("TAM") which will be used to hire a qualified consultant to help with the preparation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update by working with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and Town Staff; and
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the contract will be to assist in technical aspects of the plan's development as outlined under the Scope of Work in Attachment A of the staff report; and WHEREAS, the Town issued a Request for Proposals on June 16, 2025, and received one response; and
WHEREAS, after evaluation and an interview, T JKM was selected as a qualified contractor to conduct the update; and
WHEREAS, the total not to exceed amount of $75,000 will be paid from Fund 01-311-822 Professional Services and reimbursed by the grant;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Fairfax does hereby authorize the contract with T JKM for the update to the BPMP in an amount not to exceed $75,000.

The foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Fairfax held in said Town on the 15th day of October 2025, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Ghiringhelli, Coler, Hellman, Blash
Egger
None
None
ATTEST:
c�

DEPUTY TOWN CLERK
Town of Fairfax
Resolution No. 25-42

MAYOR

ATTACHMENT C
Town of Fairfax
Bicycle and Pedestrian Masterplan Update
Survey #1 Analysis for May 06, 2026 Town Council
Meeting
May 06, 2026

ATTACHMENT D
2 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 3 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

1. Mode Ratings
The survey asked people to rate Fairfax as a safe and easy place to bike, walk, navigate using a wheelchair, navigate using a stroller, and drive in.

1.1 Analysis of Mode Ratings
While walking and biking are rated highly for safety and ease — with most respondents offering "Good" or "Average" marks — there is a stark contrast in accessibility. Navigation for residents using wheelchairs or strollers received significantly more "Poor" and "Very Poor" ratings, alongside a high volume of "No Opinion" responses. This suggests that while the general streetscape serves able-bodied residents well, the town's infrastructure may lack the consistency required for universal accessibility (Chart 1).

Chart 1.

In terms of activity volume, walking is the most ubiquitous mode of transport for errands and leisure alike. Approximately 230 respondents walk to run errands, compared to roughly 155 who do so by bike. Walking also dominates the "Recreation/Leisure" category with over 250 mentions, reflecting its role as a core community behavior. Conversely, while biking is popular for fitness, there is a notable contingent of nearly 70 respondents who do not bike at all, representing a potential demographic for targeted safety improvements (Charts 2 and 3).

How do you rate Fairfax as a safe and easy place to ...

C
0 Submitted respondents: 196
Total respondents: 285
e Excellent e Good e Average Poor e Very Poor
Bike
Walk · -
.,,,
~ Navigate using a wheelchair
8 Navigate with a stroller
Drive
0 so 100 150
Respondents
No Opinion
200 250 300
4 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 Chart 2.

Chart 3.

Why do you bike in Fairfax? Please choose all that apply to you.

Recreation/leisure
Fitness/ exercise
Run errands
§ Visit family or friends
·g Commute to work or school
I do not bike
To reach transit
I
~er ~
0 Submitted respondents: 194
Total respondents: 286
I
so 100 150
Respondents
I
200
Why do you walk in Fairfax? Please choose all that apply to you.

Recreation/leisure
Run errands
Fitness/ exercise
§ Visit family or friends
·g Commute to work or school
To reach transit
Other
I do not walk
I
Submitted respondents: 193
Total respondents: 291
I
I
0 )
0 50 100 150
Respondents
I
I
200 250
250
300
5 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 Taken together, the mode data highlights how Fairfax's transportation network is currently utilized more for local circulation and lifestyle than for regional travel. For both cyclists and pedestrians, "Commute to work or school" and "To reach transit" are among the lowest-ranked motivations, trailing far behind local errands and fitness. While driving remains a functional necessity, it received fewer "Excellent" ratings than walking or biking. This suggests a community that excels at supporting short-range, internal trips, but where there is still a clear opportunity to improve inclusive access for all residents and better connect the local network to wider transit options (Charts 1, 2, and 3).
6 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

2. Infrastructure Ratings
The survey asked people to rate the aspects of town infrastructure listed in the chart and table below as either very poor, poor, average, good, or excellent.

With 294 respondents, the data from Chart 4 highlights a community that is generally dissatisfied with the physical state of its infrastructure but sees a baseline of "average" to "good" performance in certain navigational aspects.

Chart 4.

2.1 Most Critical Aspects (Lowest Rated)
The survey identified three categories as significantly underperforming, with a high proportion of "Poor" and "Very Poor" marks:
• Sidewalk Condition: This is the most critically viewed aspect of the town's infrastructure. Roughly 70% of respondents rated this as "Average" or below. • Quality of Road for Biking: This category follows a similar negative trend, receiving a significant volume of "Poor" and "Very Poor" responses. • Sidewalk Widths: This also received a high volume of "Poor" and "Average" ratings.

This aligns with community feedback that narrow sidewalks create friction for residents using strollers or wheelchairs.

2.2 Middle-Tier Performance (Average to Good)
How do you rate the following aspects of Fairfax walking and biking infra.structure? Tota, respoodems: 294
e Excellent • Good e Averag e Poor e Ve ry Poor No Opinion Sidewalk condition
Sidewalk widths
-
On-street bikeways
C:
0 Maintenance
Crosswal
of faciliti
k
es
s
-
-·
• . .,
I)
Wayfinding or directional signage • ::,
0 Connectivity of walking network •
Connectrvity of biking network ■ •
Overall safety and comfort
Quality of road for biking
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Respondents
7 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 Several categories sit heavily in the "Average" (orange) and "Good" (light blue) ranges, suggesting functional but not "Excellent" infrastructure:
• Overall Safety and Comfort: Most of the community feels safety is "Average". The data suggests the town lacks the "high-comfort" infrastructure, such as protected lanes, required to reach higher ratings.
• Connectivity: Both Biking Network Connectivity and Walking Network Connectivity are rated in the "Average" to "Good" range. Biking connectivity is rated slightly lower, supporting qualitative feedback regarding "gaps" in the network when crossing Sir Francis Drake Blvd.
• Maintenance of Facilities: This category also resides primarily in the "Average" range.

2.3 Best Performing Areas (Highest Rated)
The highest-rated categories, relatively speaking, are those related to navigation and existing crossings:
• Crosswalks: This category features the highest combined "Good" and "Excellent" ratings of all infrastructure types. While specific crossings were noted as concerning in text comments, the crosswalks are rated higher than other aspects of walking and biking infrastructure.
• Wayfinding or Directional Signage: Of those who had an opinion, the dominant sentiment was "Average" to "Good". This category also had the highest "No Opinion" response rate, likely because residents do not rely on signs for daily travel 8 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

3. Route Mapping
The survey asked people to draw their most frequent routes for walking and biking on a map, followed by questions related to what they dislike and like about the routes they selected. The following sections identify the most frequently used neighborhood streets and detail how people utilize the primary arterials: Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (SFD), Bolinas Road, Center Boulevard, and Broadway

3.1 High-Frequency Alternatives & Bypasses
To ensure safety and comfort, survey respondents indicated they rely on a robust network of secondary streets.
● The Downtown Bypass: Bolinas Road to Elsie Lane is the top-cited alternative for 25% of cyclists entering the downtown core to avoid the Broadway corridor. ● The School Route Corridor: Students and parents prioritize Manor Road, Olema Road, and Sequoia Road to reach White Hill Middle School, effectively creating a "mellow" parallel route to SFD.
● Internal Neighborhood Links: Marin Avenue and Dominga Avenue are used as quiet residential links to stay away from major commercial traffic. ● Strategic West-East Bypasses: Bank Street and Mono Avenue serve as critical bypasses for those navigating the western edge of town toward downtown. ● The North-South Connection: Azalea Avenue and Pacheco Avenue are utilized as residential alternatives to avoid the most congested segments of the SFD/Center Blvd corridor.
● The Cross-Town Arterial: Lansdale Avenue serves as a vital low-stress connector from San Anselmo, though it is currently noted for congestion during school hours.

3.2 Arterial Utilization
For many users, the primary arterials are used because they offer the most "direct access" to major community hubs, even when users would prefer a lower-stress alternative. ● Sir Francis Drake Boulevard (SFD) & Downtown (High Frequency): Over 60% of respondents identified this as their primary or necessary route for reaching destinations.

It is the most common path for reaching local shops and services, though it is also the route most cited for having high stress levels due to traffic. ● Broadway (Medium-High Frequency): Approximately 45% of users specifically drew routes that utilize Broadway. It is a staple for daily trips like visiting the post office or local stores.
● Center Boulevard (Medium Frequency): Roughly 30% of mapped routes included Center Boulevard, primarily as a connector to the Good Earth natural foods store and the downtown commercial core.
9 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

3.3 Summary of “Likes” and “Dislikes” for Routes
What Walkers Like
Walkers value quiet, connected paths that feel separated from the main thoroughfares. ● Proximity to Town: Walkers appreciate routes that provide "easy" and "flat" access to downtown, the library, and neighborhood parks.
● Quiet Neighborhoods: Routes through residential areas are praised for being "nice," "quiet," and away from heavy traffic.
● Town Beauty: Many mentions of the "scenic" nature of the walks and the ability to walk through town to reach destinations like Good Earth or the movie theater.

What Walkers Dislike
Infrastructure gaps and vehicle behavior are the primary concerns for those on foot. ● Sidewalk Issues: This is the most significant concern. Respondents cited "missing," "narrow," and "uneven" sidewalks. Tree roots causing "trip hazards" were mentioned frequently.
● Vehicle Encroachment: Many complaints focus on "cars parked on sidewalks," which force pedestrians—including those with strollers or children—into the street. ● Crossing Safety: Speeding cars and a lack of visible crosswalks or stop signs make certain intersections feel dangerous.
● Narrow Roads: In the hills and on older residential streets, the lack of dedicated walking space creates tension between pedestrians and fast-moving cars. ● Speeding/Traffic: High traffic volume and "fast" cars on major connectors make walking less enjoyable and feel less safe.

What Riders Like on the Routes
The data highlights that "low-stress" and "directness" are the most valued qualities of a biking route.
● Low-Traffic Side Streets: Many frequent routes utilize side streets to avoid heavy traffic on main arteries. Riders appreciate routes that are "quiet" and "scenic." ● Connectivity: Routes that provide direct access to downtown Fairfax, schools, and grocery stores (like Good Earth) are the most utilized. ● Safety Features: Protected segments and designated bike lanes are highly appreciated where they exist.
● Avoidance of Sir Francis Drake (SFD): Many users specifically chose routes that allow them to parallel or avoid SFD entirely.

What Riders Dislike on the Routes
10 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 Safety concerns and infrastructure gaps are the most common complaints for frequently traveled paths:
● High-Traffic Areas: Navigating Broadway, the Town Center, and Sir Francis Drake Blvd is described as "hair-raising" due to high car speeds and volume. ● Narrow Roads: Many routes feel "dangerous" because of narrow pavement and a lack of dedicated space for bikes, forcing riders to share the road with "aggressive drivers." ● Intersections and Crossings: Busy intersections and difficult street crossings are major pain points, especially near schools.
● Stop Signs: There is frequent mention of the burden of excessive stop signs on bike routes, with some riders suggesting a need for "yield" signs (Idaho Stop) to maintain momentum.
● Infrastructure Condition: Riders noted issues with narrow lanes, poor visibility at intersections, and the need for more physical protection from vehicles. 11 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

4. Difficult Destinations
The survey asked people to map locations where they wish it was easier to reach by walking, biking, or rolling, followed by a question asking why the location was hard to reach.

4.1 Difficult Destinations to Reach by Walking
This section highlights that the Downtown Core is the most critical area for walking improvements, accounting for 39% of identified difficult destinations due to complex crossings and narrow sidewalks on major corridors like Bolinas Road and Broadway. Beyond the commercial center, residents face significant barriers in Residential Hubs and Commercial Corridors where missing sidewalk networks and high-speed traffic on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard impede safe access from neighborhoods to local businesses. These challenges extend to essential community anchors, including Schools, Parks, and Civic facilities, where safety concerns regarding vehicle speeds and deteriorating infrastructure like public stairs limit independent mobility and "last-mile" connectivity.

Table 1
Zone Category Specific Locations &
Landmarks
Count Percentage Primary Barriers
Identified
Downtown Core Bolinas Rd, Broadway, Bank
St, Elsie Ln, Merwin Ave,
and Azalea Ave.
47 39% Complex crossings,
narrow sidewalks, and
high pedestrian/vehicle
conflict.

Residential Hubs Oak Manor, Sleepy Hollow,
and Deer Park
neighborhood connections.
18 15% Missing or discontinuous
sidewalk networks
starting from residential
properties.

Commercial
Corridor
Sir Francis Drake Blvd: East
Side Businesses and The
Lodge.
17 14% High-speed vehicle traffic
and lack of protected
pedestrian space along
the arterial.

Commercial
Anchor
Good Earth Natural Foods 14 12% Difficulties navigating parking lot transitions and
crossing Center Blvd
safely.

Parks &
Recreation
Cascade Park, Peri Park,
Doc Edgar Park, and
various trailheads.
12 10% Deteriorating public stairs,
poor lighting, and unsafe
trailhead crossings.

Schools White Hill School and Manor
School vicinities.
8 7% Safety concerns
regarding vehicle speeds
in school zones and lack
of dedicated paths.

Civic Anchor Fairfax Library 5 4% Topographical challenges and disconnected paths
from surrounding
residential hills.

TOTAL 121 100%
12 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 Chart 5.

Difficult Walking Destination Categories
Downtown Core (39% | 47 Selections): This is the most significant area people wish they could reach by walking with more ease. Feedback mentions the desire to reach the central retail and social hub, with specific barriers Bolinas Road, Broadway, Bank Street, Elsie Lane, Merwin Avenue, and Azalea Avenue mentioned. The primary barriers cited here are complex crossings and high foot-traffic areas with narrow or insufficient sidewalk space.

Residential Hubs (15% | 18 Selections): Residents in areas such as Oak Manor, Sleepy Hollow, and the Deer Park neighborhood frequently noted that their difficulty walking begins right at their doorstep. The lack of continuous sidewalk networks in these neighborhoods prevents safe and easy access to the rest of the town.

Commercial Corridors (14% | 17 Selections): This category includes the East Side Businesses along the Sir Francis Drake (SFD) corridor and The Lodge. Unlike the downtown core, the feedback here is dominated by environmental safety concerns, such as high vehicle speeds and the lack of a protected pedestrian environment alongside a major arterial road.

Commercial Anchor: Good Earth (12% | 14 Selections): As a high-volume destination, Good Earth Natural Foods stands out as a specific point of interest. Concerns here center on navigating the transit and parking transitions and the safety of the Center Boulevard crossings.

Clic.k the button below and choose a location where you wish it was easier to reac.h by walking. Clic.k the button again to choose another destination.: It is hard to reach by walking because ...

Submitted respondents: 66
Total respondents: 72
There is not enough sidewalk
to walk on
Vehicles d rive too fast o r
recklessly
I do not feel safe enough to
cross intersections
Other
The route does not have
enough lighting at night
It is too fa r to reach by walking
0 20 40 60 80
Responses
100
13 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 Parks & Recreation (10% | 12 Selections): Destinations like Cascade Park, Peri Park, and Doc Edgar Park are vital community assets. Respondents highlighted that while they wish to walk to these locations, "last-mile" issues—such as deteriorating public stairs or unsafe trailhead crossings—act as major deterrents.

Schools (7% | 8 Selections): Proximity to White Hill School and Manor School is a priority for families. The data suggests that vehicle speeds and a lack of dedicated walking paths near these campuses are the primary factors limiting student walkability.

Civic Anchor: Fairfax Library (4% | 5 Selections): Located in the northwestern part of town, the library is a key civic destination. Selections here emphasize the need for better connectivity from the surrounding residential hills to this specific landmark.

4.2 Difficult Destinations to Reach by Biking or Rolling The survey data highlights that the Downtown Core is the primary area difficult to reach for those biking or rolling, accounting for nearly 36% of all Selections due to traffic congestion, parking conflicts, and a lack of dedicated lanes at key intersections like Bolinas Road and Center Boulevard. Significant barriers also exist at the San Anselmo Border and along Commercial Corridors, where high-speed traffic and high-stress intersections create a perceived "impossible" safe route for residents attempting to reach regional shopping centers.

Furthermore, accessibility to Parks, Schools, and Civic Anchors is hindered by a combination of "unfriendly" road designs and a lack of supportive infrastructure, such as secure, high-capacity bike parking and protected "Green Lanes" for student commuters. These findings emphasize a broad community desire for a more cohesive, protected network that addresses both the highstress arterial crossings and the maintenance of narrow residential streets. 14 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 Table 2
Zone Category Specific Locations &
Landmarks
Count Percentage Primary Barriers
Identified
Downtown Core Bolinas Rd, Broadway,
Center Blvd, and Central
Retailers.
41 36% Traffic congestion, lack
of dedicated bike lanes,
and parking conflict.

Parks &
Recreation
Peri Park, Cascade Park,
Deer Park Trailhead, and
Sky Oaks.
13 11% Transition points from
road to trail and lack of
secure bike parking.

San Anselmo /
Border
Red Hill Shopping Center,
Safeway, CVS, and San
Anselmo Rec Center.
12 10% High-stress
intersections and a
perceived "impossible"
safe route from Fairfax.

Commercial
Corridor
Sir Francis Drake Blvd
(SFD), East Side
Businesses, and The
Lodge.
12 10% High-speed traffic,
"unfriendly" road design,
and lack of protected
paths.

Schools White Hill School, Manor
School, and Hidden Valley
vicinity.
8 7% Safety for student
commuters and need for
protected "Green
Lanes."
Residential Hubs Oak Manor, Sleepy
Hollow, Tamalpais Rd, and
Fawn Dr.
6 5% Poor road maintenance
(potholes), steep hills,
and narrow shared
streets.

Civic Anchor Fairfax Library, Post
Office, and Civic Center.
6 5% Difficult navigation along
major arterials to reach
these civic hubs.

Commercial
Anchor
Good Earth Natural Foods 5 4% Crossing Center Blvd
and inadequate highcapacity bike racks.

Miscellaneous General connectivity
Selections and
unspecified town-wide
points.
12 10% Broad desire for a townwide "Cycling Mecca"
infrastructure.

TOTAL 115 100%
15 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 Chart 6.

Difficult Biking and Rolling Destination Categories
The Downtown Core (36% of mentions): This is the most significant area of concern, specifically the intersections and corridors involving Bolinas Road, Broadway, and Center Boulevard.

Parks & Trailheads (11%): Accessing Peri Park, Cascade Park, and the Deer Park Trailhead is hindered by a lack of seamless transitions where paved roads meet trails, as well as a shortage of secure bike parking at these destinations.

The San Anselmo Border (10%): Trips toward the Red Hill Shopping Center (Safeway/CVS) and the San Anselmo Recreation Center are often avoided due to high-stress intersections.

Many respondents perceive a safe route from Fairfax to these nearby commercial hubs as currently "impossible."
Commercial Corridors (10%): Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and the "East Side" businesses are viewed as "unfriendly" due to high vehicle speeds and a lack of protected cycling paths.

School Zones (7%): Reaching White Hill and Manor Schools remains a priority for student safety, with data indicating a strong need for "Green Lanes" or protected infrastructure to separate young commuters from traffic.

Civic & Commercial Anchors (10% combined): Reaching the Fairfax Library, Post Office, and Good Earth Natural Foods involves navigating difficult crossings on major arterials like Center Boulevard, often paired with inadequate high-capacity bike racks at the destination.

Click the button below and choose a location whel'e yo1.1 wish it was easier to reach by biking or roUing. Click the button again to c:hoose another destination .. : This location is hard to reach by b iking or rolling becauseSUbmitted respondents: 71 Total respooclents: 75
c
0 ~ 0
Vehicle speed and/or behavior
lack of bike infrastructure such as
bike lane,s
Poor road m aintenance (potho les,
d ebris, etc)
Other
There a re not enough b ike racks
at the location
There i s not enoug h l ighting to
bike o r ro ll at nig ht
I do not feel safe locking my bike
at the location
The location is too far to reach by
bike or rolling mode
0 20 40 60 80
Responses
100
16 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 Residential Hubs (5%): Neighborhoods such as Oak Manor and Sleepy Hollow present topographic and maintenance challenges, including steep hills, narrow streets, and potholes that make the "last mile" of a trip difficult.
17 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

5. Strategic Locations of Concern
The survey asked people to select one or more locations where they feel concerned while walking or biking, followed by a question about what category their concern best fits within.

Chart 7.

This chart shows the categories of concerns selected by survey respondents.

5.1 Locations of Concern Analysis: Walking

1. Bolinas Road and Broadway (16 selections): This location is identified as a barrier due to a high-stress environment where pedestrians must navigate multi-leg crossings and heavy vehicle turning movements, making it the most complex pedestrian environment in the core.

2. Broadway and Elsie Lane (12 selections): The primary barrier is the physical width of the sidewalk; respondents noted that the narrow walking space, combined with high pedestrian volumes and commercial activity, often feels insufficient for safe passage.

3. Bolinas Road and Park Road (9 selections): This intersection acts as a barrier because of a perceived lack of visibility and high vehicle speeds, which makes the crossing feel unsafe for residents moving between the downtown area and the library.

Clic.k the button below and then click on the map. Clic.k the button again to select an additional location.:

What category does your concern best fit within?
Submitted respondents: 93
Total respondents: 96
General safety and comfort ...

Vehicle speed
Absence of bike infrastructure
~ Sidewalk pavement condition
is Sidewalk width
Quality of road
Maintenance issue
Wayfinding or signage issue
None listed
'
•
0 .
.

I
I
I
.
25 so 75 100
Responses
125
18 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

4. SFD and Willow Avenue (7 selections): The barrier here is the high-speed arterial nature of the road. Pedestrians cite the lack of a "protected" feel and insufficient crossing timing as major reasons why this commercial corridor feels disconnected.

5. Center Boulevard and Azalea Avenue (5 selections): Respondents marked this location as difficult to reach due to the challenging crossing across Center Boulevard, noting that vehicle yielding behavior is inconsistent and crossing distances are intimidating.

5.2 Locations of Concern Analysis: Biking

1. Bolinas Road and Broadway (22 selections): This is the highest-priority intersection in the Discovery Survey data. Respondents identify the primary barriers as a Lack of Bike Infrastructure and Vehicle Speed/Behavior (mentioned in over 70% of selections for this area). The complex multi-way intersection makes it difficult for cyclists to predict vehicle movements, and poor road maintenance (potholes) is also a significant concern here.

2. SFD and Pastori Avenue (14 selections): The overwhelming barrier at this Sir Francis Drake (SFD) intersection is Vehicle Speed and Behavior. Cyclists describe it as a highstress crossing where the lack of a protected "Class 1" path forces them to interact with fast-moving arterial traffic. Lighting is also cited as a secondary barrier for nighttime commuters in this area.

3. Center Boulevard and Pacheco Avenue (11 selections): Barriers at this location are split between Infrastructure Gaps and Safety Concerns. Cyclists highlight the difficulty of transitioning between the commercial core and residential streets, noting that the lack of clear bike thoroughfares leads to unpredictable interactions with transit and parking vehicles.

4. Upper Bolinas Road - School Route (9 selections): Parents and students indicate that while this is a necessary path for school commuting, the lack of protected lanes and the presence of steep, narrow sections make it feel unsafe for younger or less experienced riders.

5. SFD and Glen Drive (6 selections): This intersection is identified as difficult to reach due to Arterial Traffic Speeds and Insufficient Lighting. As a key entry point to the "East Side" businesses, the barrier is the perceived risk of crossing or riding alongside SFD without a physically separated bike lane.
19 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

6. Vision 2035: Community Priorities
Based on the 161 responses from a question in the survey asking respondents to describe how the future looks in Fairfax, the vision for biking, walking, and "rolling" (wheelchairs, strollers, scooters) in Fairfax in 2035 is a blend of ambitious infrastructure upgrades, increased safety enforcement, and a shift toward a more "human-scale" downtown.

The majority of feedback centers on several key themes:

1. Robust "Physical" Infrastructure
The most frequent demand is for protected bike lanes—often described as "Class IV" lanes with physical barriers—rather than just "sharrows" or paint. Residents envision:
• Continuous Networks: A seamless connection from Oak Manor to downtown, and along Sir Francis Drake (SFD) all the way to schools like White Hill and Heartwood Charter.
• Separation: Clear physical demarcation between cars, cyclists, and pedestrians to reduce anxiety for families and the elderly.
• Surface Quality: Massive repair of potholes and crumbling road edges (specifically Bolinas Rd and Center Blvd) to accommodate commuter tires and strollers.

2. A Pedestrian-First Downtown
• Car-Free Zones: Some respondents expressed a desire to pedestrianize sections of Bolinas Road (between Broadway and Elsie) or create "car-free days." • Sidewalk Connectivity: Fixing "sidewalks to nowhere" and ensuring they are wide enough for two strollers to pass and free of root-lift hazards. • Parklets: Keeping and expanding outdoor restaurant seating that "intrudes" into the street to naturally slow traffic and foster community.

3. Safety and "The Rules of the Road"
A significant portion of the respondents wants a culture shift in behavior, backed by enforcement:
20 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6 • Traffic Calming: Use of roundabouts, speed bumps before crosswalks, and audible signals for the visually impaired.
• Accountability: Increased ticketing for both speeding/aggressive drivers and cyclists who "blow through" stop signs or ride in large, disruptive groups (pelotons). • E-bike Management: Specific concern over high-speed "throttle" e-bikes and the need for young riders to be educated or licensed.

4. Accessibility and Equity
The vision for 2035 includes everyone, not just able-bodied commuters:
• Universal Design: Sidewalks that accommodate wheelchairs and the aging population. • Alternative Transit: Suggestions for "Downtowner" shuttles, electric golf carts for those with mobility issues, and even "funniculars" or bike-share programs. • Lighting: Improved street lighting and high-visibility, "smart" crosswalks with flashing lights at all major intersections.
21 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

7. Demographic Information

7.1 Survey Respondents by Residence

7.2 Survey Respondents by Age
■ Fairfax
Survey Respondents by Residence
2% 1%
■ San Anselmo
Other
■ Unincorporated County
■ Ross
22 | T o w n o f F a i r f a x D i s c o v e r y S u r v e y 2 0 2 6

7.3 Survey
Respondents by Gender
Source: American Community Survey 2024 5-year Estimates; 2026 Fairfax Discovery Survey Source: American Community Survey 2024 5-year Estimates; 2026 Fairfax Discovery Survey Fairfax Residents and Survey Respondents
65+
50-64
35-49
25-34 ---
18-24 ■
17 and younger
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
■ Survey Respondents ■ Fairfax Residents
30% 35%
Fairfax Residents and Survey Respondents by Gender
Female
Male
Prefer not to say -
0 .0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
■ Survey Respondents ■ Fairfax Residents
40%

60.0%
1 | P a g e

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: March 27th
, 2026
To: City of Fairfax
From: Colin Burgett, Project Manager, Grishma Pandya, Transportation Planner Subject: Community Workshop Summary
The workshop was conducted on Saturday, March 7th, from 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM at the Fairfax Women’s Club. Approximately 15 participants attended, including BPAC members and community members. The workshop was organized in a classroom-style setting and began with a 20- minute presentation. The presentation provided an overview of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan update process, existing conditions, Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), and historical collision data from 2015 to 2024. The project schedule and next steps were also shared before transitioning into the interactive workshop activities. Following the presentation, a series of classroom-style activities were conducted, with a total of three activities planned for participants.

These included a mapping activity to identify issues and barriers, a visioning activity to imagine the future of bicycling and walking in Fairfax, and a prioritization ranking activity. The prioritization activity asked participants to rank transportation improvement types in order of importance from 1 (highest priority) to 5 (lowest priority), including bikeway networks, walking paths and crossings, transit access via bicycling and walking, safety improvements, and speed reduction for motor vehicles.

The first activity focused on identifying issues, barriers, and concerns related to active transportation. Participants worked in groups using printed Bicycle Network maps to mark specific locations and provide input. They categorized their comments using color-coded stickers for bicycling, walking, transit access, and safety-related concerns. Participants were encouraged to identify problem locations, note issues along corridors, and provide additional details using drawings and Pos t-it notes. This activity helped capture localized challenges such as gaps in infrastructure, unsafe crossings, and barriers to access.

The second activity invited participants to envision the future of bicycling and walking in Fairfax over the next 10 to 20 years. Participants identified key components they would like to see in the future transportation system, focusing on essential improvements and emerging needs. The final activity involved prioritization, where participants ranked transportation improvement categories in order of importance. These included bikeway networks, walking paths and crossings, transit access via bicycling and walking, safety improvements, and speed reduction for motor vehicles. Rankings were assigned

ATTACHMENT E
<C rJKM
2 | P a g e
from 1 (highest priority) to 5 (lowest priority), helping to identify the community’s top priorities for future investments.

The review of community input from the map-based activity 1 highlights several consistent concerns across Fairfax, with safety emerging as the top priority. Participants emphasized widespread speeding issues, particularly along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and other key corridors, along with unsafe crossings and poorly designed intersections that make walking and biking difficult. There is a strong need for improved bicycle infrastructure, including protected and continuous bike lanes, as well as better sidewalk conditions to address gaps, narrow pathways, and accessibility challenges for seniors and individuals with disabilities. Concerns were also raised about safety near schools, downtown circulation inefficiencies, and the need for traffic calming measures. In addition, participants identified maintenance issues such as debris and poor surface conditions, lack of bike parking and amenities, and insufficient signage and wayfinding. Overall, the feedback indicates a need for system-wide improvements focused on safety, connectivity, and accessibility, aligning with a Vision Zero and Complete Streets approach that prioritizes vulnerable users and creates a more cohesive active transportation network.

The Activity 2- Vision, responses reflect a strong community desire to improve safety, accessibility, and connectivity for walking and bicycling in Fairfax over the next 10 to 20 years. Many participants emphasized the need for safer infrastructure, including improved sidewalks for an aging population, protected bike lanes (Class I or buffered II), and car-free or lowstress greenways that support pedestrians, cyclists, and wheelchair users.

There is also a clear focus on creating a more inclusive and family-friendly environment, with visions of children being able to safely walk and bike to schools, parks, and across town.

In addition to infrastructure improvements, participants highlighted the importance of enhancing transit connections and shifting community behavior. Suggestions included restoring and improving transit services (such as ferry and express bus connections), introducing local shuttle services, and increasing access to public transportation. There is also a strong call for public outreach and education to raise awareness, improve attitudes toward active transportation, and support a transition away from an auto-oriented culture. Broader ideas such as better downtown circulation, planning for population growth, and exploring emerging solutions like autonomous vehicles were also noted as part of a more connected and sustainable future.

Activity 3 priority ranking results show a clear and consistent emphasis on safety as the top priority across all groups. Safety improvements were ranked highest by each group, highlighting a strong focus on reducing collisions and improving conditions for all users. Speed reduction for motor vehicles was also identified as a high priority and generally ranked second, reinforcing the importance of managing vehicle behavior to support safer streets. Walking paths and crossings, along with bikeway network improvements, were placed in the mid-range, indicating they are important but secondary to A<1iny •1:VW..O
.. ,. ...... - •"'-":.....W..:::

Vl:dOII fer 8lcydlei1 A W1lklq I• F1ltfu _____ __ ..... ,... ... -1......, ,.. ______ ____ ,.. , --------------
Jee errnt e: c rrr c-.....q m s+t:W:
3 | P a g e
immediate safety needs. Transit access via bicycling and walking was consistently ranked as the lowest priority, suggesting it is viewed as less urgent compared to direct safety and infrastructure improvements. Overall, the results indicate that while safety and speed management are the most critical near-term priorities, there is also recognition of the need for a wellconnected and comprehensive active transportation system.

In conclusion, key inputs and outcomes were gathered from each of the activities and will be used to inform future recommendations in coordination with and building upon the 2016 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Community input has provided valuable location specific insights and suggestions, while the priority ranking activity has helped clarify the most critical needs. The recommendations will be developed using a combination of historical collision data, existing conditions analysis, Level of Traffic Stress, interactive mapping results, survey feedback, and broader community outreach. Together, these inputs will guide decision making and support the development of improved bicycle routes, enhanced facilities, and safer pedestrian infrastructure.

Anlvltr fJ: Priori1ia
llirJdt•N,..._rb.libll,.,,.,.w.........,,
M~ttlo 7 •'6
Priority RankJng Activity Jns1rucdons
.._._ .. ......_.~....-"'"""'"',--- .......... ~ ..... .,..,._.,.,. ........... _..,..,. S1a 1N.-t,, ....... {_l....,.U.. _ ,...._,._. S....,..,~pnorky} JJ -- [±] ..... ~ ,...-!ht..,.... ~.,...,...._,....., - ---•IM ~ -1 ...,...~- w..---
--
* Wol<illPabl: a Cmillap
~cr..s.p.......,
... ,~--'/•
.... -,r9"d ..., ~
C. -~Nqdl,cl.
....__ ... ...,....1im
----... Wllmil
....,..
• ~
A ~ ... -- ~~~_E .. ":!. ~
{i} SpH<l~for- 0 ... ,-...11...iun-
--
<C rJKM

CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Fairfax, California, as of by and between the Town of Fairfax, a municipal corporation (the "TOWN") and TJKM, ("CONSULTANT"), who agree as follows:

1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide to the TOWN the services described in Exhibit "A," which consists of the proposal submitted by CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in Exhibit "A."

2. PAYMENT. TOWN shall pay CONSULT ANT for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the times and in the manner set forth in Exhibit "B." The payments specified in Exhibit "B" shall be the only payments to be made to CONSULTANT for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. CONSUL TANT shall submit all billings for said services to the TOWN in the manner specified in Exhibit "B."

3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. CONSULTANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment which may be required for furnishing services pursuant to this Agreement.

4. GENERAL PROVISIONS. The general provisions set forth in Exhibit "C" are part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the provisions set forth in Exhibit "C" shall control.

5. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. The insurance requirements set forth in Exhibit "D" are part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the requirements set forth in Exhibit "D" shall control.

6. EXHIBITS. All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein.

EXECUTED as of the day first above-stated.

Town of Fairfax, a municipal corporation
By: ___ _________ _
Heather Abrams, Town Manager

CONSULTANT
By:C��
Colin Burgett
Senior Project Manager

ATTACHMENT F
2 EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTANT shall provide the services as described in the attached Scope of Work.

This Agreement and Scope of Services may be amended by mutual consent between the TOWN and CONSULTANT.

If there are any inconsistencies between CONSULTANT’s proposal and this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.

Scope of Work
TJKM will conduct the following tasks:

TASK 0. PROJECT KICK-OFF
Within a week of notice-to-proceed, TJKM will facilitate a Kick-Off Meeting with Town staff to:
• Discuss project goals and objectives
• Finalize project schedule and identify key milestones • Discuss and confirm critical data needs and data sharing protocol TJKM will prepare meeting materials including agenda, sign-in sheets, related handouts, and summarize meeting notes and action items.

TASK 1. EVALUATE GOAL, OBJECTIVE, AND POLICY STRUCTURE
TJKM will evaluate the goal, objective, policy structure and work closely with Town staff to reorganize around thematic goals (safety, connectivity, equity, etc.) Creating effective goals, objectives, policies, and performance measures is key in creating and implementing a successful Plan.

TJKM will develop an updated range of proposed goals (short, medium, and long), objectives, policies and performance measures that align with prior plans and goals of the Town and region and in accordance with local, state, and federal policies and guidelines.

Examples of measuring successful performance indicators include comparing increases in bicycling and walking mode share, growth and investment in active transportation infrastructure, miles of new bike paths, bike lanes, or sidewalks, among others.

These will form the baseline indicators for performance measures. Additionally, during project outreach efforts we will introduce goals and objectives to the community to solicit input. This approach will help in developing performance measures that utilize community support as an indicator to help with prioritizing projects into short, medium, and long-term categories.

TASK 2. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
TJKM will provide a summary of new requirements (since the previous plan was adopted in 2016) for bicycle and pedestrian funding.

TASK 3. DATA ANALYSIS
TJKM will identify and include new data (since the previous plan was adopted in 2016) to evaluate the suitability of pedestrian or bicyclist travel along roadway segments. This shall include bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis and an updated collision analysis as described below.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS). TJKM will perform an LTS analysis for bicycle facilities, as developed by the Mineta Transportation Institute. The LTS analysis will be conducted the Town’s major streets (i.e., Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Center Boulevard, Broadway, and Bolinas Road). LTS analysis uses roadway conditions on a street segment or intersection to predict the comfort experienced by a bicyclist. The goal is to identify where there are highstress connections or crossings that should be addressed to improve overall connectivity of the low-stress bicycle facility network.

TJKM will utilize bicycle network data in GIS format to conduct the analysis and produce the final maps. The maps will identify key barriers to low-stress connectivity, suggesting where bicycle facility improvements should be focused to create comfortable routes to destinations that will be appealing to a greater number of potential bicyclists.

Collision Analysis. TJKM will analyze the most recent 10 years of available data from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and prepare maps and other exhibits to illustrate locations or characteristics of collisions in the Town for people bicycling and walking. Data will be reviewed to identify both locations with a history of reported collisions (“hot spots”), as well as risk factors for fatal and severe injury locations. TJKM will also review data related to contributing factors, traffic violations, environmental conditions, injury severity, determinations of fault, and movements or behavior of involved parties preceding the reported collisions. This analysis will be documented in narrative form, as well as maps and other exhibits, as appropriate, and included in the Existing Conditions Report.

TASK 4. EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH ADOPTED PLANS
TJKM will evaluate compliance and alignment of the 2016 plan with other plans adopted since 2016, including the 2018 Unincorporated Marin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, CalTrans Pedestrian Plan, 2023 MTC Regional Active Transportation Plan, 2023 Marin Countywide Plan, Marin Countywide Transportation Plan 2050, and Plan Bay Area 2050.

TASK 5. EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT
TJKM will prepare an Existing Conditions Report on the state of the Town’s cycling and walking facilities and an evaluation of which goals set in the 2016 Master Plan have been achieved or not. The Report will incorporate the assessments conducted in Task 1 to 4 and provide an overview of relevant amenities, transportation patterns, and demographic information for the Fairfax community. Maps will document the current active transportation network, collision locations and “hot spots,” bicycle LTS, and destinations/trip generators.

TASK 6. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
TJKM will provide policy recommendations relevant to implementing Vision Zero principles and improving street safety such as Complete Streets policies, setting appropriate speed limits, and setting policy around practices and infrastructure that ensure safety. These policies will inform by community engagement, case studies, and additional research.

TASK 7. PRIORITIZATION MATRIX/RANKING FOR BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

RECOMMENDATIONS
TJKM will create a prioritization matrix that can be used to evaluate and rank recommended projects based on the established criteria and develop guidance for implementation. TJKM will also create a Funding Source Matrix to identify local, regional, state, and federal resources along with sustainable and ‘green’ revenue sources to help Fairfax achieve its improvements.

The Funding Source Matrix will be structured to provide short-term, medium-term, and long-term strategies and those funding opportunities likely to be associated with those strategies. TJKM’s expertise with grant writing, scheduling deadlines, and winning grants for other municipalities will ensure Fairfax has the best opportunity for funding success.

TASK 8. PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
TJKM will develop a ranked list of proposed bicycle and pedestrian network improvements, including an All Ages and Abilities network, in order to enhance safety and connectivity.

Along with a matrix formula that relates the list to plan goals and objectives, proposed improvements will be presented graphically on maps, and through plans/sections of potential high priority projects and illustrative concepts. The TJKM Team will also develop strategies and identify opportunities to enhance safety, connectivity, enforcement, education, and evaluation for all modes of transportation.

As an interdisciplinary transportation planning and design firm, TJKM is uniquely positioned to find a balance among the Town’s mobility goals and challenges and its commitment to maintaining a natural aesthetic through a pragmatic design that are meaningful yet sustainable within Fairfax’s existing framework.

TJKM will evaluate and rank recommended improvements based on the established criteria and develop guidance for implementation. Once the networks and cost estimates have been prioritized, an Implementation Plan will be created. The updated Plan will include updated GIS maps showing the planned improvements.

TJKM will refine, collate, and expand the deliverables from earlier tasks into a coherent Plan document for review by Town Staff. TJKM will present the Draft Plan to the Town for review and feedback with edits and clarifications made recorded and a summary of responses and changes provided to staff. TJKM will also work with Town staff to forward the Draft Plan for review by any Stakeholders and the public as well as other relevant agencies and jurisdictions, and if necessary, facilitate and attend a meeting of agency representatives.

TASK 9. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MATERIALS
TJKM will prepare materials, including but not limited to PowerPoint presentations, large exhibits, handouts, and notifications including maps and supporting graphics for use during the BPAC meetings, pop-up events and workshops that will be led by Town staff.

TASK 10. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BPAC INTEGRATION
TJKM will work closely with Town staff to assist with the outreach effort, engage the community, and develop a Plan that addresses the specific issues that the Town is facing under existing conditions. TJKM staff are experienced with conducting pop-up events and facilitating workshops. TJKM will participate in at least five in-person engagement meetings such as pop-up events and public workshops, and three in-person BPAC meetings. 3 EXHIBIT “B”

PAYMENT
1) The total contract price for services rendered by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall not exceed $75,000 which shall be paid on a time and materials basis.

Consultant fees are invoiced at the hourly rates described in the attached rate sheet.

Other fees, costs, expenses and rates as described in the PROPOSAL (Exhibit A). In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of this Exhibit “B” and the PROPOSAL, the terms of this Exhibit “B” shall control.
2) Payment shall be made to CONSULTANT on a time and materials basis, and CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to the Town Manager, Town of Fairfax, 142 Bolinas Rd., Fairfax, CA 94930, for the same.
3) Any additional meetings or work required beyond that set forth in Exhibit “A” shall be mutually agreed to by the TOWN and CONSULTANT, and shall be billed on a time and materials basis to the Town Manager, Town of Fairfax, 142 Bolinas Rd., Fairfax, CA 94930, 4 EXHIBIT “C”

GENERAL PROVISIONS
1) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of TOWN.

TOWN shall have the right to control CONSULTANT only insofar as the results of CONSULTANT's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement; however, TOWN shall not have the right to control the means by which CONSULTANT accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
2) LICENSES; PERMITS; ETC. CONSULTANT represents and warrants to TOWN that CONSULTANT has all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for CONSULTANT to practice CONSULTANT's profession.

CONSULTANT represents and warrants to TOWN that CONSULTANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for CONSULTANT to practice his profession. 3) TIME. CONSULTANT shall devote such services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of CONSULTANT's obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
4) CONSULTANT NOT AN AGENT. Except as TOWN may specify in writing, CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of TOWN in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement, to bind TOWN to any obligation whatsoever. 5) ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. 6) PERSONNEL. CONSULTANT shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that TOWN, in its sole discretion, at anytime during the term of this Agreement, desires the removal of any person or persons assigned by CONSULTANT to perform services pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall remove any such person immediately upon receiving notice from TOWN of the desire of TOWN for the removal of such person or persons.
7) STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. CONSULTANT shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement. Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged in the geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices its profession. All products which CONSULTANT delivers to TOWN pursuant to this Agreement shall be prepared in a workmanlike manner, and conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in CONSULTANT's profession. TOWN shall be the sole judge as to whether the product of the CONSULTANT is satisfactory.
5 8) CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be canceled at any time by the TOWN at its discretion upon written notification to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT is entitled to receive full payment for all services performed and all costs incurred up to and including the date of receipt of written notice to cease work on the project. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to no further compensation for work performed after the date of receipt of written notice to cease work. All completed and incomplete products up to the date of receipt of written notice to cease work shall become the property of TOWN. 9) PRODUCTS OF CONSULTING. All products of the CONSULTANT provided under this Agreement shall be the property of the TOWN. 10) INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS.
a) If this AGREEMENT is an agreement for design professional services subject to California Civil Code § 2782.8(a) and CONSULTANT is a design professional, as defined in California Civil Code § 2782.8(b)(2), CONSULTANT shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the TOWN, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against all third party claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorneys’ fees to the extent arising out of, or pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the TOWN.
b) If this AGREEMENT is not an agreement for design professional services subject to California Civil Code § 2782.8(a) or CONSULTANT is not a design professional as defined in subsection (a) above, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the TOWN, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from all third party claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description, brought forth on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property to the extent arising from or connected with the willful misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions, ultra-hazardous activities, activities giving rise to strict liability, or defects in design by CONSULTANT or any person directly or indirectly employed by or acting as agent for CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement, including the concurrent or successive passive negligence of the TOWN, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers.
c) It is understood that the duty of CONSULTANT to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code, except that CONSULTANT shall have the right to defend any claim for which indemnification is sought under this Section 10. Any person or entity seeking indemnification under this Section 10 shall promptly report the matter to CONSULTANT such that defense of the matter is not compromised. d) Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve CONSULTANT from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. Thisindemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or notsuch insurance policies are determined to be applicable to any such damages or claims for damages. 6 11) PROHIBITED INTERESTS. No employee of the TOWN shall have any direct financial interest in this Agreement. This Agreement shall be voidable at the option of the TOWN if this provision is violated.
12) LOCAL EMPLOYMENT POLICY. The TOWN desires wherever possible, to hire qualified local residents to work on Town projects. Local resident is defined as a person who resides in Marin County. The TOWN encourages an active affirmative action program on the part of its contractors, consultants, and developers. When local projects require, subcontractors, contractors, consultants and developers will solicit proposals from qualified local firms where possible.
13) FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. If federal funds are involved in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall comply with the federal requirements in Exhibit “E”. As a way of responding to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act and this program, contractor, consultants, and developers will be asked, to provide no more frequently than monthly, a report which lists the employee's name, job class, hours worked, salary paid, city of residence, and ethnic origin. 14) CONSULTANT NOT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. CONSULTANT is not a "public official" for purposes of Government Code §§ 87200 et seq. CONSULTANT conducts research and arrives at his or her conclusions, advice, recommendation, or counsel independent of the control and direction of the TOWN or any TOWN official, other than normal contract monitoring. In addition, CONSULTANT possesses no authority with respect to any TOWN decision beyond these conclusions, advice, recommendation, or counsel. 7 EXHIBIT “D”

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives, or employees.
1) MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF INSURANCE
a) Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG 00 01) with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, products and completed operations, and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. b) Automobile Liability coverage (Form CA 00 01 with Code 1 – any auto) with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. c) Workers’ Compensation insurance, if required by the State of California and Employers’ Liability insurance, each in the amount of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
2) INDUSTRY SPECIFIC COVERAGES
The following insurance is also required.
 Professional Liability Insurance / Errors and Omissions Liability in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence.
3) INSURANCE PROVISIONS
a) DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS. Any deductibles or selfinsured retentions must be declared to and approved by the TOWN. At the option of the TOWN, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the TOWN, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the CONSULTANT shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
b) The general and automobile liability policies (and if applicable, pollution liability, garage keepers liability and builder’s risk policies) are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
i) The TOWN, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT; products and completed operations of the CONSULTANT; premises owned, occupied or used by the CONSULTANT; or 8 automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the CONSULTANT. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the TOWN, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
ii) For any claims other than workers compensation coverage, related to this project, the CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the TOWN, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the TOWN, its officers, officials, employees or volunteersshall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warrantiesshall not affect coverage provided to the TOWN, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
iv) The CONSULTANT’sinsurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
v) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the TOWN.
vi) The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy.

The minimum limitsstated above shall not serve to reduce the CONSULTANT’s policy limits of coverage.
c) ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURER. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the TOWN. d) VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE. CONSULTANT shall furnish the TOWN with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this Exhibit D. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the TOWN or on forms equivalent to CG 20 10 11 85 subject to TOWN approval. All insurance certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the TOWN before work commences. At the request of the TOWN, CONSULTANT shall provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
e) SUB-CONTRACTORS. CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to procure and maintain insurance policiessubject to the requirements of Exhibit D. Failure of CONSULTANT to verify existence of sub-contractor’sinsurance shall not relieve CONSULTANT from any claim arising from sub-contractors work on behalf of CONSULTANT.