HOME BUILDING
LAND DEVELOPMENT
Bringing five-star quality home 3500 Douglas Boulevard
Suite 270
Roseville, CA 95661
January 20, 2026
Mayor Catherine "Cat" Moy (cmoy9fairfield.ca.gov)
Vice Mayor Pam Bertani (pbertani(&fairfield.ca.gov)
Councilmember Doriss Panduro (d andurogfairfield.ca.goy) Councilmember Doug Carr (dcarr(a�,fairfield.ca.gov)
Councilmember Manveer Sandhu (msandhunfairfield.ca.aov) Councilmember Scott Tonnesen (stonnesenkfairfield.ca.gov) Councilmember K. Patrice Williams (k williams(c�fairfield.ca.gov) Dear Mayor Moy, Vice Mayor Bertani and members of the City Council:
I am Mike O'Hara, Director of Forward Planning for Tim Lewis Communities, and we write to urge you to NOT approve the rezoning of our properties at 1351 East Tabor Avenue and at the corner of East Tabor Avenue and Railroad Avenue (APN's 0038-221-010 and 0037-010-120).
These are shown as the Sites 5 and 7 in your Agenda item M-1, Resolution 2026-13 and Ordinance 2026-01 CD Housing Element Compliance, and are proposed to be rezoned from Residential High (RH) to Residential Very High (RVH). Tim Lewis Communities opposes these proposed modifications of density from RH to RVH, along with the corresponding General Plan amendments as applied to our two parcels, as detailed below.
First, however, we take issue with the City's noticing on this project. The only notification that our office received was for this meeting, which was originally scheduled for the December 2nd, 2025 City Council meeting, but postponed due to an additional Planning Commission hearing in December. We did not receive notice of any of the Planning Commission hearings. Further, and more critically, the notice that we received contained no mention of the increased densities within each zoning designation or General Plan land use category. So, even if our property was not being re -zoned, the City provided no notice regarding the City's proposal to increase the RH density from a range of 15 - 22 per acre to a range of 19-25 units per acre. This is significant, and there was no mention in the notice of this, only that our property was identified to be re -zoned. We believe the notice to be insufficient, and to violate Administrative Procedure Act requirements, State Planning and Zoning laws, and your own Municipal Code.
As to the proposed rezoning from RH to RVH, the net effect of both actions on our property is to take the density range from a range of 15-22 units per acre (average of 18.5 per acre) to a new zoning category of 26-40 units per acre (average 33 per acre), therefore increasing the average density of our property from 18.5 to 33 per acre, a 78% increase in average density, and increasing the minimum density from 15 per acre to 26 per acre, a 73% increase in minimum density.
As home builders, we obviously support provisions to achieve higher levels of housing when it is appropriate. But we do not support the density increase at our site, for two primary reasons: first, we believe this action is inconsistent with conditions that would make higher density housing viable. Secondly, we believe the costs to build a higher level of density will render the site infeasible and actually may result in LESS homes being built on this site due to infeasibility associated with various site constraints affecting the developable area on the property, among other practicability considerations (e.g., costs, logistics and limitations on available infrastructure). As a result, we believe this is an inappropriate site for this level of density.
Higher density works when support services and transportation options exist to allow residents options without relying on their cars. Typically, higher density properties are proximally located adjacent to other higher density properties, in order that services and transportation options can be clustered in those areas to support the higher density and increased population. However, increasing density on our property creates a high -density island: there is no other property proximal to ours that has this kind of density. As a result, there are limited services, commercial or retail or transportation options for the residents, forcing residents into their cars and increasing the need for additional on -site parking spaces and traffic. An isolated property's higher potential unit count does not lead to building those units if doing so is infeasible.
A review of the transportation network serving our site does not support higher density in this location. The nearest bus stop in the FAST system appears to be about 8/10 of a mile away from the western edge of our property, which is inconsistent with walkable transportation (typically assumed to be about 10 minutes vs 18-20 in our case). Incentives for builders to build higher densities are directly tied to transportation access: density is able to be increased when the site is located proximally to robust transportation, which is typically defined as those sites that are no more than'/4 to %2 mile from a major transit stop with frequent headways. Our site has ONE bus stop almost a mile away with 60-minute headways; this would not qualify as robust transportation, and therefore the CEQA exemptions and incentives would not be available, thereby actually disincentivizing higher density building on our property. This significant lack of transit in this location effectively pushes density further from transit, which increases reliance on the car for a higher number of residents occupying future homes on a small property.
Secondly, increasing the density raises the cost of construction considerably: to achieve a 35- to 40-per acre density typically requires four-story product, we would expect direct costs to increase an estimated 50%+ more per unit over a 2-story product which is typical of the surrounding area and which is appropriate for the current RH zoning category density of 15-22 per acre (now proposed to increase to 19-25 units per acre) based on our experience. Add the increased costs of providing additional parking spaces due to inadequate transit opportunities, and the feasibility of building this product decreases further.
The residential market is taking a beating now: uncertain economic conditions have pummeled consumer confidence. The result is lower rents and higher vacancy rates in rental communities.
Further, the costs of huge interest rate buydowns and sales concessions lead to low net sales prices in for -sale product. Builders are having to absorb these deficits in order to move product. To exacerbate this situation, the costs of development have continued to increase across all categories, including hard costs and soft costs: construction, insurance, financing and impact fees. Increasing the cost of development further by increasing the density is therefore not supportable. In fact,
amplifying this by increasing the density and cost in an area that is not supported by transit pushes project viability in the wrong direction.
This Railroad Avenue/East Tabor location does not support higher values achievable in other parts of Fairfield. Our company has owned this property for many years, first obtaining approvals for a 91-unit townhome development in 2005. The company did not proceed with that development at the time citing concerns with the location and the market. Since then, we have not pursued further development approvals due to market concerns and lack of financial feasibility for a project in that location. The market has simply not supported it.
We believe the City's proposed re -zoning action on our property is inconsistent with the conditions that would make higher density housing work. No other property in the surrounding area is designated or zoned for up to 40-per acre density, and likely as a result of this, there is a significant lack of a transportation network. You are creating a "density island", with no support services or transportation surrounding it. City staff did not provide any analysis supporting its proposal to randomly change the zoning and General Plan land use designations on our property. These conditions do not support higher density in this location, and increasing the minimum density by 73% simply makes no sense. Due to all these combining factors, this actually may result in the completion of fewer units due to project infeasibility; you may actually achieve more units under the current zoning density by making financial viability more achievable.
We therefore urge you to abandon this modification in the zoning density and general plan designations as applied to our two parcels. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Michael S. O'Hara
Director of Forward Planning
Tim Lewis Communities, Inc.
Cc: Vicrim Chima, Senior Planner (vchim ,fairfield.ca.gov) City Clerk cityclerk ,fairfield.ca.gov