4576 Paradise Drive Rezoning (Tiburon Housing Element Site H)

Ask a question to begin.

The program EIR for General Plan 2040, which includes the housing element, studies 916 new units across the town's 17 housing sites without site-specific analysis.

The group's spokesperson says the site is "unsuitable for more than four units of housing." The petition is later amended to challenge the rezoning.

HCD finds the element in substantial compliance after the town amended it on Sept. 20, 2023.

Councilmember Isaac Nikfar abstains. The Ark reports that no development plans have been submitted for the site.

The ordinance rezones the parcel for very high density residential use with a realistic capacity of 93 units. The committee amends its petition on Dec. 15 to challenge it.

Before this hearing, Judge Sheila Shah Lichtblau issues a tentative ruling that the EIR "fails to include feasible analysis of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of adding 93-118 residential units."

The order sets aside portions of the EIR, the rezoning and the site's inclusion in the state-approved housing element.

Their amicus brief says the ruling "needlessly places the Town at risk of housing element decertification." The League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties file a brief the same day.

The court holds the program EIR adequate because "no housing project has been proposed for Site H," and sends two issues back to the trial court.

The California Supreme Court denies a petition for review in the case (S295708).

Its lawyers argued that General Plan 2040 sets "policies, goals and guidelines" for development that may or may not be built, so a program-level review was the right level of detail, with project-level review when a developer files an application.

"The trial court's ruling, if upheld, would blur the distinction between a first and second tier EIR, thereby impeding the use of tiering when it comes to planning for more housing." The brief says the ruling "needlessly places the Town at risk of housing element decertification."

"We are happy that the court of appeal reversed the erroneous trial court ruling and upheld the town's general plan (environmental-impact report)." (Feb. 2, 2026)

Said the town used "experienced environmental professionals" and "followed the same process as nearly every other city in California, so I'm not surprised it was determined that their (report) was done according to the law." (Feb. 2, 2026)

Did not decertify the housing element after the 2024 ruling set aside the Site H listing. Joined the brief arguing that site-specific impacts are best assessed only when a development is actually proposed.

Their brief, by Matthew D. Francois of Rutan & Tucker, argues that a program-level EIR is what general planning documents require, with project-level review once specific projects are proposed.

"The Committee for Tiburon will continue to oppose this absurd development so long as the Town Council continues to shift blame and turn a deaf ear to a more reasonable plan for (4576 Paradise Drive) that it twice reported was capable of supporting only four total housing units, not more than over a hundred as now planned." (February 2026)

The site "poses significant safety, environmental, physical and infrastructural challenges that make it unsuitable for more than four units of housing." Also: "We view ourselves as being pro-Tiburon. We are not against the town." (July 2023)

Sued on June 23, 2023, arguing the EIR had to analyze the site-specific impacts of developing 4576 Paradise Drive. Won in the trial court in 2024 and lost on appeal in 2026; two issues are back before the trial court.

Reversed on Feb. 2, 2026: "[w]hen a housing project has not even been proposed, the lack of project-specific details precludes an informed review of environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and deferral of such a review to a site-specific, project-level EIR analysis is appropriate." Sent the CEQA exemption and general plan consistency questions back to the trial court.

Ruled that the EIR "fails to include feasible analysis of the reasonably foreseeable impacts of adding 93-118 residential units" (tentative ruling, July 2024) and on Sept. 19, 2024 set aside portions of the EIR, the rezoning and the site's housing element listing.

The committee's CEQA suit won in Marin County Superior Court, which set aside the Site H rezoning and the site's housing element listing on Sept. 19, 2024. The Court of Appeal reversed on Feb. 2, 2026, and the Supreme Court denied review on April 29, 2026. Whether the rezoning is exempt under Public Resources Code section 21080.085, and whether General Plan 2040 is internally consistent, are back before the trial court.