HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agd Pkt 2022-08-31
TOWN OF TIBURON
Tiburon Town Hall
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Tiburon Town Council
August 31, 2022
Special Meeting
4:30 P.M.
TIBURON
TOWN COUNCIL
AGENDA
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e), the Town Council meeting will not be physically
open to the public and all Council Members will be teleconferencing into the meeting. To maximize
public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access the
meeting by following the meeting live at:
Audio/Video Webinar: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86584726591
Webinar ID: 865 8472 6591
Call-in Number: +1 669 900 6833
Access Code: 865 8472 6591
Instructions for providing public comment live during the meeting using Zoom are linked on the Town’s
website and to this agenda.
Members of the public may provide public comment by sending comments to the Town Clerk by email at
comments@townoftiburon.org. Comments received prior to the start of the Council meeting will be
distributed electronically to the Town Council and posted on the Town’s website. Comments received
after the start time of the Council meeting, but prior to the close of public comment period for an item,
will then be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment,
subject to the Mayor’s discretion. All comments read into the record should be a maximum of 500
words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the
agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of
the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the Town Clerk who will use
their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible
while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the Town’s procedure for resolving reasonable
accommodation requests. All reasonable accommodations offered will be listed on the Town’s website at
www.townoftiburon.org.
SPECIAL MEETING – 4:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Griffin, Councilmember Thier, Vice Mayor Ryan, Mayor
Welner
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government
Code Section 54956.9: (One potential case)
Claim filed by Honeybadger Acquisitions LLC on March 23, 2022 on file with the Town Clerk’s
office
ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY
ACTION ITEMS
AI-1.Draft Housing Element - Discussion and Comment Regarding Submittal of the Draft
Housing Element Update (6th Cycle: 2023-2031) to the California Department of Housing and
Community Development
ADJOURNMENT
GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435-
7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and
inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to
Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town’s website,
www.townoftiburon.org.
Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate
alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including
auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in
public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address,
phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred
alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting.
Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to
provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Town Council at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).
TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA
While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it
reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items
appearing on the Town Council agenda.
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 11
STAFF REPORT
To:
Mayor and Members of the Town Council
From:
Community Development Department
Subject:
Discussion and Comment Regarding Submittal of the Draft Housing
Element Update (6th Cycle: 2023-2031) to the California Department of
Housing and Community Development
Reviewed By:
_________
Greg Chanis, Town Manager
_________
Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney
SUMMARY
This is an opportunity for the Town Council to provide input on the Town’s Draft Housing
Element Update prior to submittal to the California Department of Housing and Community
Development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S)
Staff recommends the Town Council,
1.Receive the staff report, accept public comment and approve by minute order
direction to staff on any needed revisions to the Draft Housing Element prior to
submission to HCD
BACKGROUND
Every eight years, the Town, like all local governments, must update its Housing Element to
accommodate projected housing needs and address new State legislation. The Housing Element
addresses a range of housing issues such as affordability, housing diversity, density, and location,
and establishes goals, policies, and programs for existing and projected housing needs. The
Housing Element must be internally consistent with other parts of the General Plan and is critical
to having a legally adequate General Plan.
State law does not require that jurisdictions build or finance new housing, but they must plan for
it. It is in the Housing Element that local governments make decisions about where housing could
be developed to offer a mix of housing types for households with varying incomes. Perhaps most
well known, the Housing Element must identify how the Town will meet its share of the region’s
housing need, called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, by selecting housing
sites and densities that, if developed, would satisfy the RHNA.
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Process
The RHNA process starts with the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) provided by
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which is the total
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Meeting
August 31, 2022
Agenda Item:AI-1
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 11
number of housing units the San Francisco Bay Area needs over the eight-year period, by income
category. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is tasked with developing the
methodology to allocate a portion of housing needs to each city, town, and county in the region.
For the 6th Housing Element Cycle (2023-2031), HCD required the Bay Area to plan for and
revise local zoning to accommodate 441,176 addition housing units, more than double the 5th
Cycle’s allocation of 187,990 housing units. The RHND is intended to not only meet projected
increases in population and household formation, but to address existing unmet housing needs
that have led to a statewide housing crisis in California.
ABAG appointed a Housing Methodology Committee to develop a methodology to distribute a
share of the region’s housing need to each jurisdiction. The methodology started with a baseline
allocation that reflected growth patterns and population and employment projections developed
for Plan Bay Area 2050, the region’s long-range strategic plan. The baseline allocation was then
adjusted by three factors related to Access to High Opportunity Areas, Job Proximity via
Automobiles, and Job Proximity via Transit. Tiburon’s RHNA allocation was most heavily
influenced by the Town’s classification as a Transit-Rich Area (due to the ferry terminal served
by transit) and a High Resource Area (due to the Town scoring high on metrics related to high
performing schools, lower exposure to environmental and health hazards, higher employment, a
higher percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree, and lower poverty rates).
Tiburon’s 6th Cycle RHNA allocation is for 639 housing units, more than eight times the 5th
Cycle RHNA of 78 units. The RHNA allocation broken down by income categories is shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Tiburon 2023-2031 Final RHNA Allocation
Income Level Units
VERY LOW INCOME
(<50% OF Area Median Income) 193
LOW INCOME
(50-80% of Area Median Income) 110
MODERATE INCOME
(80-120% of Area Median Income) 93
ABOVE MODERATE INCOME
(>120% of Area Median Income) 243
TOTAL ALLOCATION 639
The Town appealed the draft RHNA allocation to ABAG on July 9, 2021. Appeals were allowed
to be filed based on a limited number of pre-determined grounds. The Town’s appeal was based
on:
1) ABAG failed to adequately consider information submitted in the Local Jurisdiction Survey
regarding RHNA Factors:
a. Water infrastructure constraints for additional development due to laws, regulatory
actions, or decisions made by a provider other than the local jurisdiction.
b. Availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential
use.
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 11
2) ABAG failed to determine the jurisdiction’s Draft RHNA Allocation in accordance with the
final RHNA Methodology and in a manner that furthers and does not undermine the RHNA
objectives.
Twenty-eight of the 101 Bay Area local governments filed an appeal, including all Marin
jurisdictions except San Rafael and Novato. Tiburon’s appeal was heard on October 8, 2022. On
November 21, 2021, the ABAG Administrative Committee denied all of the appeals except one
for the County of Contra which resulted in a transfer of 35 units to the City of Pittsburgh due to a
previous annexation.
Key Components of a Housing Element
While the Housing Element Update often focuses on meeting RHNA, there are several other
Housing Element requirements. The Housing Element must include:
1. Community Engagement: The Housing Element requires a diligent effort to include all
economic segments of the community. The Housing Element must describe the
community engagement program, and efforts made to reach out to traditionally
underrepresented groups. (Section 1.6 and Appendix A)
2. Evaluation of Past Performance: Review of the prior Housing Element to measure
progress in implementing policies and programs. (Section 1.7 and Appendix B)
3. Housing Needs Assessment: Examination of demographic, employment and housing
trends and conditions and identification of existing and projected housing needs of the
community, with attention paid to special housing needs (e.g., large families, persons with
disabilities, people experiencing homelessness). (Section 2.0)
4. Housing Sites Inventory: Identification of available sites for housing development or
redevelopment to ensure there is enough land zoned for housing to meet the future need at
all income levels as specified by the RHNA. (Section 3.0)
5. Constraints Analysis: Analysis and recommended remedies for existing and potential
governmental and nongovernmental barriers to housing development. (Section 4.0)
6. Policies and Programs: Policies and programs to be carried out during the 2023- 2031
planning period to fulfill the identified housing goals and objectives. (Section 5.0)
7. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) – Pursuant to recent State legislation,
Housing Elements must affirmatively further fair housing, which means “taking
meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of
segregation and foster inclusive communities.” The housing element must provide a
summary of fair housing issues, analyze patterns and trends in segregation and disparities
in access to opportunity, and identify housing sites in a manner that affirmatively furthers
fair housing. The Town worked collaboratively with the County of Marin to address
AFFH requirements and prepare Appendix D; this work is also summarized in Section 3.2
and 5.4. The Town also conducted targeted outreach to underrepresented community
members, including affordable housing residents and service workers in Tiburon, as
described in Section 1.6.
Housing Element Update Deadlines
An updated Housing Element is required to be adopted by the Town Council by January 31,
2023. There is what has been referred to as a “grace period” of 120 days from January 31, 2023,
that is until May 31, 2023 to have the housing element adopted and found to be in substantial
compliance by HCD (“certification”). However, if the Town does not have a legally adequate
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 4 OF 11
housing element by January 31, 2023, the “builder’s remedy” in the Housing Accountability Act
applies, and a project that includes 20% affordable housing for lower income households cannot
not be denied on any site designated in any element of the general plan for a) residential use, or b)
commercial use if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within commercial
designations; regardless of compliance with density or other development standards.
(Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)(B).)
If HCD certification is not received by May 31, 2023 (120 days after January 31, 2023), the
Town must complete any re-zonings called for in the Housing Element within 1 year of the due
date, rather than the standard 3-year timeframe. (Government Code Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(i).)
In other words, the Town would have to up-zone its Housing Element inventory sites by January
31, 2024 rather than 2026. In addition, if the housing element is adopted more than one year after
the due date, it cannot be found in “substantial compliance” with housing element law until the
up-zoning is adopted. (Government Code Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii).)
Community Outreach and Engagement
Public outreach and engagement are important components of the Housing Element Update. Staff
has been working closely with its General Plan consultant to develop a multi-pronged approach
aimed at reaching all segments of the community.
A dedicated housing webpage was created as part of the General Plan Update process, which was
launched in December 2021 (createtiburon2040.org). The site was used throughout the update
process to provide background information and resources, inform community members about
workshops and meetings, solicit community input through online surveys, and provide access to
draft documents, fact sheets, Q&A documents, meeting summaries, presentations, and workshop
video recordings. The website was enabled with Google Translate to provide multilingual
translation for all users. In addition, presentations and surveys were translated into Spanish to
facilitate access for the Hispanic and Latinx community, which represents the largest group of
people who speak limited or no English in Tiburon and Marin County. Housing workshops
offered Spanish translation as well.
Staff used a variety of methods to advertise the housing element update process and workshops,
including:
• Providing information on the General Plan Update process, including the Housing Element,
through a town-wide mailer;
• Publishing articles in the Town’s newsletter, which reaches over 800 Tiburon households;
• Providing flyers (in Spanish on the reverse) at the library and Town Hall; posting flyers on
community boards; and providing flyers to the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce to for
distribution to Tiburon businesses and workers and to EAH, the Town’s primary affordable
housing developer and manager, for distribution to lower-income residents;
• Promoting the workshops on social media, including Nextdoor, Facebook, and Instagram, and
in The Ark; and
• Sending emails to the interested parties list and community-based organizations.
The first workshop was held on November 9, 2021 and attended by 95 people. The workshop
focused on providing an overview of the housing element, RHNA, and existing housing
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 5 OF 11
conditions and on gathering input on housing needs and potential sites and strategies to
accommodate RHNA and encourage a more diverse population.
The second workshop was held on February 22, 2022 and attended by 30 people. The workshop
built on input received at the first workshop and explored the suitability of specific sites,
development types, and housing densities to accommodate RHNA. The workshop focused on
sites to accommodate the very low, low, and moderate-income housing need as the above
moderate income housing need is expected to be accommodated through development of vacant
single family and two-family lots, additional development on single family lots through the
application of SB 9 (which permits single family lot splits and development of two single family
homes on a single lot), and a small number of accessory dwelling units.
The following framework was used to guide selection of housing opportunity sites for very low,
low, and moderate income units:
▪ Improve the vitality of Downtown (Look for opportunities to increase foot traffic and
desirability of shopping and recreating in the Downtown)
▪ Improve appearance, productivity, and quality of existing properties (Look for properties
developed with older commercial buildings with little recent investment and/or currently
vacant)
▪ Consider vehicular traffic on Tiburon Boulevard (Locate sites near transit stops and the
ferry dock, near Highway 101, and near jobs)
▪ Consistent with Town’s existing land use policy to the extent possible (Combined with
above goals, look to areas where housing is already allowed)
The workshop presentation identified six areas for potential rezoning and provided development
concepts for selected parcels within these sites. Conceptual models were used to illustrate
potential massing and provide a sense of building scale. Workshop participants were asked to
react to the development concepts via live polling. Following the presentation, participants
gathered in breakout rooms for discussion of preferred development types, densities, building
heights, and sites to meet the RHNA requirement for very low, low, and moderate housing of 396
units.
Both workshops included live-polling and breakout sessions to explore ideas in small groups.
Surveys were posted online following each workshop. The workshop and survey summaries are
provided in Appendix A of the Draft Housing Element. The first survey received 67 responses,
and the second survey received 238 responses. The workshop presentations and recordings are
available at the CreateTiburon2040.org website.
In order to gather additional input from underrepresented members of the community, a paper
survey, in both English and Spanish, was distributed to workers at local businesses, including
restaurants and grocery stores, and to lower-income residents at EAH properties. The Town also
conducted three focus groups with EAH residents in May and June of 2022 and interviews with
local service employees in July 2022. The outreach effort reached seniors, female-headed
households, disabled residents, very-low and low-income residents and workers, people of color,
and people who did not speak English as a first language. The focus group and survey summaries
are provided in Appendix A.
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 6 OF 11
Finally, the Town conducted stakeholder interviews with organizations that serve
underrepresented populations, including Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, Legal
Aid, and Canal Alliance.
On March 23, 2022, the Planning Commission considered and endorsed staff’s recommendation
to rezone five areas to allow residential use and/or housing development at higher densities
including three Downtown areas (Tiburon Boulevard East, Tiburon Boulevard West, and Main
Street), a vacant portion of the Reed School site, and the Cove Shopping Center. These sites are
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Housing Sites Reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2022
Site
# Site Address Existing Use
Parcel
Size
(acres)
Proposed
Density
(du/ac)
Housing Unit
Capacity
1 1525 Tiburon Blvd Parking lot 0.66 40-45 26-29
2 1535 Tiburon Blvd Chase Bank 0.72 40-45 28-32
3 1601 Tiburon Blvd Bank of America (vacant) 0.57 40-45 22-25
4 4 Beach Rd Parking lot 1.07 40-45 42-48
5 1550 Tiburon Blvd Boardwalk Shopping Ctr. 2.21 30-35 66-77
6 1620 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg. 0.27 30-35 26-30 1640/50 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg.. 0.60 30-35
7 6 Beach Rd Comm. bldg. and apts. 0.41 30-35 42-49 12 Beach Rd Post office 1.00 30-35
8 1199 Tiburon Blvd. Reed School 2.91 20-25 58-72
9 1 Blackfield Dr. Cove Shopping Center 2.892 25-30 72-86
A 1555 Tiburon Blvd Parking lot 0.86 40-45 34-38
B 1599 Tiburon Blvd CVS 1.66 40-45 66-74
C 1600 Tiburon Blvd Former Shark’s Deli 0.39 30-35 11-13
D 1610 Tiburon Blvd. Comm. bldg.. 0.13 30-35 3-4
E 1660 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg. 0.43 30-35 12-15
F 1680 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg.. 0.29 30-35 8-10
G 26 Main St./2 Juanita Ln. Theatre and shops 0.43 20-25 8-10
Total 524-612
1 This 2.9 acre area represents the vacant Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) portion of the 7.5
acre parcel.
2 Excluding 1 acre AHO portion of the 3.89-acre site.
On April 20 and 27, 2022, the Town Council reviewed the housing sites selected by the Planning
Commission and directed staff to remove the Cove Shopping Center (Site 9 in Table 2) from
consideration. At the request of the property owner, the Council also directed staff to increase the
residential density on the Boardwalk Shopping Center site (Site 5 in Table 2) and two Beach
Road parcels (Site 7 in Table 2) from a proposed density of 30-35 du/ac to 40-45 du/ac.
Subsequent to the Town Councils direction on April 27, 2022, the property owner of 1100, 1110,
and 1120 Mar West Street contacted the Town and requested that their property be rezoned from
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 7 OF 11
Office to high density residential and be included as a housing opportunity site in the Housing
Element. On June 8, 2022, the Planning Commission discussed the site and agreed with staff’s
recommendation to include it as a mixed-use housing opportunity site at 30-35 du/ac. On June 15,
2022 the Town Council discussed the inclusion and rezoning of 1100-1120 Mar West property.
After discussion and receiving public testimony the Town Council directed Staff to include the
proposed site as a housing opportunity site within the Draft Housing Element.
On August 3, 2022, the Town Council held a public hearing to take public testimony on the Draft
Housing Element and to provide direction to staff.
ANALYSIS
The Draft Housing Element was released for public review on July 5, 2022 (Exhibit 1).
According to State law, the draft must be available for public comment for 30 days. If any
comments are received, the local government must take 10 business days to consider and
incorporate public comments. The public review period will close on August 5, 2022, and staff
intends to submit the draft Housing Element to HCD for the required 90-day review period on
following direction by the Town Council.
Table 3 shows the Site Inventory the revised site inventory with a reduced buffer. If directed by
Town Council to submit the Housing Element as revised this table will be included.
Table 3: Site Inventory
Site
# Site Address Existing Use
Parcel
size
(acres)
Density
(du/ac)
Unit
Capacity
1 1525 Tiburon Blvd Parking lot 0.66 30-35 19-23
2 1535 Tiburon Blvd Chase Bank 0.72 30-35 21-25
3 1601 Tiburon Blvd BofA (vacant) 0.57 30-35 17-19
4 4 Beach Rd Parking lot 1.07 30-35 32-37
5 1550 Tiburon Blvd Boardwalk Shopping Ctr. 2.21 30-35 66-77
6 1620 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg. 0.27 30-35 26-30
1640/50 Tiburon Blvd Comm. bldg.. 0.6
7 6 Beach Rd Post Office, comm. bldgs.
and 3 apts.
0.41 30-35 39-46
12 Beach Rd 1
8 1199 Tiburon Blvd. Reed School 2.91 20-25 58-72
9
1100 Mar West St Office bldg. 0.47
30-35 40-47
1110 Mar West St Office bldg. 0.3
1120 Mar West St Office bldg. 0.59
A 1555 Tiburon Blvd Parking lot 0.86 30-35 25-30
B 1599 Tiburon Blvd CVS 1.66 30-35 49-58
C 1600 Tiburon Blvd Former Shark’s Deli 0.39 30-35 11-13
D 1610 Tiburon Blvd Commercial Bldg. 0.13 30-35 3-4
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 8 OF 11
E 1660 Tiburon Blvd Commercial Bldg. 0.43 30-35 12-15
F 1680 Tiburon Blvd Commercial Bldg. 0.29 30-35 8-10
G 26 Main St./2 Juanita Ln Theater and shops 0.43 20-25 8-10
TOTAL 434-516
1 This 2.9 acre area represents the vacant Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) portion of the 7.5
acre parcel.
Community Feedback
Since the Town Council meeting held on August 3, 2022, staff received 16 comments on the
Housing Element (Exhibit 2). The comment subject areas are summarized below.
• Traffic congestion on Tiburon Boulevard
• Reconsider the Cove Shopping Center for a housing site / put more units closer to
Highway 101, on the 4-lane section of Tiburon Boulevard, or out of Downtown
• Emergency evacuation and emergency vehicle access
• Disruption from construction/loss of existing services (grocery store, post office, etc.);
• Loss of parking in Downtown
• Lack of water supplies, infrastructure is lacking
• Limit housing development to 3 stories
• Concentration of housing in downtown is an issue
• Bring diversity
• Create clear plans to prioritize and protect tenants, rent stabilization
• Support housing production, preservation, and financing
• End apartment bans, accommodate low-income housing in site inventory
Some of these concerns, such as traffic and water supply impacts, will be analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report that is being prepared for the General Plan Update.
Council Direction
On August 3, 2022, the Town Council held a public hearing and in response to public comment
and desire to further analyze the site inventory directed staff to look for additional sites west of
Trestle Glen, reduce the number of units in downtown and thereby reduce the buffer and to
consider the Cove Shopping center southeast corner. Staff has found the following:
Additional Sites West of Trestle Glen:
Staff looked at sites fronting Trestle Glen and the segments of Tiburon Blvd and Paradise Drive west of
Trestle Glen. Nearly all sites are developed with single family or multifamily housing, or if vacant such as
some parcels on Trestle Glen, are zoned for single family housing. Staff looked further at the existing site
inventory and analyzed four sites that are at least ½ acre and could be possibly rezoned to accommodate
multifamily housing and they are:
1. The Cove Shopping Center. Based on the letter provided by the property owner’s attorney
on August 2, 2022, the property owner will support development in areas that are not
currently used for commercial buildings or parking, i.e., the southeast corner of the property
fronting Tiburon Boulevard, the pump station area, and the creek area. This area is
approximately 1.1 acres and is currently in the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) district.
This site has some physical constraints due to the required 50’ creek setback and the steep
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 9 OF 11
slope of the hill located in the southeast corner of the property. At most, the site could
realistically yield 8-12 units. Due to higher construction costs to develop on this site, and the
small number of potential units, staff does not believe this site is a viable candidate for an
affordable housing development. The site could potentially be developed with market rate
housing, yielding one or two units affordable to lower and moderate-income households under
the Town’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance.
2. The Tiburon Baptist Church site. While this site was explored in the housing element
workshops and surveys, the Tiburon Baptist Church site was eliminated from consideration
when the property owner and congregation objected to potential rezoning and use of the parcel
in the Housing Site Inventory.
3. Blackie’s Pasture. Staff eliminated this site from consideration due to the site’s recreational,
scenic, and environmental value.
4. 4576 Paradise Drive. This 9.6-acre site adjacent to Paradise Cay was annexed to the Town
earlier this year. All or a portion of the site could be designated for high-density residential; a
minimum of 20 units an acre would be necessary to qualify for use as a site appropriate for
lower-income households. The site owner is amenable to potential rezoning to a higher
density than what is currently allowed under the General Plan land use designation Multiple
Residence, which allows up to 1 unit per acre. However, the site is steeply sloped (average
parcel slope is 58%) and access to the site is poor. For these reasons, staff does not think this
is a viable site for high density, multifamily housing.
Reduction of the buffer:
The Site Inventory as proposed in the draft Housing Element includes 16 sites in the Downtown with
proposed densities of 30-35 and 40-45 units per acre on Tiburon Boulevard and Beach Road and 20-25
units per acre on Main Street. These sites could produce 492 units in the Downtown at minimum densities.
The proposed Site Inventory provides an overall buffer of 25% over the Town’s Regional Housing Needs
Allocation of 639 units. The buffer by income category is 9% very low, 16% low, 32% moderate, and
40% above moderate. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
recommends a buffer of at least 15-30%, especially for the very low and low income RHNA requirement.
Staff developed an alternative scenario that reduces the density of all sites proposed for 40-45 units per
acre to 30-35 units (approximately 3 stories) while assuming a higher percentage of units will be
affordable to very low-income households. This reduces the unit capacity in the Downtown to 376 units
(at minimum densities) and drops the overall buffer to 7%. The buffer by income category is 12% very
low, 11% low, 5% moderate, and 2% above moderate, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Site Inventory Alternative A
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Multifamily units 196 101 77 60 434
Accessory dwelling units 21 21 21 9 72
Single and two-family units 0 0 0 0 179
TOTAL 217 122 98 248 685
RHNA 193 110 93 243 639
Buffer (% over RHNA) 12% 11% 5% 2% 8%
If the Cove Shopping Center is added to the site inventory as part of this scenario, then the overall buffer
increase to 8%. The resulting buffer by income category will be 12% very low, 11% low, 6% moderate,
and 5% above moderate, as shown in Table 4.
Table 5: Site Inventory Alternative B
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 10 OF
11
Very
Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate Total
Multifamily units 196 101 77 60 434
Cove Shopping Center 0 0 1 7 8
Accessory dwelling units 21 21 21 9 72
Single and two-family units 0 0 0 0 179
TOTAL 217 122 99 255 693
RHNA 193 110 93 243 639
Buffer (% over RHNA) 12% 11% 6% 5% 8%
4657 Paradise Drive:
This site was not originally included in the site inventory because it was undergoing an annexation. The
site has now been annexed and staff has placed this on the list for consideration. However, due to the site
constraints, lack of time to conduct a robust community outreach, and its location on Paradise Drive, staff
does not recommend including the 4576 Paradise Drive site in the Site Inventory at this time. However,
the site could be considered if 1) one or more sites in the Site Inventory drops off during the HCD housing
element review process, or 2) one of the housing opportunity sites is developed in the future with fewer
affordable units than anticipated in the Site Inventory, and the Town needs to identify and/or rezone an
additional site(s) to make up for a shortfall according to the State’s No Net Loss Law (Government Code
65863).
Next Steps:
Upon receiving Council direction, staff will revise the Housing Element and submit it to HCD
within two weeks of Town Council direction for the Department’s 90-day review period. Staff
will then respond to HCD’s written comments, revise the Housing Element as needed, and
potentially re-submit the revised draft Housing Element to HCD for a 60-day review period.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town as a result of Council actions on this item.
CLIMATE IMPACT
Staff has determined this action will have no significant impact on the Town’s contribution to
global climate change.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of
the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to
constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061 (b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Town Council:
Receive the staff report, accept public comment and approve by minute order direction to staff on
any needed revisions to the Draft Housing Element prior to submission to HCD
Town Council Meeting
[MEETING DATE]
TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 11 OF
11
Exhibit(s):
Exhibit(s):
1. Public Review Draft Housing Element. Also, this exhibit is available on the towns website at the
following direct link:
https://www.townoftiburon.org/DocumentCenter/View/3509
2. Comment Letters
Prepared By: Dina Tasini, Community Development Director
Town of Tiburon
2023-2031 Housing Element
Public Review Draft
July 5, 2022
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Housing in Tiburon ......................................................................................................... 1
1.3 The General Plan ........................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Housing Element Law ..................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Source of Housing Data .................................................................................................. 5
1.6 Preparation of the Housing Element ............................................................................. 6
1.7 2015-2023 Housing Element Accomplishments ............................................................ 9
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Population Characteristics ........................................................................................... 13
2.3 Employment Characteristics ........................................................................................ 17
2.4 Household Characteristics ........................................................................................... 22
2.5 Housing Stock Characteristics ...................................................................................... 30
2.6 Special Housing Needs ................................................................................................. 47
3.0 HOUSING SITES ........................................................................................................................ 64
3.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation for 2022-2030 ..................................................... 64
3.2 Sites Inventory ............................................................................................................. 65
3.3 Density Assumptions and Development Trends .......................................................... 71
3.4 Site and Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................ 73
3.5 Accessory Dwelling Units ............................................................................................. 80
3.6 Senate Bill 9 Units ........................................................................................................ 82
3.7 Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types ......................................................................... 83
3.8 Opportunities for Energy Conservation ....................................................................... 85
4.0 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS.......................................................................................................... 87
4.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 87
4.2 Land Use Designations and Zoning Standards ............................................................. 87
4.3 Fees and Exactions ....................................................................................................... 94
4.4 Processing and Permit Procedures .............................................................................. 98
4.5 Codes and Enforcement ............................................................................................. 102
4.6 On- and Off-Site Improvements ................................................................................. 102
4.7 Housing for Persons with Disabilities ......................................................................... 103
4.8 Non-Governmental Constraints ................................................................................. 104
4.9 Affordable Housing Funding Programs and Resources .............................................. 107
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS ....................................................................................... 109
5.1 Overview .................................................................................................................... 109
5.2 Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................ 109
5.3 Housing Goals, Policies, and Programs ...................................................................... 109
5.4 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) ............................................................ 126
Appendix A: Public Outreach ................................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B: Evaluation of 2015-2023 Housing Element Programs ......................................... B-1
Appendix C: Detailed Single Family Home Site Inventory ........................................................ C-1
Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ................................................................. D-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
California’s housing and planning laws require every town, city, and county to have a General Plan
with at least seven elements, including a Housing Element. The General Plan provides the long-term
vision for the community and guides development in Tiburon. The General Plan is a long-range
planning document that describes goals, policies, and programs to guide decision-making in land use
and other important areas of local government. Unlike the other mandatory General Plan elements,
the Housing Element is required to be updated every eight years and is subject to detailed statutory
requirements and mandatory review by a State agency — HCD (Department of Housing and
Community Development). According to State law, the Housing Element must:
• Provide goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs to preserve,
improve and develop housing.
• Identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all economic segments
of the community.
• Identify “adequate sites” that are zoned and available within the 8-year housing cycle
to meet the local government’s fair share of regional housing needs at all income levels.
• Affirmatively further fair housing.
• Be reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
to determine whether or not the element complies with state law.
• Be internally consistent with other parts of the General Plan.
This document is an update of the Town’s State-certified Housing Element that was adopted in August
2014 and addresses the 6th cycle Housing Element period of 2023 - 2031.
1.2 HOUSING IN TIBURON
The Town of Tiburon is a community of approximately 9,400 residents and 4,050 housing units located
on a relatively narrow four square mile peninsula extending into San Francisco Bay. The peninsula
rises quickly from the Bay reaching a central spine known as the Tiburon Ridge. This ridge is prominent
from widespread locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Most of the peninsula is sloping land.
Neighborhoods vary in age from the 1890’s to the present. Over 95 percent of the Town’s land area
is comprised of residential neighborhoods, public parks, and secured open space.
Tiburon is a community of neighborhoods covering a wide range of construction dates, housing types,
architectural styles, and neighborhood design characteristics. At one end of the range is Old Tiburon,
an 1890’s-vintage subdivision of small lots on generally steep slopes with a variety of housing types
and styles. At the other end of the range are newer multi-million dollar homes located on larger
parcels in thoroughly modern estate-style subdivisions that were common in the 1980’s and 1990’s.
In between are numerous subdivisions from the post-war boom of the late 1940’s up through the
1950’s and 1960’s and into the 1970’s. Neighborhoods and homes in Tiburon are quite well
maintained and are desirable and attractive places to live.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 2
Housing affordability in Marin County and in the Bay Area has become an increasingly important issue.
Tiburon’s housing conditions are reflective of many area-wide and even nation-wide trends. Over the
past several decades, housing costs have skyrocketed out of proportion to many people’s ability to
pay, with increasing construction and land costs contributing to the rise in housing prices. In the Bay
Area, the high demand for housing pushes prices even higher. This mismatch in household incomes
and housing costs has several implications: it becomes more difficult for employers to recruit and
retain employees; roadways are clogged with workers traveling longer distances; and many young
families, longtime residents, their children, and other community members without high incomes
relocate because they can no longer afford to live in the community.
Historical lending and zoning practices, including redlining and exclusionary covenants, have resulted
in segregated living patterns in Marin and racially disparate housing outcomes. People of color have
not benefited from the generational transfer of home equity, as some white people have, and rapidly
escalating housing costs in more recent decades have made it extremely difficult for people of color
to get a foothold in the housing market. Anti-development sentiment throughout Marin County has
restricted new housing development, helping maintain patterns of segregation. As a result, Marin is
one of the most segregated counties in the Bay Area, with five of the ten most segregated Census
tracts in the region.1 Providing more housing and a variety of housing types at different affordability
levels will help to diversify the Tiburon community and result in more balanced and integrated living
patterns throughout the Bay Area. It will also bring fresh perspectives, lived experiences, skills, and
expertise to Tiburon, ensuring that the community is well equipped to face future challenges and
opportunities.
1.3 THE GENERAL PLAN
State law requires a community’s General Plan to be internally consistent. This means that the policies
of one element are not legally superior to the policies of another. Every element of the General Plan
must be consistent with all other elements. The 2023-2031 Housing Element has been drafted to be
consistent with the rest of the General Plan, which is being updated concurrently. When any Element
of the General Plan is amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed and amended, as
necessary, to ensure consistency.
In 2011, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 244 which requires local governments to make
determinations regarding “disadvantaged unincorporated communities,” defined as a community
with an annual median income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household
income. The Town has determined that there are no unincorporated island, fringe, or legacy
communities, as defined in the legislation, inside or near its boundaries.
1 “Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1,” Othering & Belonging Institute, University of
California, Berkeley, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 3
1.4 HOUSING ELEMENT LAW
State law establishes requirements for all portions of the General Plan. However, for the Housing
Element, the State requirements tend to be more specific and extensive than for other elements. The
purpose of a housing element is described in Government Code §65583.
“The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing
needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled
programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall
identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, and
emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community.”
While jurisdictions must review and revise all elements of their General Plan on a regular basis to
ensure that they remain up to date (approximately every 15 to 20 years), State law requires that
Housing Elements be reviewed and updated every eight years. The process of updating Housing
Elements is to be initiated by the State through the ‘regional housing needs’ process, described below.
State law is also quite specific in terms of what the Housing Element must contain, including:
a. “An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to
meeting these needs;”
b. “A statement of the community’s goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the
maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing;” and,
c. “A program, which sets forth a schedule of actions...to implement the policies and achieve
the goals and objectives.”
Furthermore, the Housing Element must:
(1) Identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning densities and infrastructure to meet the
community’s share of housing needs,
(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet housing needs for extremely low, very low,
low, and moderate-income households,
(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental
constraints to housing development,
(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock,
(5) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities throughout the community for all
persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status,
or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
(6) Preserve assisted housing developments for lower income households,
(7) Incentivize and promote the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable
rent, and
(8) Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation by all economic
segments of the community in the development of the housing element.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 4
State law requires that every updated Housing Element be submitted to the State of California’s
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to ensure compliance with the State’s
minimum requirements. This ‘certification’ process is unique among the General Plan elements.
Housing Elements are submitted twice to HCD for review and comment: once during the development
of the Housing Element (in draft form), and again after adoption of the Housing Element by the local
jurisdiction. The first review period requires a maximum 90 days and must take place prior to adoption
by the Tiburon Town Council. During the first review, HCD will provide comments to the Town
regarding compliance of the draft Element with State law requirements and HCD guidelines.
Modifications to the draft Housing Element in response to these comments may be necessary. The
Town Council must consider HCD’s comments prior to adoption of the Housing Element as part of the
General Plan. The second review requires a maximum 60 days and takes place after adoption. It is
after the second review that written findings regarding compliance are submitted to the local
jurisdiction.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DETERMINATION (RHND)
For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, HCD has identified the
region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is
separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low-
income households to market rate housing.2 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs
Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of
Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments
result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline
growth projection from California Department of Finance to move the regions closer to healthy
housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding,
and the share of cost burdened households and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable
ones.3 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a
significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous
RHNA cycles.
2 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories:
Very Low-income: 0-50% of Area Median Income
Low-income: 50-80% of Area Median Income
Moderate-income: 80-120% of Area Median Income
Above Moderate-income: 120% or more of Area Median Income
3 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on
June 9, 2020: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-
final060920(r).pdf
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 5
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA)
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to
develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county
and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. For this
RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,776. For more information on the
RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-
housing-needs-allocation
In January 2021, ABAG adopted a Draft RHNA Methodology, and in December 2021, the ABAG
Executive Board adopted the Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay
Area, 2023-2031. For Tiburon, the RHNA for this cycle is 639 units, approximately eight times the last
cycle allocation of 78 units. The allocation that Tiburon received from the Final RHNA Methodology,
broken down by income category, is shown in Table 1. The Town estimates the projected need for
units affordable to extremely low income households to be 50% of the very low income need, or 97
units.
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, June 30, 2022, to December 31, 2030
Income Category Tiburon Un Marin
County Un
Bay Area
Units
Tiburon
Percent
Marin County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI) 193 4,171 114,442 30.2% 29.0% 25.9%
Low Income
(50%-80% of AMI) 110 2,400 65,892 17.2% 16.7% 14.9%
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI) 93 2,182 72,712 14.6% 15.1% 16.5%
Above Moderate Income
(>120% of AMI) 243 5,652 188,130 38.0% 39.2% 42.6%
Total 639 14,405 441,176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments
The Town may receive credit toward the RHNA for new units built, under construction or approved
since July 1, 2022.
1.5 SOURCE OF HOUSING DATA
The main sources of data used to prepare the Housing Element were the U.S. Census and the 2019
American Community Survey (five-year estimates). The Census remains the most comprehensive and
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 6
widely accepted source of information on demographic characteristics, and provides consistency with
other regional, State, and federal housing plans. The American Community Survey (ACS) is an ongoing
statistical survey that samples a small percentage of the population every year. The ACS survey can
have wide margins of error, especially for small communities, but the survey collects information that
is not covered by the decennial Census. All ACS figures reported in this housing element should be
regarded as estimates.
Additional data sources included:
• Population, household and housing units housing counts from the California State
Department of Finance;
• Jobs data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics,
Workplace Area Characteristics files (2002-2018);
• Unemployment rates data from the California Employment Development Department;
• Household income and affordability data from the Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) prepared by HUD utilizing 2017 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates; and
• Home value data from Zillow.
The housing needs analysis presented in Chapter 2 was prepared by Association of Bay Area
Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission staff and Baird + Driskell Community
Planning.
1.6 PREPARATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
The Housing Element must identify community involvement and decision-making processes and
techniques that are affirmative steps to generate input from all members of the community, as well
as low-income persons and their representatives. This means that input should be sought, received,
and considered before the draft Housing Element is completed. Requirements for public participation
are described in Section 65583(c)(9) of the Government Code, which states that the local government
must make “a diligent effort…to achieve public participation of all economic segments in the
development of the housing element...and describe this effort.”
A dedicated housing webpage was created as part of the General Plan Update process, which was
launched in December 2021 (createtiburon2040.org). The site was used throughout the update
process to provide background information and resources, inform community members about
workshops and meetings, solicit community input through online surveys, and provide access to draft
documents, fact sheets, Q&A documents, meeting summaries, presentations, and workshop video
recordings. The website was enabled with Google Translate to provide multilingual translation for all
users. In addition, presentations and surveys were translated into Spanish to facilitate access for the
Hispanic and Latinx community, which represents the largest group of people who speak limited or
no English in Tiburon and Marin County. Housing workshops offered Spanish translation as well.
Staff used a variety of methods to advertise the housing element update process and workshops,
including:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 7
• Providing information on the General Plan Update process, including the Housing Element, through
a town-wide mailer;
• Publishing articles in the Town’s newsletter, which reaches over 800 Tiburon households;
• Providing flyers (in Spanish on the reverse) at the library and Town Hall; posting flyers on community
boards; and providing flyers to the Tiburon Peninsula Chamber of Commerce to for distribution to
Tiburon businesses and workers and to EAH, the Town’s primary affordable housing developer and
manager, to lower-income residents;
• Promoting the workshops on social media, including Nextdoor, Facebook, and Instagram, and in the
town’s local newspaper, The Ark; and
• Sending emails to the interested parties list and community-based organizations.
The Town held two public workshops in November 2021 to February 2022. Workshops and the public
engagement efforts were designed to seek input from the Tiburon community and create a forum to
share ideas, raise questions and concerns, and provide feedback on the Town’s housing goals, policies,
and programs and selection of housing opportunity sites. Input provided by the community helped
identify key issues and strategic directions to pursue in the Housing Element update.
The first workshop focused on providing an overview of the housing element, RHNA, and existing
housing conditions and on gathering input on housing needs and potential sites and strategies to
accommodate RHNA and encourage a more diverse population. The second workshop built on input
received at the first workshop and explored the suitability of specific sites, development types, and
housing densities to accommodate RHNA. The workshop focused on sites to accommodate the very
low, low, and moderate-income housing.
Workshops included live-polling and breakout sessions to explore ideas in small groups. Surveys were
posted online following each workshop. The workshop and survey summaries are attached in
Appendix A. Workshop presentations and recording are available at the CreateTiburon2040.org
website.
Town Council and Planning Commission meetings were held in March and April 2022 to provide
comments, raise concerns, and/or express support for staff’s recommended strategy to meet the
Town’s RHNA requirement for 639 housing units as part of the Housing Element Update.
In order to gather additional input from underrepresented members of the community, a paper
survey, in both English and Spanish, was distributed to workers at local businesses, including
restaurants and grocery stores, and to lower-income residents at EAH properties. The Town also
conducted three focus groups with EAH residents in May and June of 2022 and interviews with local
service employees in July 2022. The outreach effort reached seniors, female-headed households,
disabled residents, very-low and low-income residents and workers, people of color, and people who
did not speak English as a first language. The focus group and survey summaries are attached in
Appendix A.
Finally, the Town conducted stakeholder interviews with organizations that serve underrepresented
populations, including Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, Legal Aid, and Canal Alliance.
Items identified in the community outreach effort that are addressed in the updated Housing Element
through housing opportunity site selection and modified or new policies and/or programs are
identified below. Items #8-15 were recommended by Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California,
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 8
Legal Aid, and Canal Alliance. Items #16-17 were specifically identified during the focus group
discussions with affordable housing residents, although other items were supported as well (#3, 6,
and 15).
1. Utilize commercial sites that can accommodate mixed use housing at higher residential
densities. (Sites 1-7, 9 and A-G in Table 10 Sites Inventory and Program H-cc)
2. Look at underutilized sites with aging and/or functionally obsolete buildings for potential
affordable housing sites. (Sites 1-7, 9, and A-G in Table 10 Sites Inventory and Program H-cc)
3. Locate housing sites near public transportation and services. (Sites 1-9 and A-G in Table 10
Sites Inventory and Program H-cc)
4. Advance sustainability goals, e.g., encourage housing within walking distance of transit and
major destinations, promote home offices and live-work spaces, and require green building
standards and EV charging in new development. (Programs H-bb and H-cc; policies and
programs regarding green building standards and EV charging requirements are located in the
Sustainability Element)
5. Encourage the development of accessory dwelling units, recognizing that these can provide
an important source of income for lower-income seniors who want to age in place, as well as
affordable housing for caretakers and other lower-income service providers or family
members. (Programs H-gg and H-hh)
6. Improve housing options for seniors (including smaller units for those desiring to downsize),
the disabled, and the workforce. (Programs H-r, H-t, H-cc, H-dd, H-ee, H-gg)
7. Take meaningful actions to affirmatively furthering fair housing. (Programs H-b, H-d, H-g, H-
m, H-o, H-p, H-q, H-r, H-cc, H-gg)
8. Ensure that affordable units are affirmatively marketed to communities of color. Utilize
publications, venues, and community groups that serve Black and Latinx communities. Market
outside of Marin to encourage more balanced communities and integrated living patterns.
(Program H-cc)
9. Train Town staff on how to recognize and report fair housing complaints. Engage Fair Housing
Advocates of Northern California to conduct a training session for Town staff. (Program H-o)
10. Provide fair housing brochures published by Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California at
Town Hall and distribute to housing developers and single-family property owners who are
developing an ADU, JADU, or SB 9 unit. (Program H-b)
11. Provide fair housing information on the Town’s website and a link to Fair Housing Advocates
of Northern California’s website. (Program H-b)
12. Include an article on fair housing in the Town’s newsletter with information on fair housing
issues, landlord responsibilities, and resources to learn more and file complaints. (Program H-
b)
13. Adopt a Fair Housing Month proclamation each year. (Program H-b)
14. Provide a fair housing training workshop to developers and property owners. Consider
partnering with other jurisdictions and/or the County. (Program H-b)
15. Include programs for tenant protections, including rent stabilization, just cause for eviction,
right to counsel, and right of first refusal. (Program H-y)
16. Facilitate communication between affordable housing tenants and providers/ managers and
assist in resolving complaints and issues of concern. (Program H-y)
17. Provide information on source of income laws that require all landlords to accept Section 8
Housing Choice Vouchers. (Programs H-b, H-w, and H-gg)
The proposed housing sites were extensively vetted with the community as they required either
allowing housing where none was previously permitted or increasing the existing residential densities
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 9
from a maximum of 20.7 units per acre to maximums of 25-45 units per acre depending upon the site.
Twenty parcels were ultimately identified as appropriate for multifamily housing. Surveys showed
majority support for the housing sites. All rezonings occurred prior to housing element adoption.4
Other opportunities for community input included public meetings on housing opportunity site
selection and rezoning with the Tiburon Planning Commission and Town Council, review of the Draft
Housing Element by the public, and public hearings on the Draft Housing Element with the Planning
Commission and Town Council.
1.7 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Government Code Section 65588 requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of the
effectiveness of the element, progress in implementation, and the appropriateness of goals, policies,
and programs.
Tiburon’s current Housing Element was adopted by the Town Council on August 20, 2014. While many
of the goals, policies, and programs were successful, the Town did not produce enough affordable
housing to meet its 5th cycle RHNA. The Town attributes this to the high cost of land and construction
in Tiburon and housing densities that were too low to support affordable multifamily housing. In order
to make multifamily housing financially feasible in Tiburon, the Town rezoned nine parcels to allow
housing at densities of 30-35 unit per acre and eight parcels to allow housing at densities of 40-45
units per acre. These sites have the capacity to build 524 new multifamily units.
Programs completed and successfully implemented since adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element
include:
• Adopted zoning provisions to treat transitional and supportive housing as residential uses
subject to the same restrictions as residential dwellings of the same type in the same zone.
(Program H-s)
• Implemented the second unit ordinance and adopted standards for junior second units
(Programs H-dd and H-ee). The Town participated in development of a countywide website
at adumarin.org and conducted outreach and education to accelerate development of ADUs.
The Town also updated its ADU ordinance to comply with new state laws. The Town approved
26 ADUs and 18 JADUs between 2015 and June 2022. To date, 14 have been constructed and
15 are under construction. Based on a regional study, affordability levels are assumed to be
13 very low income units, 13 low income units, 13 moderate income units, and 5 above
moderate income units.
• Participated in and allocated funding for countywide programs to address the needs of people
experiencing homelessness. (Program H-q)
4 This Public Review Draft Housing Element is being prepared prior to adoption of new zoning districts (MUL,
MUH, MS, and R-4) and rezoning of housing opportunity sites. This Draft has been written as if these actions
have already occurred. Any changes to information presented in this draft will be addressed in the final Draft
Housing Element prior to Council adoption.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 10
This Housing Element has considered the effectiveness of the 2015-2023 Housing Element policies
and programs and has continued, amended, or deleted programs based on lessons learned and
evolving housing needs. Appendix B is a full review of programs in the 2015-2023 Housing Element.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 11
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
2.1 OVERVIEW
This section of the Housing Element describes characteristics of Tiburon’s population and housing
stock and assesses the community’s existing and future housing needs. The data and analysis in this
section are intended to satisfy, in part, Government Code Section 65583(a),which requires an
assessment of housing needs including an analysis of population and employment trends (GC 65583
(a)(1)) and household characteristics (GC 65583 (a)(2)).
SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural
growth and because the strong economy draws new residents to the region. The population
of Tiburon increased 10.1% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay
Area.
• Age – In 2019, Tiburon’s youth population under the age of 18 was 1,941 and senior
population 65 and older was 2,351. These age groups represent 21.2% and 25.7%,
respectively, of Tiburon’s population.
• Race/Ethnicity – In 2020, 81.6% of Tiburon’s population was White, 1.0% was African
American, 2.7% was Asian, and 7.6% was Latinx. People of color in Tiburon comprise a
proportion below the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole.5
• Employment – Tiburon residents most commonly work in the Financial & Professional
Services industry. Since 2010, the number of jobs located in the jurisdiction increased by 110
(6.5%). Additionally, the jobs-household ratio in Tiburon has decreased from 0.54 in 2002 to
0.48 jobs per household in 2018.
• Number of Homes – The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with
the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of
displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in Tiburon increased 0.6% from 2010
to 2020, which is below the growth rate for Marin County and below the growth rate of the
region’s housing stock during this time period.
• Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all Tiburon
residents to live and thrive in the community.
– Ownership The largest proportion of homes had a value in the range of $2M+ in 2019.
Home prices increased by 97.0% from 2010 to 2020.
5 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The
numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx
status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. The term Hispanic has
historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean
countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx, but
occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 12
– Rental Prices – The typical contract rent for an apartment in Tiburon was $2,310 in
2019. Rental prices increased 21.1% from 2009 to 2019. To rent a typical apartment
without cost burden, a household would need to make $92,400 per year.6
• Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a
community today and in the future. In 2020, 65.4% of homes in Tiburon were single-family
detached, 9.5% were single-family attached, 9.4% were small multi-family (2-4 units), and
15.4% were medium or large multi-family (5+ units). Between 2010 and 2020, the number of
single-family units increased more than multifamily units. Generally, in Tiburon, the share of
the housing stock that is detached single-family homes is above that of other jurisdictions in
the region.
• Cost Burden – The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development considers housing to
be affordable for a household if the household spends less than 30% of its income on housing
costs. A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly
income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing
costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” In Tiburon, 16.0% of households spend 30%-
50% of their income on housing, while 15.1% of households are severely cost burdened and
use the majority of their income for housing.
• Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California,
Berkeley, 0.0% of households in Tiburon live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or
experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in areas at risk of or undergoing gentrification. 100%
of households in Tiburon live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely
excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.
• Neighborhood – 100.0% of residents in Tiburon live in neighborhoods identified as “Highest
Resource” or “High Resource” areas by State-commissioned research, while 0.0% of residents
live in areas identified by this research as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty”
areas. These neighborhood designations are based on a range of indicators covering areas
such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution
levels, and other factors.7
• Special Housing Needs – Some population groups may have special housing needs that
require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing
stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. In Tiburon, 9.9% of residents have
a disability of any kind and may require accessible housing. Additionally, 8.6% of Tiburon
households are larger households with five or more people, who likely need larger housing
units with three bedrooms or more. 5.2% of households are female-headed families, which
are often at greater risk of housing insecurity.
6 Note that contract rents may differ significantly from, and often being lower than, current listing prices.
7 For more information on the “opportunity area” categories developed by HCD and the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee, see this website: https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp. The degree to
which different jurisdictions and neighborhoods have access to opportunity will likely need to be analyzed as
part of new Housing Element requirements related to affirmatively furthering fair housing. ABAG/MTC will be
providing jurisdictions with technical assistance on this topic this summer, following the release of additional
guidance from HCD.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 13
DATA SOURCES
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American
Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling
variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another
set of respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a larger data pool to
minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer
responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly.
Additionally, there may be instances where there is no data available for a jurisdiction for particular
data point, or where a value is 0 and the automatically generated text cannot perform a calculation.
In these cases, the automatically generated text is “NODATA.”
The American Survey is derived from surveys conducted between 2015-2019 and the Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data are derived from surveys conducted between 2013-2017.
These were the latest data sets available at the time this report was developed. Although they are
used as a proxy for current conditions, they are not necessarily reflective of populations and housing
conditions in 2022.
Any figure that does not specify geography in the figure name represents data for Tiburon.
2.2 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
POPULATION GROWTH
The Bay Area is the fifth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in
population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Many cities in the region have
experienced significant growth in jobs and population. While these trends have led to a corresponding
increase in demand for housing across the region, the regional production of housing has largely not
kept pace with job and population growth. Since 2000, Tiburon’s population has increased by 10.1%;
this rate is below that of the region, at 14.8%. In Tiburon, roughly 13.4% of its population moved
during the past year, same as the regional rate.
Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Tiburon 7,554 8,238 8,666 8,742 8,962 9,484 9,540
Marin County 230,096 238,185 247,289 251,634 252,409 262,743 260,831
Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
In 2020, the population of Tiburon was estimated to be 9,540 (see Table 2). From 1990 to 2000, the
population increased by 14.7%, while it increased by 3.4% during the first decade of the 2000s. In the
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 14
most recent decade, the population increased by 6.4%. The population of Tiburon makes up 3.7% of
Marin County.8
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series Note: The data shown on the graph represents population for the
jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the
relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year. For some
jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts.
DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.
AGE
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the
near future. An increase in the older population may mean there is a developing need for more senior
housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more
family housing options and related services. There has also been a shift by many to age-in-place or
downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multi-family and accessible units
are also needed.
In Tiburon, the median age in 2000 was 45.4; by 2019, this figure had increased to approximately 50
years. The population of those under 14 has decreased since 2010, while the 65-and-over population
has increased (see Figure 2).
8 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction,
county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the
population growth (i.e., percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 15
Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001
Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as
families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.
People of color9 make up 5.4% of seniors and 28.5% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3). The marked
increase in the diversity of the younger population reflects a slow but growing transformation in the
diversity of the overall population.
9 Here, we count all non-white racial groups.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 16
Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population
Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx
ethnicity, and an overlapping category of Hispanic / non-Hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double
counting in the stacked bar chart.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G)
RACE AND ETHNICITY
Understanding the racial makeup of a town and region is important for designing and implementing
effective housing policies and programs. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and
historical government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices, and
displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today10.
Since 2000, the percentage of residents in Tiburon identifying as White has decreased – and by the
same token the percentage of residents of all other races and ethnicities has increased – by 8.8
percentage points, with the 2019 White population standing at 7,459 (see Figure 4). In absolute terms,
the Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-
Hispanic population decreased the most.
10 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government
segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 17
Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity
separate from racial categories. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents
those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial
categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with
Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data
(2015-2019), Table B03002
2.3 EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
BALANCE OF JOBS AND WORKERS
A city provides housing to employed residents who either work in the community where they live or
work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the
same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will
have more employed residents than jobs and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus
of jobs and import workers. To some extent, the regional transportation system is set up for this flow
of workers to the region’s core job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has
illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync
at a sub-regional scale.
One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers
“exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely
“import” workers. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in Tiburon decreased by 7.8% (see
Figure 5).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 18
Figure 5: Jobs in Tiburon
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United
States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment
Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the
census block level.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files,
2002-2018
There are 4,261 employed residents, and 2,940 jobs11 in Tiburon - the ratio of jobs to resident workers
is 0.69; Tiburon is a net exporter of workers.
Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups,
offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low-
income workers but have relatively few housing options for those workers. - Conversely, a community
may house residents who are low wage workers but offer few employment opportunities for them.
Such relationships may cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price
categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need
to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs
means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently
bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. Tiburon has more low-wage jobs than
low-wage residents (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the
11 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in
a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported
in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a
survey.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 19
wage spectrum, the town has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers
to jobs paying more than $75,000) (see Figure 6).12
Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519
Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different
wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage
group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will
need to import workers for jobs in a given wage group. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for
each worker, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7).
12 The source table is top-coded at $75,000, precluding more fine grained analysis at the higher end of the wage
spectrum.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 20
Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, by Wage Group
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state, and local
government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment
Notes: The ratio compares job counts by wage group from two tabulations of LEHD data: Counts by place of work
relative to counts by place of residence. See text for details.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files
(Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018
Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.
New jobs may draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply,
many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work, particularly where job growth has
been in relatively lower wage jobs. This dynamic results in long commutes and contributes to traffic
congestion and time lost for all road users.
If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, typically also
with a high jobs-to-household ratio. The jobs-household ratio in Tiburon has decreased from 0.54 in
2002, to 0.48 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 21
Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs in a jurisdiction from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local
government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment; households in a
jurisdiction
Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the
census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. The ratio compares place of work wage
and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units.
However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing
units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio
will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high
rate of units used as short-term rentals.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files
(Jobs), 2002-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households)
JOB SECTOR COMPOSITION
The largest industry in which Tiburon residents work is Financial & Professional Services, as is the
largest sector in which Marin residents work (see Figure 9). For the Bay Area as a whole, the Health &
Educational Services industry employs the most workers.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 22
Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where
those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Categories are derived from the following source
tables: Agriculture & Natural Resources: C24030_003E, C24030_030E; Construction: C24030_006E, C24030_033E;
Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation: C24030_007E, C24030_034E, C24030_008E, C24030_035E,
C24030_010E, C24030_037E; Retail: C24030_009E, C24030_036E; Information: C24030_013E, C24030_040E;
Financial & Professional Services: C24030_014E, C24030_041E, C24030_017E, C24030_044E; Health & Educational
Services: C24030_021E, C24030_024E, C24030_048E, C24030_051E; Other: C24030_027E, C24030_054E,
C24030_028E, C24030_055E
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030
2.4 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap
has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and
the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the
state13.
In Tiburon, 68.6% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI)14, compared
to 7.1% making less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 0).
13 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of
California.
14 Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for
different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa
Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 23
Regionally, more than half of all households make more than 100% AMI, while 15% make less than
30% AMI. In Marin County, 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $44,000 for a family of
four. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time
students, teachers, farmworkers, and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories
due to relatively stagnant wages in many industries.
Figure 10: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for
different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro
Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area
(Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County),
Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this
chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. The data that is reported for the Bay Area is
not based on a regional AMI but instead refers to the regional total of households in an income group relative to the
AMI for the county where that household is located. Local jurisdictions are required to provide an estimate for their
projected extremely low-income households (0-30% AMI) in their Housing Elements. HCD’s official Housing Element
guidance notes that jurisdictions can use their RHNA for very low-income households (those making 0-50% AMI) to
calculate their projected extremely low-income households. As Bay Area jurisdictions have not yet received their final
RHNA numbers, this document does not contain the required data point of projected extremely low-income
households. The report portion of the housing data needs packet contains more specific guidance for how local staff
Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa
Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The
AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located. Households making
between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income,
those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-
income. This is then adjusted for household size.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 24
can calculate an estimate for projected extremely low-income households once jurisdictions receive their 6th cycle
RHNA numbers.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Throughout the region, there are disparities between the incomes of homeowners and renters.
Typically, the number of low-income renters greatly outpaces the amount of housing available that is
affordable for these households.
In Tiburon, the largest proportion of renters falls in the Greater than 100% of AMI income group, while
the largest proportion of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure
12).
Figure 11: Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for
different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro
Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area
(Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County),
Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this
chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of
historical federal and local housing policies that excluded them from the same opportunities extended
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 25
to white residents.15 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for
housing insecurity, displacement, or homelessness. In Tiburon, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
residents experience the highest rates of poverty (see Figure 12).
Figure 12: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country
and does not correspond to Area Median Income. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial
groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders
who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different
experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx,
data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all
mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the population for whom poverty
status is determined for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually
exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the population for whom poverty status is
determined.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I)
TENURE
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help
identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and
region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Tiburon there are a total
of 3,798 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 32.9% versus 67.1% (see
15 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing
the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 26
Figure 13). By comparison, 36.3% of households in Marin County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area
households rent their homes.
Figure 13: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout
the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from
federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while
facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been
formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities.16
In Tiburon, 0.0% of Black households owned their homes, while homeownership rates were 46.9% for
Asian households, 39.3% for Latinx households, and 70.6% for White households. Notably, recent
changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing
issues when updating their Housing Elements.
16 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government
segregated America. New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 27
Figure 14: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However,
data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents
who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the
economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported
here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be
summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups
labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to
the total number of occupied housing units.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I)
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community
is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area
due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have
limited options in an expensive housing market.
In Tiburon, 48.0% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 18.4% of
householders over 65 are renters (see Figure 15).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 28
Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Age
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007
In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher
than the rates for households in multifamily housing. In Tiburon, 89.1% of households in detached
single-family homes are homeowners, while 25.4% of households in multifamily housing are
homeowners (see Figure 16).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 29
Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032
DISPLACEMENT
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area. Displacement
has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families
are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.
The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their
risk for gentrification. They find that in Tiburon, 0.0% of households live in neighborhoods that are
susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing
gentrification.
Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad
section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 100% of households in Tiburon live in
neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing
costs.17
17 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement
Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different
gentrification/displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can
view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here:
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 30
Figure 17: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure
Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using
census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total
household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are
combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming
Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing
Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible
to or Experiencing Displacement: Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High
Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data
Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table
B25003 for tenure.
2.5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
HOUSING TYPES, YEAR BUILT, VACANCY, AND PERMITS
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family
homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in
“missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters, and accessory
dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure,
from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-in-
place.
The housing stock of Tiburon in 2020 was made up of 65.4% single-family detached homes, 9.5%
single-family attached homes, 9.4% multi-family homes with 2 to 4 units, 15.4% multifamily homes
with 5 or more units, and 0.3% mobile homes (see Figure 18). In Tiburon, the housing type that
experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 31
Figure 18: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total
number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth
experienced throughout the region. In Tiburon, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built
1960 to 1979, with 1,950 units constructed during this period (see Figure 19). Between 2010 and 2020,
1.3% of the housing stock was built, which was 56 units.
Figure 19: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 32
Vacant units make up 9.3% of the overall housing stock in Tiburon. The rental vacancy stands at 6.9%,
while the ownership vacancy rate is 1.8%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is
Other Vacant (see Figure 20).18
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for
rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant)
making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is
occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial
Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short-
term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like
Airbnb are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they
are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations,
abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons
such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.19 In a region with a thriving economy and
housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are
likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic
retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some
jurisdictions.20
18 The vacancy rates by tenure is for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in
principle includes the full stock (9.3%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock
(occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a significant number of vacancy
categories, including the numerically significant other vacant.
19 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
20 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San
Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 33
Figure 20 Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004
Between 2015 and 2019, sixteen housing units were issued permits in Tiburon. 93.8% of permits
issued in Tiburon were for above moderate-income housing, 0% were for moderate-income housing,
and 6.2% were for low- or very low-income housing (see Table 3).
Table 3: Housing Permitting
Income Group Number
Above Moderate Income Permits 15
Moderate Income Permits 0
Low Income Permits 1
Very Low Income Permits 0
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low Income: units affordable to
households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low
Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the Area Median Income for the county in
which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of
the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate Income: units affordable
to households making above 120% of the Area Median Income for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report
Permit Summary (2020)
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 34
ASSISTED HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AT-RISK OF CONVERSION
While there is an immense need to produce new affordable housing units, ensuring that the existing
affordable housing stock remains affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is typically faster and
less expensive to preserve existing affordable units that are at risk of converting to market-rate than
it is to build new affordable housing.
The data in the Table 4 comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the
state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing
its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include
all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction
that are not captured in this data table. There are 118 assisted units in Tiburon in the Preservation
Database. Of these units, 0.0% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.21
Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income Tiburon Marin County Bay Area
Low 78 2,368 110,177
Moderate 0 0 3,375
High 0 56 1,854
Very High 0 17 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 78 2,441 116,459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted
developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.
21 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its
database:
Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not
have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-
profit, mission-driven developer.
High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have
a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit,
mission-driven developer.
Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not
have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-
profit, mission-driven developer.
Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a
large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 35
There are a total of 162 below market rate units within existing housing developments in Tiburon.
Table 5 lists these affordable housing developments and indicates the timeframe for which the
affordability of the units is protected. This table includes all housing units that were financed with
state, federal, or local funding sources.
Table 5: Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing in Tiburon
Development Very Low
Income Units
Low Income
Units
Moderate
Income Units Conserved Until
Chandler’s Gate 4 0 0 2057
Hilarita Apartments 84 7 0 Perpetuity
Tiburon Hill Estates 0 16 0 Perpetuity
Point Tiburon Marsh 0 0 20 >2021a
Cecilia Place 16 0 0 2092
Bradley House 0 15 0 Perpetuity
Total units 104 38 20
a Each owner is locked into a 30-year affordability period. This 30-year period starts over with each new owner. Unless a
unit is held by the same owner for 30 years or more, the affordability will be in perpetuity. The initial 30-year term was
established in 1987.The Town has a right to first refusal to purchase affordable units as they come up for resale. Currently, the Town owns eight of these units.
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households,
particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally,
there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, the
Census Bureau data included in Figure 22 gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that
may be present in Tiburon. For example, 1.5% of renters in Tiburon reported lacking a kitchen and 0%
of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0% of owners who lack
plumbing.
In general, the condition of Tiburon’s housing stock is excellent. Due to the high real estate value in
Tiburon, properties, especially single family houses, are generally well-maintained. According to Town
Planning & Building staff, EAH is currently rehabilitating the Hilarita, a 91-unit affordable housing
development. Approximately 120-150 apartments are in in need of rehabilitation, and no housing
units are in need of replacement.
The Housing Element contains programs to promote available rehabilitation loans to lower income
households. Programs include H-u Rehabilitation Loan Programs and H-aa Link Code Enforcement
with Public Information Programs on Town Standards, Rehabilitation, and Energy Loan Programs.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 36
Figure 21: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043,
Table B25049
The Housing Element contains several programs to assist low-income households in performing
necessary repairs and upgrades including Program H-b Improve Community Awareness of Housing
needs, issues, and Programs; Program H-u Rehabilitation Loan Programs; and Program H-aa Link Code
Enforcement with Public Information Programs on Town Standards and Rehabilitation, and Energy
Loan Programs.
HOME AND RENT VALUES
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic
profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In
the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home
value in Tiburon was estimated at $2,753,430 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest
proportion of homes were valued more than $2M (see Figure 22). By comparison, the typical home
value is $1,288,800 in Marin County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units
valued $750k-$1m (county) and $500k-$750k (region).
The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great
Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value
in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased
130.4% in Tiburon from $1,195,000 to $2,753,430. This change is below the change in Marin County,
and below the change for the region (see Figure 23).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 37
Figure 22: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075
Figure 23: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market
changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th
percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and
condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted
average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For
unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county
matched to census-designated population counts.
Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 38
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.
Many renters have been priced out, evicted, or displaced, particularly communities of color. Residents
finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long
distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.
In Tiburon, the largest proportion of rental units rented are in the Rent $2000-$2500 category, totaling
24.1%, followed by 22.8% of units renting in the Rent $2500-$3000 category (see Figure 24). Looking
beyond the town, the largest share of units is in the rent for $1500-$2000 category.
Figure 24: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056
Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 21.1% in Tiburon, from $1,940 to $2,310 per month (see
Figure 25). In Marin County, the median rent has increased 25.1%, from $1,560 to $1,960. The median
rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.22
22 While the data on home values shown in Figure 24 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices
available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region,
the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may
not fully reflect current rents.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 39
Figure 25: Median Contract Rent
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-
2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas).
According to RentCafé, the average rent in Tiburon is $5,153, and the average unit size is 1,082 square
feet. The cost of rent varies according to several factors, including unit size, number of bedrooms,
condition, and amenities.23
COST-BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on
housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered
“severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and
experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing
puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness.
Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home
prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters
are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at the cost burden across tenure
in Tiburon, 22.9% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 16.8% of
those that own (see Figure 26). Additionally, 18.3% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on
housing, while 19.3% of owners are severely cost-burdened.
23 RentCafé, https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/belvedere-tiburon/, updated May
2022.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 40
Figure 26: Cost Burden by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract
rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment,
utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose
monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose
monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091
In Tiburon, 15.1% of all households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 16.0% spend
30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 27). For example,
66.7% of Tiburon households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on
housing. For Tiburon residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 5.1% are severely cost-burdened,
and 81.0% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 41
Figure 27: Cost Burden by Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract
rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment,
utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose
monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose
monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median
Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the
following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa
Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area
(Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of
historical federal and local housing policies that excluded them from the same opportunities extended
to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and
in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.
Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most cost burdened with 25.9% spending 30% to 50% of their
income on housing, and Asian / API, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with
31.0% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 28).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 42
Figure 28: Cost Burden by Race
-
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract
rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs”, which includes mortgage payment,
utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose
monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose
monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx”
racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any
racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not
identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of available adequately sized
affordable housing. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger
families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase
the risk of housing insecurity.
In Tiburon, 9.8% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 13.7% of
households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 16.5% of all other households
have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 15.2% of households spending more than 50% of their income
on housing (see Figure 29).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 43
Figure 29: Cost Burden by Household Size
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement
from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out
of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be cost-burdened is of particular
importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 78.9% of seniors
making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making
more than 100% of AMI, 80.8% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on
housing (see Figure 30).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 44
Figure 30: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. The
AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
The fundamental strategy for addressing the Town’s long-term overpayment problem is to create new
opportunities for redevelopment to multifamily and mixed use housing with an emphasis on
affordable housing. This is reflected in Program H-a Focus Town Resources on Housing Opportunity
Sites; Program H-l Redevelopment Funding; Program H-m Work with Non-Profits on Housing; Program
H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites; Program H-dd
Implement Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; and H-ee Bonuses
for Affordable Housing Projects Consistent with State Density Bonus Law. Other policies and programs
address housing overpayment directly, including Program H-w Rental Assistance Programs.
OVERCROWDING
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was
designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses
the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms
or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room
to be severely overcrowded.
Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region
is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple
households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Tiburon, 4.2% of
households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0%
of households that own (see Figure 31). In Tiburon, 4.4% of renters experience moderate
overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0% for those who own.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 45
Figure 31: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding
bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
In many communities, overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. In
Tiburon, 0% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while
0% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 32).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 46
Figure 32: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely
to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience
overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Tiburon, the racial group with the largest
overcrowding rate is Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic (see Figure 33).
Figure 33: Overcrowding by Race
Universe: Occupied housing units
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 47
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However,
data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents
who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the
economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported
here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be
summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups
labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to
the total number of occupied housing units.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014
2.6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental
housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in
overcrowded conditions. In Tiburon, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (70.9%)
are owner occupied (see Figure 34). In 2017, 3.9% of large households were very low-income, earning
less than 50% of the area median income (AMI).
Figure 34: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009
The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.
Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are
2,555 units in Tiburon. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 18.2% are renter-occupied
and 81.8% are owner-occupied (see Figure 35).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 48
Figure 35: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042
Strategies and Programs to Meet the Projected Needs of Large Households
Large households would benefit from multifamily housing that includes childcare facilities. Housing
with large-household units should be located near public transit, schools, parks and recreational
facilities, and the library.
The preceding needs analysis indicates that the number of homes in Tiburon with three or more
bedrooms is greater than the number of large families. In addition to providing more rental housing
with 3 or more bedrooms, providing more units that enable seniors currently living in Tiburon to
downsize can be an effective strategy to rebalance the housing stock. The Town’s Inclusionary housing
ordinance requires 10% of new units to be designed for special needs households, including affordable
units with three or more bedrooms for large families and units for seniors. The Housing Element
contain policies and programs to increase the diversity of the housing stock and provide more housing
for large households including Program H-a Focus Town Resources on Housing Opportunity Sites;
Program H-l Redevelopment Funding; Program H-m Work with Non-Profits on Housing; Program H-r
Provisions of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Households; Program H-ee Bonuses for Affordable
Housing Projects Consistent with State Density Bonus Law; Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and
Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites; and Program H-dd Implement Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. More broadly, the Housing Element sets
fundamental policy that commits the Town to planning for all households of all sizes and types and
protecting all households from discrimination based on family status including Program H-b Improve
Community Awareness of Housing Needs, Issues and Programs, Program H-p Housing Discrimination
Complaints, and Program H-q Reasonable Accommodation.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 49
FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-
headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Tiburon,
the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 62.7% of total, while
Female-Headed Households make up 5.2% of all households.
Figure 36: Household Type
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by
birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as
households where none of the people are related to each other.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001
Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive
gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can
make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.
In Tiburon, 15.7% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line,
while 0% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 37).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 50
Figure 37: Female-Headed Household by Poverty Status
Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country
and does not correspond to Area Median Income.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012
Strategies and Programs to Meet Projected Needs
The Town’s Inclusionary housing ordinance requires 10% of new units to be designed for special needs
households, including Smaller, affordable residential units, especially for lower income single-person
and single parent households. This Element includes policies and programs promoting affordable,
multifamily housing near schools, services, and transit that would address the needs of many single-
parent and female-headed households including Program H-a Focus Town Resources on Housing
Opportunity Sites; Program H-l Redevelopment Funding; Program H-m Work with Non-Profits on
Housing; Program H-r Provisions of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Households; Program H-ee
Bonuses for Affordable Housing Projects Consistent with State Density Bonus Law; Program H-cc Work
with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites; and Program H-dd Implement
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
This Housing Element recognizes the potential for discrimination against families with children and
include policies and program to protect household base on family status including Program H-b
Improve Community Awareness of Housing Needs, Issues and Programs, Program H-p Housing
Discrimination Complaints, and Program H-q Reasonable Accommodation.
SENIORS
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping
affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have
disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 51
Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to
income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent
make Greater than 100% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are
homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 38).
Figure 38: Senior Households by Income and Tenure
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. The
AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Strategies and Programatic Responses to Meet Projected Senior Housing Needs
The Town of Tiburon offers services for senior residents through the Belvedere-Tiburon Joint
Recreation Committee, The Ranch, including smart phone and tablet training; exercise, dance, and
yoga classes; art, music, and language classes; games; and recreation events. The Division of Aging
and Adult Services of the Marin County Department of Health and Human Services supports a variety
of programs to senior citizens through a network of local non-profit organizations and governmental
agencies in Marin County. Services include assisted transportation; food pantries and home-delivered
meals; mental health and counseling services; legal aid and advice; adult protective services; in-home
supportive services; and public health nursing programs.
The Town’s Inclusionary housing ordinance requires 10% of new units to be designed for special needs
households, including affordable senior housing. This Element includes policies and programs that
would address the needs of many senior households, including those who are disabled, and increase
the diversity of the housing stock. Programs include H-a Focus Town Resources on Housing
Opportunity Sites; Program H-l Redevelopment Funding; Program H-m Work with Non-Profits on
Housing; Program H-r Provisions of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Households; Program H-ee
Bonuses for Affordable Housing Projects Consistent with State Density Bonus Law; Program H-cc Work
with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites; and Program H-dd Implement
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 52
Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. In addition, programs are
included to assist low-income seniors in upgrading their homes (Program H-u Rehabilitation Loan
Program) and maintaining affordability of rentals (Program H-z Tenant Protection Strategies).
Accessory dwelling units are important options for some seniors. Program H-gg Outreach and
Education for Accessory Dwelling Unit Development is designed to assist seniors in enhancing the
affordability of their existing home, either by occupying the new ADU or renting it.
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals
living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live
on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance
due to the high cost of care.
When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but
accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.
Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with
such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and
institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 39 shows the rates at which
different disabilities are present among residents of Tiburon. Overall, 9.9% of people in Tiburon have
a disability of any kind.24
Figure 39: Disability by Type
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over
24 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more
than one disability. These counts should not be summed.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 53
Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than
one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these
disability types: Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty
seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or
bathing. Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103,
Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.
State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental
disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or
physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s
Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with
developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with
family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing
insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.25
In Tiburon, of the 22 people with a developmental disability, half are children under the age of 18,
and half are adults.
The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Tiburon is the home of parent
/family /guardian.
Table 6: Population with Developmental Disabilities
Residence Type Number
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 20
Independent /Supported Living 4
Other 0
Foster /Family Home 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Community Care Facility 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and
delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy,
intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of
Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were cross
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 54
walked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP
code to assign to a given jurisdiction.
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type
(2020)
Persons with disabilities face unique problems in obtaining affordable and adequate housing. This
segment of the population, which includes individuals with mental, physical, and developmental
disabilities, represent a wide range of housing needs. Housing designed to be barrier-free, with
accessibility modifications, proximity to services and transit, and group living opportunities are some
of the considerations and accommodations that are important in serving this need group. The need
for affordable, handicapped-accessible housing will increase as the population ages.
Living arrangements for the disabled vary, depending on the type and severity for their disability, as
well as personal preference and lifestyle. Many disabled people live independently at home with the
help of family. Assistance may be necessary to maintain independent living, including income support,
accessibility improvements to the home, and in-home supportive services.
Housing types that address the needs of the disabled include:
• single-room occupancy units;
• group homes for specific need groups with support services;
• set-asides in larger multifamily affordable projects including senior housing
developments.
Strategies and Programs to Meet Projected Disabled Persons Needs
Appropriate housing for persons with mental or physical disabilities include very low cost units in large
group home settings (near retail services and public transit), supervised apartment settings with on-
or off-site support services, outpatient/day treatment programs, and inpatient/day treatment
programs, crisis shelters and transitional housing.
There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a developmental disability:
rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, Section 8
vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 homes. The design of
housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group
living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this
need group.
Title 24 of the State Uniform Building Code mandates that all new multi-family residential construction
projects containing six or more units must conform to specific disabled adaptability/accessibility
regulations. The Title 24 mandate and high-density residential zoning address the needs of several
categories of disabled persons, especially the needs of people with physical disabilities. The needs of
other disabled people, in addition to basic affordability, range from needing slight modifications of
existing units to the need for a variety of supportive housing arrangements. Some of the disabled
population can only live successfully in housing that provides a semi-sheltered, semi-independent
living, such as clustered group housing or other group living quarters. Others are capable of living
independently if affordable units are available. Group homes caring for up to 6 persons are allowed
by right in all residential districts.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 55
Policies and programs in this Housing Element recognize the special needs of disabled persons
including basic civil rights in housing, the need for physical accommodation, and the difficulty many
disabled persons have finding housing they can afford. Programs H-b Improve Community Awareness
of Housing Needs, Issues, and Programs and H-g Conduct Outreach for Developmentally Disabled
Housing Providers will inform residents of services and resources available to them, while Programs
H-p Housing Discrimination Complaints and H-q Reasonable Accommodation will help to ensure fair
housing for disabled persons. In addition, the Town has adopted procedures for people with
disabilities to request reasonable accommodation in the application of zoning laws and other land use
regulations, policies, and procedures.
As described above, the Town’s Inclusionary housing ordinance requires 10% of new units to be
designed for special needs households, including affordable units that are built for, or can easily and
inexpensively be adapted for, use by people with disabilities The Element includes policies and
programs that would address the needs of many disabled households, including Program H-a Focus
Town Resources on Housing Opportunity Sites; Program H-l Redevelopment Funding; Program H-m
Work with Non-Profits on Housing; Program H-r Provisions of Affordable Housing for Special Needs
Households; Program H-ee Bonuses for Affordable Housing Projects Consistent with State Density
Bonus Law; Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites;
and Program H-dd Implement Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range
of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of
community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves
housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer
term. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority
throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people
of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life
circumstances. In Marin County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is
those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have
children, 77.7% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in
transitional housing (see Figure 40).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 56
Figure 40: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Marin County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC
Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a
single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is
provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with
local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations
and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of historical
federal and local housing policies that excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white
residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness,
particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In Marin County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for
66.2% of the homeless population, while making up 77.8% of the overall population (see Figure 41).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 57
Figure 41: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Marin County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC
Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a
single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is
provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with
local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by
Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx
ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table. Accordingly, the racial group data listed here
includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations
and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table
B01001(A-I)
In Marin, Latinx residents represent 18.8% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx
residents comprise 15.9% of the general population (see Figure 42).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 58
Figure 42: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Marin County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC
Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a
single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is
provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with
local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals
experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group
identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations
and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table
B01001(A-I)
Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness,
substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional
assistance. In Marin County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness,
with 275 reporting this condition (see Figure 43). Of those, some 64.4% are unsheltered, further
adding to the challenge of handling the issue.
The 2019 Marin Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report counted a total of 1,034 homeless
people throughout Marin County on January 28, 2019. Sixty-eight percent, or 703 people, were
unsheltered. According to the report, there were no unsheltered or sheltered homeless people in
Tiburon on that day.26
26 Applied Survey Research, Marin County Homeless Count & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019, retrieved on
December 9, 2021, at https://www.marinhhs.org/sites/default/files/files/servicepages/
2019_07/2019hirdreport_marincounty_final.pdf
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 59
As a result of social distancing and public health safety precautions for the COVID-19 pandemic, the
County did not conduct a full Point-in-Time unsheltered homeless count and survey in 2021. Instead,
the Marin County Continuum of Care conducted a vehicle count to help understand the existing state
of homelessness. The count found 486 people living in vehicles in Marin County in 2021, and no
homeless people living in vehicles in Tiburon.
Figure 43: Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Marin County
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC
Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a
single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is
provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with
local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are
not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not
be summed.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations
and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
In Tiburon, there were no reported students experiencing homeless in the 2019-20 school year. By
comparison, Marin County has seen a 29.9% increase in the population of students experiencing
homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing
homelessness decreased by 8.5%. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718
students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and
thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 60
Table 7: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness
Academic Year Tiburon Marin County Bay Area
2016-17 0 976 14,990
2017-18 0 837 15,142
2018-19 0 1,126 15,427
2019-20 0 1,268 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June
30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in
temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and
sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was
obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction,
and finally summarized by geography.
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS),
Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020)
The Tiburon Chief of Police reports that there are no homeless encampments or people living in
vehicles on permanent basis. Occasionally, a transitory homeless person will stay in the Town for a
short time and then move to areas where homeless services are available. According to the Police
Chief, there are a lack of homeless and mental health services in Marin County which the jurisdictions
are working together to address.
Strategies and Programs to Meet Projected Needs
Although there are no reports of people experiencing homelessness in Tiburon, the Town recognizes
that homeless populations tend to congregate in communities with services and that homelessness is
a countywide problem that must be addressed inter-jurisdictionally. The Town contributes to Marin
Countywide Homeless Fund and collaborates with other Marin jurisdictions to develop resources,
facilities, and programs to address homelessness. The Town allows emergency shelters as a permitted
use in commercial districts and defines define transitional and supportive housing as residential uses
and to allow these uses in all zones that allow residential uses, subject to the same restrictions as
housing of the same type. This Housing Element includes Policies H-B4 Countywide Efforts to Address
Housing for the Homeless, H-B5 Emergency Shelter Facilities Located in Tiburon, H-B7 Transitional and
Supportive Housing, and H-B8 Emergency Housing Assistance and Program H-s Emergency Housing
Assistance that renews the Town’s commitment to participate in and allocate funds for Countywide
programs providing emergency and transitional shelter and related counseling services.
FARMWORKERS
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern.
Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 61
temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in
the current housing market.
In Tiburon, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year. The trend
for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker
students since the 2016-17 school year.
Table 8: Migrant Worker Student Population
Academic Year Tiburon Marin County Bay Area
2016-17 0 0 4,630
2017-18 0 0 4,607
2018-19 0 11 4,075
2019-20 0 0 3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June
30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations,
geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS),
Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020)
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent
farmworkers in Marin County has increased since 2002, totaling 697 in 2017, while the number of
seasonal farm workers has increased, totaling 577 in 2017 (see Figure 44).
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 62
Figure 44: Farm Operations and Farm Labor, Marin County
Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor
contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers
who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor
NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many
languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally
challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have
limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in
housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights or they might be
wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Tiburon, 0.9% of residents 5 years and older
identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for Marin County.
Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency
is 8%.
2.0 HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 63
Figure 45: Population with Limited English Proficiency
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005
Strategies and Programs to Meet Projected Needs
While less than 1% of Tiburon’s population identify as someone with limited English proficiency, the
Town recognizes the need to include all residents in outreach efforts and policy making, including
those yet to locate to the Town. Program H-d Inclusive Outreach directs the Town to conduct targeted
outreach to underrepresented community members, including people who do not speak English as a
first language. The Town will provide housing-related materials and surveys in Spanish, provide
language translation on the Town’s website, and conduct focus groups with underrepresented
community members.
3.0 HOUSING SITES
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 64
3.0 HOUSING SITES
State law requires that jurisdictions provide an adequate number of and properly zoned sites to
facilitate the production of their regional share of housing. To determine whether a jurisdiction has
sufficient land to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for all income groups, that
jurisdiction must identify “adequate sites.” Under state law (California Government Code §65583),
adequate sites are those with appropriate zoning designations and development regulations – with
public facilities and facilities – needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of
housing for all income levels. The land resources available for the development of housing in Tiburon
are addressed here.
3.1 REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION FOR 2022-2030
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to allocate the
region’s share of the statewide housing need to Councils of Government (COGs) based on California
Department of Finance population projections and regional population forecasts used in preparing
regional transportation plans. The COGs in turn are required to prepare Regional Housing Need Plans
allocating the region’s share of the statewide need to cities and counties within the region. The
quantification of each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need is called the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA).
The RHNA is a minimum number. Jurisdictions may plan for and accommodate a larger number of
dwelling units. Jurisdictions must identify adequate sites at appropriate densities and development
standards to accommodate the RHNA allocation. Jurisdictions must also show how they will facilitate
and encourage development of these units, but they are not required to build or finance the units.
HCD has allocated 441,176 units to the nine-county Bay Area as the region’s share of the statewide
housing need for the period 2022 through 2030. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
the region’s COG, adopted a RHNA for the 2022-2030 planning period that assigns 14,405 housing
units to Marin cities and towns and the county unincorporated area. The Town of Tiburon’s Regional
Housing Need Allocation is 639 units (Table 9). The Town estimates the projected need for units
affordable to extremely low income households to be 50% of the very low income need, or 97 units.
Table 9: Tiburon’s Regional Housing Need, June 30, 2022, to December 31, 2030
Income Category Units
Very Low Income 193
Low Income 110
Moderate Income 93
Above Moderate Income 243
Total 639
3.0 HOUSING SITES
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 65
3.2 SITES INVENTORY
Most of the sites within residential zones in the Town are built out or are not viable for development
due to environmental or topographic constraints, and therefore offer very limited new housing
opportunities. The Town recognizes that it must provide opportunities for high density residential
development outside of traditional residential zones. To achieve this goal and provide the density
needed to meet the RHNA within the planning period, most of the multifamily sites are in mixed use
zones that allow housing.
The development of the Sites Inventory is based on analysis of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan Land Use Element, Marin County Assessor’s information, the County’s geographical
information system (MarinMap), field surveys, aerial photographs, and the Planning Department
property files. Site analysis also included staff knowledge of existing conditions and underutilized land,
development interests expressed by property owners, community input, and market trends.
In addition, the sites were assessed based on the proximity to transit and the Ferry Terminal; access
to jobs and high performing schools; access to amenities such as parks and community services; access
to schools and grocery stores; and proximity to available infrastructure and utilities.
Two of the sites projected to accommodate lower-income housing were identified in the previous
Housing Element planning period (Sites 3 and 4), although these sites were recently rezoned to
increasing the maximum residential density from 20.7 units per acre to 45 units per acre (with a
minimum required density of 40 units per acre), thereby greatly enhancing the financial feasibility and
marketability of the parcels. The Reed Union School District owns Site 8. All of the other proposed
sites are not publicly owned or leased.
The Sites Inventory includes developed, non-residential properties that can be redeveloped for mixed-
use development that includes residential use, as well as the potential for new single-family homes
on vacant sites and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The inventory lists individual sites by address,
parcel number, General Plan land use designation, zoning district, parcel size, allowable density,
realistic development capacity, and the anticipated units by income category.
Eight of the nine multifamily sites that can accommodate lower-income housing are nonvacant but
are expected to be redeveloped during the planning period as described below.
In all cases, infrastructure, including water, sewer, and utilities (electricity, natural gas, telephone,
cable, internet, and cellular service) is available at or adjacent to the site.
The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) provides water to the Town of Tiburon as well as the
incorporated cities and towns of San Rafael, Mill Valley, Fairfax, San Anselmo, Ross, Larkspur, Corte
Madera, Belvedere and Sausalito and communities in unincorporated areas of Marin County.
MMWD’s primary water supply is local surface water obtained from rainfall collected from a
watershed with six reservoirs. The District receives a supplemental water supply from the Sonoma
County Water Agency. The District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has determined
that there is adequate supply to meet demand for a projected service population of 211,961 in 2045,
an increase of 20,692 people from the 2020 level. Thus, water supply is sufficient to accommodate
population growth in Tiburon associated with the development of 639 new residential units, which is
estimated at approximately 1,566 new residents (2.45 persons per household). However, the 2020
UWMP was prepared based upon the Association of Bay Area Government 2017 population
projections, and therefore does not account for population projections associated within the 6th cycle
Housing Element updates for all of the jurisdictions within MMWD’s service area. The aggregate RHNA
3.0 HOUSING SITES
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 66
for these jurisdictions would result in significantly more residential units within MMWD’s service area
than what was considered in the UWMP. MMWD must update the Urban Water Management Plan
every five years to accommodate new and projected population growth, and the District intends to
update the plan to reflect the 6th cycle RHNA and to ensure sufficient water supplies to support the
anticipated increase in residential development. Water distribution lines are located at or nearby all
of the parcels listed in the Sites Inventory.
Sewage collection and treatment is provided by several agencies, depending upon the location of the
parcel. The Richardson Bay Sanitary District provides wastewater collection facilities and services, and
the Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin provides wastewater treatment for properties located in the
western area of Tiburon near the town of Corte Madera. Sanitary District No. 2 provides collection
services, and the Central Marin Sanitation Agency treats the wastewater for properties located in the
northern area of Tiburon. The eastern end of the Tiburon peninsula is served by Sanitary District No.
5, which provides both wastewater collection and treatment. All agencies have sufficient capacity to
serve the additional planned housing units. Sewer lines are located at or nearby all of the parcels listed
in the Sites Inventory.
Chapter 727, statues of 2005, requires water and sewer providers to grant priority for service
allocations to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower-income
households. MMWD and the wastewater agencies are aware of the statute.
Chapter 727 also requires cities and counties to immediately deliver the adopted housing elements
of the local general plan and any amendments to water and sewer service providers within a month
after adoption. The Town will comply with this requirement.
Sites 1-9 and A-G are located in, or partially in, a Special Flood Hazard Area with a 1 percent or greater
chance of flooding within any given year. The Town requires all new buildings in Special Flood Hazard
Areas to be built with finished floors at least two feet above base flood elevations established by
FEMA. This requirement has been taken into account when modeling potential building forms and
evaluating unit capacities on each site. New buildings are required to comply with the Town’s
ordinances that address flood damage prevention, which are contained in Chapter 13D of the
Municipal Code. As a result, the presence of the floodplain and the potential for flooding is not a
constraint on development.
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) SITE ANALYSIS
Assembly Bill 686 passed in 2017 requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers
that restrict access to opportunity27 and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively
further fair housing28. AB 686 mandates that local governments identify meaningful goals to address
27 While Californian’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do not provide a definition of opportunity,
opportunity usually related to the access to resources and improve quality of life. HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC) have created Opportunity Maps to visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes,
such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility
28 “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” is defined to mean taking meaningful actions that “overcome patterns of
segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for communities
of color, persons with disabilities, and others protected by California law
3.0 HOUSING SITES
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 67
the impacts of systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal
educational or employment opportunities to the extent these issues create and/or perpetuate
discrimination against protected classes29.
In addition, it:
• Requires the state, cities, towns, counties, and public housing authorities to administer
their programs and activities related to housing and community development in a way
that affirmatively furthers fair housing and prohibits them from taking actions materially
inconsistent with their AFFH obligation.
• Adds an AFFH analysis to the Housing Element for plans that are due beginning in 2021.
• Includes in the Housing Element’s AFFH analysis a summary of fair housing issues and
assessment of the Town’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of
segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities; an assessment of
contributing factors; and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.
The full AFFH analysis is contained in Appendix D. In summary, the analysis finds:
• The Town should do more outreach on fair housing laws and available services. The Housing
Element contains several programs to address this need.
• Tiburon’s population is mostly White (81.6%), but the population is becoming more diverse
and the Town is becoming less segregated.
• The Town’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower or moderate income
units in lower opportunity areas or in areas with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic
minority populations, people with disabilities, single-parent households, low or moderate
income households, or cost-burdened renters.
• RHNA sites in Tiburon do not exacerbate existing fair housing conditions and ensure future
households have adequate access to a variety of opportunities.
• The Town’s RHNA strategy ensures that new housing units affordable to all income levels are
integrated throughout the Town.
ABAG’s regional housing allocation methodology for the 6th housing element cycle was specifically
designed to direct more housing growth to high resource areas with higher rates of segregation, like
Tiburon, in an effort to achieve more balanced and integrated communities across the Bay Area
region. As a result, the RHNA allocation is, in itself, a tool to address housing disparities, and Tiburon’s
exceptionally high RHNA (8 times the previous cycle vs. 2.4 for the regional allocation) is a primary
means for providing more housing opportunities for all and achieving a more diverse population.
29 A protected class is a group of people sharing a common trait who are legally protected from being discriminated against on the basis of that trait.
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 68
Table 10: Sites Inventory
Site # Parcel
Number Address GP Designation Zoning
District Size (acr
Allowable
Density
(du/ac)
Realistic
Dev.
Capacity
Very
Low Low Mod. Above
Mod.
1 058-171-91 1525 Tiburon Blvd MUH MUH 0.66 40-45 26 13 7 2 4
2 058-171-43 1535 Tiburon Blvd MUH MUH 0.72 40-45 28 14 8 2 4
3 058-171-47 1601 Tiburon Blvd MUH MUH 0.57 40-45 22 11 6 2 3
4 058-171-86 4 Beach Rd MUH MUH 1.07 40-45 42 21 12 3 6
5 060-082-57 1550 Tiburon Blvd MUH MUH 2.21 40-45 88 44 25 6 13
6 059-101-03 1620 Tiburon Blvd MUL MUL 0.27 30-35 26 13 7 2 4 059-101-04 1640/50 Tiburon Blvd MUL MUL 0.6
7 059-102-15 6 Beach Rd MUH MUH 0.41 40-45 53 26 15 4 8 059-102-16 12 Beach Rd MUH MUH 1
8 058-151-41 1199 Tiburon Blvd. VH-25 R-4 2.9 20-25 58 27 16 5 10
9
058-171-70 1100 Mar West St MUL MUL 0.47
30-35 40 20 11 3 6 058-171-68 1110 Mar West St MUL MUL 0.3
058-171-69 1120 Mar West St MUL MUL 0.59
A 058-171-96 1555 Tiburon Blvd MUH MUH 0.86 40-45 34 17 17
B 058-171-97 1599 Tiburon Blvd MUH MUH 1.66 40-45 66 33 33
C 059-101-03 1600 Tiburon Blvd MUL MUL 0.39 30-35 11 6 5
D 059-101-02 1610 Tiburon Blvd MUL MUL 0.13 30-35 4 2 2
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 69
Site # Parcel Number Address GP Designation Zoning District Size (acr Allowable Density
(du/ac)
Realistic Dev.
Capacity
Very Low Low Mod. Above Mod.
E 059-101-15 1660 Tiburon Blvd MUL MUL 0.43 30-35 12 6 6
F 059-101-14 1680 Tiburon Blvd MUL MUL 0.29 30-35 8 4 4
G 059-102-27 26 Main St./ 2 Juanita Ln MS MS 0.43 20-25 8 4 4
ADUs Various Various Various Various Various Various 72 21 21 21 9
SF1 Various Various Various Various Various Various 179 0 0 0 179
TOTAL 777 210 128 122 317
RHNA 639 193 110 93 243
1 See Appendix C for parcel-specific list of vacant Single and Two-Family parcels and housing capacity.
Note: This draft Housing Element presumes adoption of GP redesignations and Zoning Code amendments for housing opportunity Sites 1-8 and A-G. This construction
is meant only to simplify the editing process associated with the final document, not to presume an outcome before it happens. The document and analysis contained
herein will be revised, as necessary, to reflect the adopted rezonings. It is the Town’s intent to adopt permitted uses and development standards that support and
facilitate the site and capacity analysis described in this section. All rezonings of housing opportunity sites will occur before the Housing Element is adopted.
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 70
Figure 46: Sites Map
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 71
3.3 DENSITY ASSUMPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
The allowable density ranges for Sites 1-9 and A-G identify minimum and maximum densities.
Development projects on Site 1-9 are required to achieve minimum residential densities. The realistic
development capacities identified in Table 10 are calculated based on minimum densities.
Market demand in Tiburon and Marin County is overwhelmingly for residential development.
Commercial and retail space continues to contract due to the shift to remote work and online
shopping. Office vacancy rates in Southern Marin County were 18.9% in the first quarter of 2022,
while annual retail and food service taxable transactions in Tiburon have been declining since 2015.30
There are many examples of projects responding to market demand for housing over commercial
space in Tiburon and Marin County. A few examples follow.
• In Tiburon, an existing one-story, 2,776 square foot commercial building at 1694-1696 Tiburon
Boulevard constructed in the 1930s was redeveloped with a 3-story, 5,255 square foot mixed-
use building containing ground-floor commercial use and two residential units. The project
was approved in 2015 with a FAR of 1.43, exceeding the permitted maximum FAR.
• In Corte Madera, a new land use designation, Mixed-Use – Gateway Area was created in the
2009 General Plan Update for a 4.5 acre property which at the time was occupied by a factory
that produced disposable polystyrene foodware products. The new designation was intended
to encourage higher-density residential development in conjunction with local-serving
commercial use and allowed a non-residential floor area ratio of up to 0.34. Allowable
residential density for the site was increased from 15.1-25.0 units per acre to 25.1-40 units
per acre. In 2011, the site was rezoned to allow up to 10,000 square feet of commercial space.
In response to softening commercial real estate demand, the project was approved with only
3,000 square feet of commercial space, which represents a non-residential floor area of 0.02.
The project was completed in September 2017 and was fully occupied in January 2019.
• In Novato, the Atherton Ranch Master Plan, approved in 2000, originally permitted the
construction of a mixed-use development featuring 93 single-family residences, 23
townhomes, 40 senior affordable apartments, and two office/retail buildings totaling 70,550
square feet of floor area. All of the residential components were constructed. The office/retail
buildings were not constructed due to lack of demand for new office and retail space. In 2015,
the developer applied for a master plan amendment to allow 59 residential condominiums
and 6,000 square feet of street-oriented retail space. As commercial market conditions
continued to deteriorate, the developer revised their application to reduce the retail space to
1,340 square feet, which was approved by the City in 2017. The new residential units are
currently being sold, but the retail space remains vacant.
• In San Rafael, the Northgate Mall Redevelopment project proposes a comprehensive
redevelopment of the existing mall into an open-air “main street experience” surrounded by
mixed-use development of retail and up to 1,441 residences. The project proposes to reduce
the existing commercial retail from 775,677 sq. ft. to 225,100 square feet and construct high-
30 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Taxable Sales by City,
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/charts.htm?url=TaxSalesCRCityCounty, accessed 5/26/22.
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 72
density multifamily residential buildings in the form of townhome units and five-seven story
apartment buildings. The proposed project includes 138 affordable units.
As a result of existing market demand for residential units and a corresponding decline in demand for
commercial and retail space, the Town believes all mixed use sites will be developed at or near
maximum residential density with the same or less commercial space as currently exists. The mixed
use zones Mixed Use Low (MUL) and Mixed Use High (MUH) allow 100% residential use except at
corner sites (e.g., Sites 3, 5, B and C) where there a small amount of commercial space is required.
The Town completed conceptual modeling on representative sites to determine unit capacities given
site-specific development standards (including setbacks, building heights, and FAR maximums),
parking requirements, and topographical and environmental constraints. The models assume unit
sizes ranging from 900 to 1,200 square feet to represent a variety of unit types. Figures 47 -51 show
existing conditions and conceptual models for four representative sites. The modeling demonstrates
that the unit capacities identified in Table 10 can easily be accommodated on the sites given the
Town’s development standards and parking requirements and assuming ground-floor commercial on
mixed-use sites.
Figure 47: Existing Condition and Conceptual Model for Tiburon Blvd. East Corner Site
Figure 48: Existing Condition and Conceptual Model for Tiburon Blvd. East Mid-Block S
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 73
3.4 SITE AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Sites 1-9 are projected to accommodate a majority of the Town’s lower-income need as identified in
Table 10. Existing conditions, residential density, unit capacity, and development potential of these
sites are described below. The sites allow at least 20 units per acre, the “default density” for a
suburban jurisdiction like Tiburon and are at least 1/2 acre. Most sites have an allowable maximum
density of 35 du/ac and 45 du/ac. These conditions enable the economies of scale needed to produce
affordable housing.
Sites C-G are not projected to accommodate a portion of the lower-income because they are smaller
than ½ acre. Sites A and B are larger than ½ acre, but the current property owner has not expressed
an interest in redeveloping the site for housing at this time. Nonetheless, the Town believes there is
a high likelihood that Sites A and B will change ownership within the planning period and will be
redeveloped with housing.
Figure 49: Existing Condition and Conceptual Model for Tiburon Blvd. West Mid-Block Site
Figure 50: Existing Condition and Conceptual Model for Site 8
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 74
SITE 1
Site 1 is located at 1525 Tiburon Boulevard and is identified in Table 10 and Figure 47. The parcel is
0.66 acre and is currently used as a parking lot. The Town met with the property owner in February
2022 who stated that construction costs were too high to justify development of the site given the
existing maximum allowable residential density of 20.7 units per acre under the affordable housing
overlay. The owner also stated that there was insufficient demand for commercial space to require
commercial use on the site. The Town subsequently rezoned the site for 40-45 du/ac and made
commercial use optional on mid-block sites such as Site 1. The property owner has expressed interest
in redeveloping the site with multifamily housing during the planning period at the new density. There
are no existing leases that would perpetuate the existing use and prevent redevelopment.
The site is located on a transit route and has several services close by. A grocery store and the public
library are located on the same block. Parks and recreational facilities, an elementary school, and the
Tiburon Ferry Terminal are within ½ mile walking distance, as well as other retail and commercial
facilities. Marin Transit provides local bus service with stops approximately one block away and
connection to Golden Gate Transit’s commuter service between Santa Rosa to San Francisco.
The expressed owner interest, aging structure, and underutilized nature of the parcel make this site
suitable for development during the planning period. Based on a minimum density of 40 du/ac, the
site is projected to yield a minimum of 26 units at various affordability levels.
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing on the site, the Town will facilitate a meeting among
the property owner and affordable housing developers, provide expedited permit review and
approval and assistance in obtaining grants, reduce fees for affordable housing units, apply State
density bonuses and incentives as applicable, and make available the use of former RDA set-aside
funds and/or housing in-lieu funds. Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on
Housing Opportunity Sites details the clear and actionable steps, time frame, and responsibility for
these actions.
SITE 2
Site 2 is located at 1535 Tiburon Boulevard and is identified in Table 10 and Figure 47. The site is 0.72
acres and contains a 7,866 square foot structure built c. 1970s. The site contains a Chase Bank which
was closed during the pandemic and has recently reopened. The site was recently rezoned to increase
the maximum residential density from 20.7 du/ac to 40-45 du/ac. Commercial use is optional on mid-
block sites such as Site 2. Although the Town has been unable to make contact with the property
owner, the structure is aging and functionally obsolete, and the site is highly underutilized given the
redevelopment potential. There are no known leases or contracts that would prevent redevelopment.
The site is located on a transit route and has several services close by. A grocery store and the public
library are located on the same block. Parks and recreational facilities, an elementary school, and the
Tiburon Ferry Terminal are within ½ mile walking distance, as well as other retail and commercial
facilities. Marin Transit provides local bus service with stops approximately one block away and
connection to Golden Gate Transit’s commuter service between Santa Rosa to San Francisco.
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 75
The aging structure and underutilized nature of the parcel make this site suitable for development
during the planning period. Based on a minimum density of 40 du/ac, the site is projected to yield a
minimum of 28 units at various affordability levels.
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing on the site, the Town will facilitate a meeting among
the property owner and affordable housing developers, provide expedited permit review and
approval and assistance in obtaining grants, reduce fees for affordable housing units, apply State
density bonuses and incentives as applicable, and make available the use of former RDA set-aside
funds and/or housing in-lieu funds. Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on
Housing Opportunity Sites details the clear and actionable steps, time frame, and responsibility for
these actions.
SITE 3
Site 3 is located at 1601 Tiburon Boulevard and is identified in Table 10 and Figure 47. The parcel is
0.57 acres. The site contains a 6,487 building built in 1973, which was previously occupied by Bank of
America but has been closed for several years. The Town met with the property owners in February
2022. The property owners stated that they had purchased the property in 2019 with the intent to
redevelop the site with housing. They had explored development options but were finding that the
maximum allowable density of 20.7 du/ac under the affordable housing overlay was not enough to
justify the cost of the project. They were open to including a small amount of commercial space in the
project, which the Town desires in order create an active, pedestrian friendly downtown. The Town
subsequently rezoned the site for 40-45 du/ac and made a small amount of ground floor commercial
use a requirement for Downtown corner sites such as Site 3. The property owner has expressed
interest in redeveloping the site with multifamily housing during the planning period at the new
density. There are no existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use and
prevent redevelopment.
The site is located on a transit route and has several services close by. A grocery store is located across
the street and the public library is ¼ mile away. Parks and recreational facilities, an elementary school,
and the Tiburon Ferry Terminal are within ½ mile walking distance, as well as other retail and
commercial facilities. Marin Transit provides local bus service with a stop at the site and connection
to Golden Gate Transit’s commuter service between Santa Rosa to San Francisco.
The expressed owner interest, vacant and aging building on the site, and underutilized nature of the
parcel makes this site suitable for development during the planning period. Based on a minimum
density of 40 du/ac, the site is projected to yield minimum of 22 units at various affordability levels.
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing on the site, the Town will facilitate a meeting among
the property owner and affordable housing developers, provide expedited permit review and
approval and assistance in obtaining grants, reduce fees for affordable housing units, apply State
density bonuses and incentives as applicable, and make available the use of former RDA set-aside
funds and/or housing in-lieu funds. Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on
Housing Opportunity Sites details the clear and actionable steps, time frame, and responsibility for
these actions.
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 76
SITE 4
Site 4 is located at 4 Beach Road and is identified in Table 10 and Figure 47. The 1.07 acre site is
currently used as a parking lot. The Town met with the property owner in February 2022 who stated
that construction costs were too high to justify development of the site given the existing maximum
allowable residential density of 20.7 units per acre under the affordable housing overlay. The owner
also stated that there was insufficient demand for commercial space to require commercial use on
the site. The Town subsequently rezoned the site for 40-45 du/ac and made commercial use optional
on mid-block sites such as Site 4. The property owner has expressed interest in redeveloping the site
with multifamily housing during the planning period at the new density. There are no existing leases
or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use and prevent redevelopment.
The site is located on a transit route and has several services close by. A grocery store is located across
the street and the public library is ¼ mile away. Parks and recreational facilities, an elementary school,
and the Tiburon Ferry Terminal are within ½ mile walking distance, as well as other retail and
commercial facilities. Marin Transit provides local bus service with a stop less than one block away
and connection to Golden Gate Transit’s commuter service between Santa Rosa to San Francisco.
The expressed owner interest and underutilized nature of the parcel make this site suitable for
development during the planning period. Based on a minimum density of 40 du/ac, the site is
projected to yield a minimum of 42 units at various affordability levels.
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing on the site, the Town will facilitate a meeting among
the property owner and affordable housing developers, provide expedited permit review and
approval and assistance in obtaining grants, reduce fees for affordable housing units, apply State
density bonuses and incentives as applicable, and make available the use of former RDA set-aside
funds and/or housing in-lieu funds. Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on
Housing Opportunity Sites details the clear and actionable steps, time frame, and responsibility for
these actions.
SITE 5
Site 5 is located at 1550 Tiburon Boulevard and is identified in Table 10 and Figure 47. The site is 2.21
acres. The site contains a 47,418 square foot shopping center built in 1955 that is currently occupied
with a grocery store, bank, retail stores, and offices. The Town met with the property owner in April
2022 who expressed interest in redeveloping the site with housing if the Town would allow residential
use at a sufficient density. The property owner also attended a Town Council meeting in April 2022
and requested a density of 40-45 du/ac in order to make it financially feasible to redevelop the site
with housing. The Town subsequently rezoned the site to allow mixed use with a residential density
of 40-45 du/ac. Similar to Site 5, the Town requires commercial use at the corner of the site. The
property owner has expressed their desire to retain the existing grocery store. There are no known
existing leases or other contracts that would prevent redevelopment.
The site is located on a transit route and has several services close by. A grocery store is located on
the parcel and the public library is ¼ mile away. Parks and recreational facilities, an elementary school,
and the Tiburon Ferry Terminal are within ½ mile walking distance, as well as other retail and
commercial facilities. Marin Transit provides local bus service with a stop at the site and connection
to Golden Gate Transit’s commuter service between Santa Rosa to San Francisco.
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 77
The expressed owner interest, aging structure, and underutilized nature of the parcel make this site
suitable for development during the planning period. Based on a minimum density of 40 du/ac, the
site is projected to yield a minimum of 88 units at various affordability levels.
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing on the site, the Town will facilitate a meeting among
the property owner and affordable housing developers, provide expedited permit review and
approval and assistance in obtaining grants, reduce fees for affordable housing units, apply State
density bonuses and incentives as applicable, and make available the use of former RDA set-aside
funds and/or housing in-lieu funds. Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on
Housing Opportunity Sites details the clear and actionable steps, time frame, and responsibility for
these actions.
SITE 6
Site 6 is located at 1620 and 1640/50 Tiburon Boulevard and is identified in Table 10 and Figure 47.
The site is comprised of two parcels totaling 0.87 acres which are under the same ownership. The site
contains an 8,672 square foot office/retail building built in 1979 and a 14,396 square foot office
building built in 1959 with several vacant office spaces. The Town met with the property owner in
February 2022 who expressed interest in redeveloping the site with housing if the Town would allow
residential use on the site at a sufficient density. The owner also stated that ground-floor commercial
use would be feasible on the site. The Town subsequently rezoned the site to allow mixed use with
residential density of 30-35 du/ac. Commercial use is optional on mid-block sites such as Site 6.
The site is located on a transit route and has several services close by. A grocery store is one block
away, and the public library, parks, and Ferry Terminal is ¼ mile away, as well as other retail and
commercial facilities. Recreational facilities and an elementary school are approximately ½ mile
walking distance away. Marin Transit provides local bus service with a stop one block away and
connection to Golden Gate Transit’s commuter service between Santa Rosa to San Francisco.
The expressed owner interest, aging buildings, and underutilized nature of the parcel make this site
suitable for development during the planning period. Based on a minimum density of 30 du/ac, the
site is projected to yield a minimum of 26 units at various affordability levels.
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing on the site, the Town will facilitate a meeting among
the property owner and affordable housing developers, provide expedited permit review and
approval (including lot consolidation) and assistance in obtaining grants, reduce fees for affordable
housing units, apply State density bonuses and incentives as applicable, and make available the use
of former RDA set-aside funds and/or housing in-lieu funds. Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and
Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites details the clear and actionable steps, time frame, and
responsibility for these actions.
SITE 7
Site 7 is located at 6 and 12 Beach Road and is identified in Table 10 and Figure 47. The site comprises
two parcels, under the same ownership, totaling 1.41 acres. The site contains buildings constructed
in 1960 and 1968 which are currently occupied by a post office and offices, and a 3-unit apartment
building at the southern end of the site. The Town met with the property owner in April 2022 who
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 78
expressed interest in redeveloping the site with housing if the Town would allow residential use at a
sufficient density. The property owner also attended a Town Council meeting in April 2022 and
requested a density of 40-45 du/ac in order to make it financially feasible to redevelop the site with
housing. The Town subsequently rezoned the site to allow mixed use with a residential density of 40-
45 du/ac. Commercial use is optional on mid-block sites such as Site 7. There are no known existing
leases or other contracts that would prevent redevelopment.
The site is located on a transit route and has several services close by. A grocery store is located across
the street and the public library, parks, and Ferry Terminal is ¼ mile away, as well as other retail and
commercial facilities. Recreational facilities and an elementary school are approximately ½ mile away.
Marin Transit provides local bus service with at the site and connection to Golden Gate Transit’s
commuter service between Santa Rosa to San Francisco.
The expressed owner interest, aging buildings, and underutilized nature of the parcel make this site
suitable for development during the planning period. Based on a minimum density of 40 du/ac, the
site is projected to yield a minimum of 53 units at various affordability levels. The existing 3 units have
been subtracted from the calculated unit capacity.
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing on the site, the Town will facilitate a meeting among
the property owner and affordable housing developers, provide expedited permit review and
approval (including lot consolidation) and assistance in obtaining grants, reduce fees for affordable
housing units, apply State density bonuses and incentives as applicable, and make available the use
of former RDA set-aside funds and/or housing in-lieu funds. Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and
Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites details the clear and actionable steps, time frame, and
responsibility for these actions.
SITE 8
Site 8 is located at 1199 Tiburon Boulevard and is identified in Table 10 and Figure 47 above. The site
a 2.9 acre vacant portion of a 7.5 acre parcel that is owned by the Reed Union School District. An
elementary school is located on the developed portion of the site. The site would ideally be developed
with affordable housing for teachers, school staff, and public safety personnel. Due to the site’s
topography, clustered multifamily buildings, such as those shown in Figure 50, would be best suited
for the site. The Town met with school staff in January 2022 who stated that the school was embarking
on a year-long Master Facilities Plan and would consider housing for the site. The site was previously
included in an affordable housing overlay zone that permitted up to 24.8 units per acre. The site was
recently rezoned to require a minimum of 20 du/ac and a maximum of 25 du/ac.
The site is located on a transit route and has several services close by. As discussed above, the
elementary school is on the site, as is a bus stop. A grocery store, public library, recreational facilities,
and parks are ½ mile away, as well as other retail and commercial facilities. The Ferry Terminal is 0.9
miles away.
The expressed owner interest and underutilized nature of the parcel make this site suitable for
development during the planning period. Based on a minimum density of 20 du/ac, the site is
projected to yield a minimum of 58 units at various affordability levels.
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing on the site, the Town will facilitate a meeting among
the property owner and affordable housing developers, provide expedited permit review and
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 79
approval and assistance in obtaining grants, reduce fees for affordable housing units, apply State
density bonuses and incentives as applicable, and make available the use of former RDA set-aside
funds and/or housing in-lieu funds. Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on
Housing Opportunity Sites details the clear and actionable steps, time frame, and responsibility for
these actions.
SITE 9
Site 9 is located at 1100, 1110 and 1120 Mar West Drive and is identified in Table 10 and Figure 47
above. The site is made up of three contiguous parcels under the same ownership and combined are
1.36 acres. Each parcel contains a 5,880 square foot office building constructed in 1982. In May 2022,
the property owner contacted the Town and requested that the Town consider rezoning the parcels
to allow multifamily housing, stating that the office space has been difficult to lease. The site was
subsequently rezoned to allow residential use with a density of 30-35 du/ac. Commercial use is
optional on Site 9.
The site is located on a transit route and has several services close by. A bus stop is located at the site,
and the Ferry Terminal is 0.6 miles away. The elementary school is approximately ¼ mile away, and a
grocery store, public library, recreational facilities, and parks are within ½ mile walking distance.
The expressed owner interest and underutilized nature of the parcel make this site suitable for
redevelopment during the planning period. Based on a minimum density of 30 du/ac, the site is
projected to yield a minimum of 40 units at various affordability levels.
To encourage and facilitate affordable housing on the site, the Town will facilitate a meeting among
the property owner and affordable housing developers, provide expedited permit review and
approval and assistance in obtaining grants, reduce fees for affordable housing units, apply State
density bonuses and incentives as applicable, and make available the use of former RDA set-aside
funds and/or housing in-lieu funds. Program H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on
Housing Opportunity Sites details the clear and actionable steps, time frame, and responsibility for
these actions.
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES TO SUPPORT NONVACANT SITES
As discussed above, there is only one vacant site available to accommodate lower-income housing.
The Town therefore mostly relies on underutilized properties to accommodate its lower income
RHNA.
The nonvacant sites were selected based on the expressed interest of the property owners, analysis
of zoning that supports high density affordable housing, market trends, age of the structures on site,
and underutilized sites analysis.
Housing Element programs and policies demonstrate the Town’s commitment to facilitating
redevelopment and have established actions and timeframes that support and encourage the
likelihood of residential development of nonvacant sites within the planning period. These added
incentives include minimum target densities of 20 to 40 du/ac, flexible development standards, lot
consolidation, permit streamlining for projects that include affordable units, funding and fee waivers
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 80
for affordable units, and affordable housing partnerships and outreach as identified in Programs H-a,
H-k, H-l, H-m, H-cc and H-ee. See Section 5.1 for a detailed list of policy and programs actions and
timeframes.
Based on the expressed interest of the property owners, the age of the existing structures, the recent
rezoning to significantly higher residential densities, and the new programs and policies that
incentivize lot consolidation and affordable housing, the use of nonvacant lots will support the
development of residential housing units to meet the RHNA during the planning period. None of the
sites require rezoning to accommodate the proposed units.
Nonvacant sites are expected to accommodate more than 50% of the Town’s lower income housing
need. Therefore, the Town will include findings, based on substantial evidence, in the resolution
adopting the housing element.
3.5 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Accessory Dwelling Units ((ADUs) are an increasingly popular housing type. ADUs are independent
homes on a residential property that can either be part of or attached to the primary dwelling or free
standing. They offer infill development consistent with surrounding built form, a potential
supplemental income source for homeowners, and in some cases affordable housing.
An ADU, also known as an in-law unit or second unit, is an additional residential dwelling unit on a
single-family or multi-family residentially zoned property. An ADU can be an attached or detached
dwelling unit, providing independent living facilities for one or more persons that has a full, separate
kitchen (including stove, refrigerator, and sink), separate bathroom, and separate entrance.
A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) is an additional, independent living unit generally created
through the conversion of an existing bedroom in a single-family residentially zoned residence and
has a separate entrance. A JADU does not need to have all the same features as an ADU, such as a
separate bathroom.
Since 2017, the State legislature has passed a series of new laws that significantly increase the
potential for development of new ADUs and JADUs by removing development barriers and allowing
ADUs through ministerial permits. State law requires jurisdictions to allow residential properties to
have at least one ADU per lot, plus one JADU.
The Town most recently revised its ADU ordinance in 2022 to comply with new State laws. ADUs are
permitted on all lots zoned to allow single-family or multifamily residential use. Development
standards are consistent with State law and are summarized in Table 11.
Table 11: ADU Standards
ADU STANDARDS
Min/Max ADU size Attached ADUs: Maximum floor space is 850 square feet. For lots over 10,000
square feet, maximum floor space is 1,000 square feet.
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 81
Detached ADUs: 850 square feet for one bedroom or less and 1,000 square
feet for lots greater than 10,000 square feet or ADUs with more than one
bedroom.
JADUs: Maximum 500 square feet
Lot size None
Lot coverage An ADU may exceed standards for lot coverage, but the ADU is limited to a
maximum size of 800 square feet.
ADU building height Up to 16 feet for one story and up to 30 feet for two stories. The ADU may
not be taller than the primary residence at the area of attachment.
Setbacks None for conversions of existing living area or structure. 4-foot side and rear
setbacks for new construction.
Parking requirements One off-street parking space per ADU unless 1) within ½ mile walking distance
of public transit, 2) located within a historic district, 3) located within one
block of a car share vehicle, 4) located within an existing structure, or 4) when on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant.
Deed or income restrictions None
Number of ADUs One detached ADU and one JADU allowed on each single-family property.
Also allowed on multifamily properties under state law.
Owner occupancy Not required for ADU or primary residence. Required for JADU.
Other requirements • Exterior Lighting: two shielded downward point lights at the entrance to
the ADU are allowed.
• Fire Sprinklers: needed if required for primary residence.
• Objective architectural standards: Color and materials much match the
primary unit.
• Windows: no window facing the rear and side property lines are allowed
when located less than 6 feet of the rear or side property line.
• Rental restriction: an ADU and JADU shall not be rented for less than 30
consecutive days.
Process ADUs and JADUs are approved ministerially by the Director of Community
Development.
The Town has collaborated with other Marin local government to provide resources and education
materials to facilitate building, permitting, and renting second units. They created a website at
adumarin.org that provides case studies, floor plans, a calculator to estimate construction costs,
information on planning, designing, and constructing and ADU, and resources on being a landlord,
from setting a rent price to complying with fair housing laws.
As a result of the new second unit development standards and permitting process, the Town has
experienced a marked increase in ADU and JADU development. The Town approved 8 units in 2018,
12 units in 2019, 5 units in 2020, and 11 units in 2021, for an average of 9 units per year. Based on
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 82
this annual average, the Town conservatively expects to develop 72 ADUs during the 8-year planning
period as shown in the Sites Inventory in Table 10.
In general, ADUs are affordable for several reasons:
• Many units are available for no or low-cost rent to family members or friends. Additionally, a
smaller number of owners intentionally rent their ADUs below market because they believe
affordable housing is important.
• ADUs tend to be fewer square feet than units in apartment buildings after controlling for
bedroom size, which results in lower prices.
• ADU owners tend to prefer their choice of tenant versus maximizing rent. Additionally, they
will often not significantly raise rents once they have a tenant they like.
• ADU owners often do not know the value of their unit so they may underprice it
unintentionally.
Potential affordability levels for projected ADU development are based on the Affordability of
Accessory Dwelling Units report prepared by the ABAG Housing Technical Assistance Team. The report
recommends the following affordability assumptions for new ADUs: Very Low Income, 30%; Low
Income 30%, Moderate Income, 30%; and Above Moderate Income, 10%. Therefore, the Town
projects ADU affordability for the 72 units as follows: 21 Very Low Income, 21 Low Income, 21
Moderate Income, and 9 Above Moderate Income.
To encourage and facilitate ADUs and provide housing opportunities throughout established
neighborhoods, Program H-gg Outreach and Education for Accessory Dwelling Unit Development
directs the Town to take the following actions:
1. Provide information on Tiburon’s ADU standards for posting on the MarinADU website.
2. Provide ADU and JADU application checklists on the Town’s website.
3. Develop a handout on ADU standards and the application process and distribute at Town Hall.
4. Provide links to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s Sources of
Income Fact Sheet and FAQ in Town communications and printed handouts at the building
counter.
5. Promote the MarinADU website in the Town’s newsletter and ADU handout, on social media,
and on the Town’s website.
In addition, Program H-hh Track and Evaluate Accessory Dwelling Unit Production says that the Town
will continue to track ADU and JADU permits, construction, and affordability levels. The Town will
review ADU and JADU development at the mid-point of the planning cycle to determine if production
estimates are being achieved as identified in the housing site inventory. Depending on the findings of
the review, the Town will revise the housing sites inventory to ensure adequate sites are available to
accommodate the remaining lower income housing need.
3.6 SENATE BILL 9 UNITS
Senate Bill (SB) 9 was signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021, and became effective on
January 1, 2022. The legislation allows single family lots greater than 2,400 square feet to be split
under certain conditions and allows both vacant and developed single family lots to be developed
with two single family homes. As shown in Table 10 and detailed in Appendix C, the Town is projecting
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 83
development of four single family homes as allowed under SB 9 on each qualifying vacant single-family
lot.
3.7 ZONING FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES
Housing Element Law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate the availability of sites, with appropriate
zoning, that will encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types including multi-family rental
housing, factory built housing, mobile homes, single room occupancy units, housing for agricultural
employees, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters. Table 12 summarizes
the housing types currently permitted in each of Tiburon’s residential zoning districts.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
ADUs are allowed by right in all residential and mixed use zoning districts that allow single-family and
multifamily development (see Section 3.5 above for a description of the Town’s accessory dwelling
unit regulations).
MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING
Multifamily rentals are allowed by right in the Multifamily Residential zoning districts (R-3 and R-4),
the Residential Multiple Planned (RMP) zoning district, the Affordable Housing Overlay district (AHO),
and the Mixed Use Low (MUL) and Mixed Use High (MUH) districts]. The R-3 district allows up to 12.4
units per acre. The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone allows incidental residential uses, including
multifamily rental housing. The AHO allows 12.9 to 20.7 units per acre when applied to certain parcels
in the NC zone.
FACTORY BUILT HOUSING AND MOBILE HOMES
The California Government Code requires that the siting and permit process for manufactured
housing must be regulated in the same manner as a conventional or stick-built structure. Specifically,
Government Code Section 65852.3(a) requires that, with the exception of architectural requirements,
a local government shall only subject manufactured homes (mobile homes and other factory built
housing) to the same development standards to which a conventional single-family residential
dwelling on the same lot would be subject, including, but not limited to, building setback standards,
side and rear yard requirements, standards for enclosures, access, and vehicle parking, aesthetic
requirements, and minimum square footage requirements.
The Town applies the same development standards and design review process to manufactured
housing and mobile homes as it uses for stick-built housing of the same type.
SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY UNITS
The Town permits hotels and motels, including single room occupancy hotels, in the Mixed Use Low
(MUL) Mixed Use High (MUH), Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Village Commercial (VC) zones
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 84
with a conditional use permit. Cecilia Place was approved and constructed to be similar to an SRO,
although the units are called “studios.” SROs are a permitted use in the affordable housing overlay
zone. The zoning code allows higher densities for SROs. Studio dwelling units are counted at a 1.5:1
ratio provided that each unit does not exceed 600 square feet in floor area.
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
Transitional housing is a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and
families to permanent housing. A homeless person may live in a transitional apartment for a
predetermined period of time while receiving supportive services that enable independent living.
Every locality must identify zones that will allow the development of transitional housing. Supportive
housing is permanent rental housing linked to a range of support services designed to enable residents
to maintain stable housing and lead fuller lives. Typically, supportive housing is targeted to people
who have risk factors such as homelessness, or health challenges such as mental illness or substance
addiction.
The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance treats transitional and supportive housing in the same manner as other
residential uses. Transitional and supportive housing are permitted uses in all residential zones and
are conditionally permitted uses in the MUL, MUH, NC, and VC zoning districts.
HOMELESS SHELTERS
Government Code Section 65583(a)(4) requires jurisdictions to accommodate at least one year-round
emergency shelter with the capacity to provide for the unmet needs of homeless individuals. Effective
January 1, 2008, Senate Bill 2 amended State Housing Element law to require jurisdictions to allow
emergency shelters without discretionary approvals such as use permits.
Emergency shelters are permitted by right in the MUL, MUH, NC, and VC zones subject to operational
standards permitted by State law including parking requirements, on-site management and security
requirements, proximity to other shelters, lighting, and length of stay. The maximum number of beds
or clients permitted to be served in an emergency shelter is 10. As documented in Chapter 2 Housing
Needs Analysis of this Housing Element, there are no documented homeless people in Tiburon.
However, the Town recognizes that homelessness is a countywide issue and works with other Marin
jurisdictions to develop resources, facilities, and programs to address the needs of the homeless.
There are 29.2 acres and 24 parcels within the MUL, MUH, NC and VC zoning districts, which is
adequate to provide capacity for at least one homeless shelter in Tiburon.
HOUSING FOR EMPLOYEES AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS
The housing needs analysis in this Housing Element indicates that there are no farmworkers or
agricultural employment in Tiburon. Accordingly, the Town has not identified a need for specialized
farmworker housing beyond overall programs for housing affordability.
The Town complies with the Employee Housing Act. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
17021.5, the Town deems any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer
employees as a single family structure. No conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 85
clearance is required of employee housing serving six or fewer employees that is not required of a
single-family dwelling in the same zone.
3.8 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
Housing Elements are required to identify opportunities for energy conservation in residential
development. The Housing Element must inventory and analyze the opportunities to encourage the
incorporation of energy saving features, energy saving materials, and energy efficient systems and
design for residential development. Planning to maximize energy efficiency and the incorporation of
energy conservation and green building features can contribute to reduced housing costs for
homeowners and renters, in addition to promoting sustainable community design and reduced
dependence on vehicles. Such planning and development standards can also significantly contribute
to reducing greenhouse gases.
New development projects, including additions and alterations, are required to comply with the
California Building Standards Code, which includes requirements to ensure energy-efficient and green
building design and construction. The Building Code is updated every three years. The 2022 Code
encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes,
expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards.
The Town adopted an updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2022 which sets forth actions to reduce
community-wide emissions 43% below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. These goals
are consistent with the State’s goals to reduce statewide emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030
(as codified in Senate Bill 32) and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 (as expressed in Executive Order
B-55-18). The CAP contains several actions to improve energy efficiency, accelerate the use of
renewable energy, and electrify homes, often by going beyond State Building Code requirements. CAP
action EE-C4 commits the Town to adopting a green building ordinance for new and remodeled
residential projects that requires green building methods, materials, and efficiency above the State
Building and Energy codes. CAP action RE-C3 states that the Town will prohibit the use of natural gas
end uses in new residential buildings beginning with the 2022 Building Code cycle.
The CAP also contains actions to promote and expand participation in available energy efficiency
rebates and programs. As detailed in Action EE-C1, the Town will:
1. Work with organizations and agencies such as the Marin Energy Watch Partnership, the Bay
Area Regional Network (BayREN), MCE, Resilient Neighborhoods, and the Marin Climate &
Energy Partnership to promote and implement energy efficiency programs and actions.
1. Continue and expand participation in energy efficiency programs as they become
available.
2. Promote utility, state, and federal rebate and incentive programs.
3. Participate and promote financing and loan programs for residential and non-residential
projects such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs, BayREN financing
programs, PG&E on-bill repayment, and California Hub for Energy Efficiency Financing
(CHEEF) programs.
3.0 SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 86
Finally, the CAP contains actions to conduct outreach and education to community members,
including low-income households, on ways to improve the energy efficiency of homes, electrify
appliances and heating systems, and reduce household emissions.
As detailed in the evaluation of the current housing element in Appendix B, Town residents have
benefited from several energy efficiency programs during the 2015-2023 planning period, including
California Energy Youth Services, Electrify Marin, BayRen, PACE loans, and Resilient Neighborhoods.
The Town commits to working to improve energy efficiency homes, especially those occupied by lower
income households, through Housing Element Programs H-u Rehabilitation Loan Programs, H-bb
Provide Information on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs, and H-aa Link Code
Enforcement with Public Information Programs on Town Standards and Rehabilitation and Energy
Loan Programs.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 87
4.0 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
4.1 OVERVIEW
The Housing Element must identify and analyze potential and actual governmental constraints to the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels, including housing for
persons with disabilities. The analysis must identify the specific standards and processes and evaluate
their impact, including cumulatively, on the supply and affordability of housing. The analysis must
determine whether local regulatory standards pose an actual constraint and must also demonstrate
local efforts to remove constraints that hinder a jurisdiction from meeting its housing needs. The
Housing Element must analyze non-governmental constraints as well.
4.2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING STANDARDS
Tiburon’s regulatory standards assure procedural consistency, promote a cohesive built environment,
and protect the long-term health, safety, and welfare of the community. However, regulations can
conflict with policies and constrain the development of affordable housing. The following analysis
assesses the Town’s land use regulations, procedures, and fees to identify possible conflicts.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
The General Plan Land Use Element provides twelve residential and mixed use land use designations,
which are summarized in Table 12 below.
Table 12 General Plan Land Use Designations that Allow Residential Development
Designation Residential Development Density
Low Density (L) Up to 0.5 units per acre
Planned Development – Residential (PD-R) Up to 1.0 units per acre
Medium Low Density (ML) Up to 1.1 units per acre
Medium Density (M) Up to 3.0 units per acre
Medium High Density (MH) Up to 4.4 units per acre
High Density (H) Up to 11.6 units per acre
Very High Density (VH) Up to 12.4 units per acre
Very High Density-25 (VH-25) Up to 25 units per acre
Mixed Use Low (MUL) Up to 35 units per acre
Mixed Use High (MUH) Up to 40 units per acre
Main Street (MS) Up to 25 units per acre
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 88
Most land designated for residential development in Tiburon has been built upon. Most of the
remaining vacant residential parcels are constrained by steep slopes that increase development costs
and limit development potential. In response to the continuing need to develop housing, the Town
adopted three mixed-use designations in General Plan 2040 intended to encourage residential
development in commercial areas.31 Mixed-use land use designations are shown in Table 12. These
designations will be implemented with new zoning districts that will be adopted prior to adoption of
the 2023-2031 Housing element.
In addition to the mixed-use land use designations, the Town has adopted policies in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to further encourage in-fill and mixed-use development in the
commercial areas of the community, especially in the Downtown, that provide access to transit routes
and the Tiburon Ferry Terminal. The Town does not have growth controls.
The General Plan provides a comprehensive program, including mixed-use land use designations, to
promote housing development at all income ranges. The General Plan is not a constraint to housing
development.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Residential Zoning Districts
The Town of Tiburon zoning ordinance includes seven residential districts with typical suburban
development standards and densities. Development standards for the residential districts are
summarized in Table 13 and described below. A new R-4 multifamily district will permit up to 25 units
per acre to encourage affordable housing. The district will be applied to Site 8 and development
standards will allow2 and 3 story buildings.
31 As previously noted, this draft Housing Element presumes adoption of General Plan designations (VH-25, MUL,
MUH, and MS) and rezonings of the housing opportunity sites identified in Table 10. This construction is meant
only to simplify the editing process associated with the final document, not to presume an outcome before it
happens. The document and analysis contained herein will be revised, as necessary, to reflect the adopted
rezonings. It is the Town’s intent to adopt permitted uses and objective development and design standards that
support and facilitate development of the housing opportunity sites at the realistic capacities described in
Section 3.4. All rezonings of housing opportunity sites will occur before the Housing Element is adopted.
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Up to 10 units per acre and up to 20.7 units per acre with the
Affordable Housing Overlay.
Village Commercial (VC) Up to 10 units per acre
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 89
Table 13 Development Standards in Residential Zoning Districts
Zoning district R-1 R-1-B-A R-1-B-2 R0-1 RO-2 R-2 R-3
Building height 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’ 30’
Setbacks
Front 15’ 20’ 25’ 30’ 30’ 8’ 8’
Side 8’ 6’ 10’ 20’ 15’ 8’ 8’
Rear 20% to 25’ 20% to 25’ 20% to 25’ 20% to 25’ 20% to 25’ 20% to 25’ 8’
Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sf 10,000 sf 10,000 sf 40,000 sf 20,000 sf 7,500 sf 10,000 sf
(3,500 sf/unit)
Lot coverage
(maximum %)
One-story development: Same as maximum FAR;
Two-story or multi-story development: 30% 15% 15% 35% 30%
Floor Area Ratio See below See below See below See below See below See below 0.6
Parking spaces 2 2 2 2 2 1.5 per unit See below
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 90
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Floor area ratio guidelines in residential districts are as follows:
• 35% of the property area for lots less than 7,500 square feet in area, plus an additional 450
sq. ft. of garage or carport;
• For properties between 7,500 and 60,000 square feet, the FAR guideline is 10 percent of the
property plus 2,000 square feet, plus an additional 600 square feet of garage or carport;
• For lots greater than 60,000 square feet, the FAR guideline is 8,000 square feet plus 750
square feet of garage or carport.
Parking: One-and-a half (1½) parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit in a residential
development, with a minimum of two required.
In the R-3 zone, studio and one-bedroom apartments are required to have one parking space.
Apartments with two or more bedrooms and condominiums are required to have two parking spaces.
Open Space: In the R-2 zone, a minimum of 375 square feet of outdoor usable open space with a
minimum dimension of 12 feet is required per unit.
In the R-3 zone, the following schedule of outdoor usable open space is required:
• 150 square feet per efficiency or studio apartment
• 200 square feet per 1 bedroom apartment
• 250 square feet per 2 bedroom apartment
• 300 square feet per 3 or more bedroom apartment
Senate Bill 9. Senate Bill (SB) 9 allows single family lots greater than 2,400 square feet to be split under
certain conditions and allows both vacant and developed single family lots to be developed with two
single family homes. Both newly created parcels must be no smaller than 1,200 square feet, and no
parcel may be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel. Consistent with State law,
the Town imposes only objective, zoning, subdivision, and design standards that do not conflict with
the statute. The Town has adopted specific application procedures and clear and objective
development standards for SB 9 lot splits and units as allowed by State law. New SB 9 units are limited
to 16 feet in height and 800 square feet.
Mixed Use and Commercial Zoning Districts that Allow Housing
The Town has three mixed-use zones and two commercial zones that allow housing, as well as an
affordable housing overlay district that may be applied to the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone.
The Mixed Use Low permits up to 35 units per acre, and the Mixed Use High (MUH) permits up to 45
units per acre. As discussed previously, minimum residential densities are required on Sites 1-9 as
identified in Table 10. The MUL and MUH zones allow 100% residential use except at corner sites (e.g.,
Sites 3, 5, B and C) where there is a small amount of commercial space requirement is required. The
development standards for the mixed use and commercial districts are summarized in Table 14.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 91
Table 14: Development Standards in Mixed Use and Affordable Housing Overlay Zoning Districts
Zoning district MUL MUH MS VC NC NC/AHO
Building height 3 stories
4 stories
3 stories 30’ 30’ 3 stories or 38’
Lot frontage TBD TBD TBD None None None
FAR for commercial area TBD TBD TBD .28 .37 .37
Setbacks
Front TBD TBD TBD None None None
Side TBD TBD TBD None None None
Rear TBD TBD TBD None None None
Minimum Lot Area TBD TBD TBD 10,000 sf 10,000 sf 10,000 sf
Lot Area per unit (sf) TBD TBD TBD Expressed as max. density/acre
Lot coverage
(maximum %)
TBD TBD TBD None None None
Minimum Open space (sf) TBD TBD TBD None None None
Parking spaces per unit
TBD TBD TBD Apartments:
1 space/studio & 1 bdrm
2 spaces/ 2+ bdrms Condos: 2 spaces
Apartments:
1 space/studio & 1 bdrm
2 spaces/ 2+ bdrms Condos: 2 spaces
Apartments:
1 space/studio & 1 bdrm
2 spaces/ 2+ bdrms Condos: 2 spaces
Note: Development standards for the MUL, MUH, and MS districts are currently being formulated and will be provided in a future draft Housing
Element. It is the Town’s intention to create objective development and design standards that will facilitate development of housing opportunity sites
at maximum permitted densities.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 92
Affordable Housing Overlay
The Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) may be applied to the NC district. The AHO provides more
flexible parking standards, higher densities for smaller units, and increased financial feasibility. To
qualify for the numerous benefits of the overlay zone, a residential development project must include
a minimum of 5 percent very low income, 10 percent low income, and 10 percent moderate income
(defined in the Zoning Code as below 90% of median income) housing units. On sites that will yield
10 or fewer total units at the minimum allowable density, the affordable component is reduced to 20
percent of total units, of which at least 50 percent must be affordable to lower income households.
A percentage of the housing units must also be designed for special needs populations as per section
16-70.030 of the municipal code. Multifamily uses are permitted by right, and the maximum
residential density is 20.7 units per acre, additive to a 0.31 FAR for commercial uses in the NC zone.
Higher densities are permitted when units are significantly smaller and have few impacts than the
market norm. Studio dwelling units are counted at a 1.5:1 ratio provided that each unit does not
exceed 600 square feet in floor area; one bedroom units are counted at a 1.25:1 ratio provided that
each unit does not exceed 800 square feet in floor area. The building height limit is 3 stories or 38
feet, whichever is less. Setbacks and lot coverage standards are intentionally flexible and left to be
determined through site plan and architectural review process.
A number of development incentives are available for projects developed in the AHO zone, including
higher densities, relaxation and/or flexibility in development standards, reduced parking standards,
reduced interior amenity levels, priority processing, fee reductions and waivers, and utility hookup
subsidies.
Parking Standards
Tiburon requires off street parking for all new residential development. For mixed use projects the
parking requirement must be satisfied for all uses unless a parking variance is granted. Generally, if a
mixed use project cannot provide off-street parking, the Town supports shared parking arrangements.
Variances are also granted to reduce the overall parking requirement or to allow tandem parking.
In 2012, the Town implemented reduced and flexible parking standards in the affordable housing
overlay zone. Depending on project characteristics and availability of on street parking, flexible
parking standards may include shared parking, joint use parking, off-site parking, allowances for
reduced standards depending on location (such as near transit), and modified parking stall dimensions
and tandem parking. The updated standards recognize that smaller, more affordable housing near
transit and services will generate fewer trips and area-wide impacts and will require less parking.
Conclusions
The development standards in the residential, mixed use, and commercial districts do not constrain
the development of housing. Standards in the MUL, MUH, MS and R-4 districts were developed after
the housing sites shown in Table 10 were selected and were designed to ensure that the identified
realistic unit capacities could be achieved.
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
Housing legislation defines an "objective" standard as one that involves no personal or subjective
judgment by a public official and uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 93
benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public
official prior to submittal.
The Town has adopted objective design and development standards for qualifying new multi-family
housing developments. Objective design standards are applied to SB 35 projects which create two or
more new housing units in a multifamily project or mixed use project where at least two-thirds of the
square footage is for residential use; include at least 10% of the units affordable to lower-income
households; and pay prevailing construction wages. Pursuant to California state law, emergency
shelters are also subject to objective design review standards. As discussed above, the Town also
applies objective design standards to ADUs and SB 9 units.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE
Inclusionary zoning, also known as inclusionary housing, refers to a range of policies and practices
that mandate or provide incentives for the inclusion of affordable housing units in new developments.
Inclusionary zoning is a tool that cities and counties can adopt to increase the supply and funding for
affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning policies establish a variety of requirements for the
development of new housing, such as the number of affordable units required to be constructed in
an otherwise market-rate residential development project, the minimum project size where
inclusionary housing requirements would apply, affordability targets, and alternative means of
achieving affordable housing goals when constructing new residential development projects.
The Town’s inclusionary housing regulations require residential projects of two or more new lots or
dwelling units to pay an in-lieu housing fee or develop a minimum of number of inclusionary units
affordable to very-low, low, or moderate income households. Developments of 3 to 6 units pay an in-
lieu fee based on 15 percent of the units being affordable. Developments of 7 to 12 units must include
a minimum of 15 percent inclusionary units affordable to very-low, low, and moderate income
households, and development of more than 12 units must provide 20 percent inclusionary units. Five
percent of the total units must be affordable to very-low or low income households. The in-lieu fee is
$405,000 for each affordable unit that is required but not built.
Inclusionary units must be comparable in size, interior amenity level and exterior design to market
rate units. However, the Town may provide an exception to this requirement as an incentive or
concession under density bonus law.
The inclusionary requirements were adopted in 1998 and updated in 2006 and 2012. Developers
typically choose to pay in-lieu fees, which the Town has used to help construct affordable units. In
general, the inclusionary ordinance has not constrained the development of housing in Tiburon. The
inclusionary program has been in effect for 25 years and is well known by members of the real estate
and development community. As a result, the cost of producing the inclusionary units, or paying the
in-lieu fees, is factored into the cost of land.
The Town of Tiburon’s inclusionary requirements are similar to those of other jurisdictions in Marin
County and do not pose a constraint to residential development. Many communities offer a variety
of concessions or incentives for construction of affordable units, including but not limited to, density
bonuses or incentives of equal financial value, waiver or modification of development standards,
provision of direct financial assistance, and deferral or reduction of payment of fees. Projects that
meet the inclusionary ordinance are entitled to a density bonus in accordance with State law.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 94
Program H-dd states the Town will monitor the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance throughout the
planning period and consider adjusting the number and/or percentage of required affordable units as
necessary in order to achieve the Town’s affordable housing goals without unduly impacting overall
housing production and supply.
4.3 FEES AND EXACTIONS
Development fees charged by the Town of Tiburon fall into three categories:
1. Processing fees for direct Town services.
2. Development impact fees charged to finance the cost of capital improvements or mitigate
project impacts.
3. Fees collected by the Town for other governmental agencies.
Processing Fees
Processing fees are collected when a development application is filed. The Town sets the rate for
application fees based on the cost to process the application, including the initial receipt of the
application materials, analysis and approval of the application, and post-approval administration such
as filing and inspections. Where application fees are charged on a time and materials basis, t the
applicant pays a deposit, and the Town draws down on the deposit based on the number hours
worked based on an hourly rate that covers the salary of the employee performing the service and a
fixed percentage for overhead. Applications for services that require minimal review times are
charged flat rates. These rates are based on time studies that have determined the average processing
time for a particular service. Table 15 lists the planning fees for residential development. It is Town
policy to consider waiver of processing fees for affordable housing projects and inclusionary units.
Building permit fees are based on the total valuation of the project which includes architectural and
engineering fees, site preparation, demolition, and construction costs. The Building Department
provides a schedule to establish project valuation when the applicant does not provide the total
valuation. Additional fees are charged for plan storage and plan check and include a technology
recovery fee and a general plan maintenance fee surcharge.
Table 15: Processing Fees
Application Fee
Single-family Multifamily
Planning and Zoning
General Plan Amendment Time & materials Time & materials
Rezoning Time & materials Time & materials
Environmental Review Time & materials Time & materials
Design Review Application
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 95
Minor Alteration (staff level review) for projects le
than 500 sf $255 $255
Design review of projects less than 500 sf that
require review by the Design Review Board $485 $485
Projects between 500 and 1,000 sf $945 $945
Projects more than 1,000 sf $1,325 $1,325
New residential building $2,825 $2,825
Conditional Use Permit
Minor use permit $1,540 initial deposit $1,540 initial deposit
Major use permit $6,520 initial deposit $6,520 initial deposit
Variance $450 $450
ADU Permit $595 $595
JADU Permit $250 $250
Subdivision
Lot Line Adjustment – 4 or fewer parcels $960 initial deposit $960 initial deposit
Prezoning – multiple parcels $3,260 $3,260
Precise Development Plan $6,520 + $260 each unit $6,520 + $260 each unit
Impact Fees
The Town of Tiburon collects four impact fees, listed in Table 16 below, to mitigate the effects of
residential development projects on the local environment. The impact fee rates were set based on
nexus studies as required by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section 66000–66025). New
subdivisions are required to dedicate land for parks or pay an in-lieu fee pursuant to the Quimby Act.
The Town charges a street impact fee equal to 1% of the project valuation. The street impact fee nexus
study was originally completed in April 1999 and updated in October 2004.
The Town also charge a Stormwater Impact Fee based on $1 per square foot of new impervious
project created by the project. The nexus study for the Stormwater Impact Fee was completed in
March 2004. The fee has not changed since that time.
The Town’s Traffic Mitigation Fee is an exaction applied to new development that generates new
additional traffic in Tiburon. The fee applies to residential and commercial projects and requires that
the project pay its pro rata share per each new PM peak trip contributing to each intersection where
improvements are needed per the General Plan. The Town’s traffic engineering consultant completed
a comprehensive update of the traffic model and fee structure in 2006.
The Town’s inclusionary zoning regulations apply to residential development creating two or more
new dwelling units, with exceptions for 1) construction of a two-family dwelling on an existing lot in
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 96
the R-2 zone and 2) the subdivision of a lot or parcel into two lots, wherein no more than a combined
total of two dwelling units total could be constructed under applicable zoning regulations on the
resulting lots. Developments of two to six lots or dwelling units must pay an in-lieu fee based on a
requirement of fifteen percent of the units being affordable. In-lieu housing fees are calculated based
on the difference between the affordable purchase price of a dwelling unit for which a moderate
income four-person family earning eighty percent of median income can qualify, and the estimated
cost of constructing a market rate unit of appropriate size. Variables used in the calculation are
updated at the time of application in consultation with the Marin Housing Authority. These variables
include dwelling size, construction costs, land and site development costs, current income limits, and
mortgage terms and interest rate.
Table 16: Impact Fees
Fee Amount
Street Impact Fee 1% of project valuation
Stormwater Impact Fee $1 per sf of new impervious surface
Traffic Mitigation Fee
Applies to residential and commercial projects that generate new additional traffic in Tiburon and requires that the project pay its pro rata share per each
new PM peak trip contributing to each intersection where improvements are
needed per the General Plan.
Special District Fees
As the Town of Tiburon is not a full-service municipality, several agencies and special districts levy
fees on new development for the provision of basic urban services. Sanitation district fees depend
upon where the project is located in Tiburon. These agencies and special districts include the
following:
• Reed Union School District
• Marin Municipal Water District
• Sanitary District Number 5 of Marin County
• Richardson Bay Sanitary District
• Sanitary District Number 2 of Marin County
• Central Marin Sanitation Agency
• Tiburon Fire Protection District
• Southern Marin Fire Protection District
Recognizing that water connection fees may serve as a constraint to affordable housing development,
the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) offers a 50% fee reduction for qualified affordable rental
and ownership housing projects that are affordable to low and moderate income Up to 100% of AMI)
households for at least 30 years and qualified rental units in for-profit development that are legally
restricted to be affordable to lower income household for at least 10 years. Pursuant to state law,
MMWD does not require a new or separate water connection or charge a connection fee or capacity
charge for qualified ADUs and JADUs.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 97
Table 17 lists the fees that would be collected for a representative single-family infill home and 25-
unit multifamily project. The single-family house is assumed to be 3,255 square feet with a
construction valuation of $386 per square foot, for a total $1,256,430. The multifamily project is
assumed to be 25 units averaging 1,000 square feet of gross floor area per unit, with a construction
valuation of $584 per square foot, or $584,000 per unit.
As shown in Table 24, total fees and exactions for a single family house represent about 4.6% to 5.8%
of the total development cost, while fees and exactions represent approximately 4% of the
multifamily development cost. Planning and building fees charges by the Town represent 1.9% of the
single family house development cost and 1.7% of the multifamily development cost. The Town does
not have the authority to waive or reduce fees collected on behalf of special districts.
Table 17: Residential Development Fees
FEE TYPE / DESCRIPTION Single Family Residence 25-Unit Condo Project LOW AMOUNT HIGH AMOUNT LOW AMOUNT HIGH AMOUNT
PLAN CHECK $4,172 $4,172 $49,428 $49,428
BUILDING PERMIT $ 6,418 $ 6,418 $ 76,043 $ 76,043
BUSINESS LICENSE $ 1508 $ 1508 $ 28,032 $ 28,032
PLAN STORAGE $ 250 $ 250 $ 250 $ 250
CA SEISMIC TAX $ 163 $ 163 $ 3037 $ 3037
PLUMBING $ 641 $ 641 $ 7,604 $ 7,604
ELECTRICAL $ 1284 $ 1284 $ 15,209 $ 15,209
MECHANICAL $ 577 $ 577 $ 6,844 $ 6,844
GRADING $ 75 $ 75 $ 125 $ 125
ENCROACHMENT $ 290 $ 290 $ 290 $ 290
STREET IMPACT $ 12,564 $ 12,564 $ 233,600 $ 233,600
TRAFFIC MITIGATION $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000
D/R COMPLIANCE $ 150 $ 150 $ 300 $ 300
GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE $ 892 $ 892 $ 10,570 $ 10,570
S.WATER RUN OFF IMPV. FEE $ 4,875 $ 4,875 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
TECHNOLOGY FEE $ 2,311 $ 2,311 $ 7,500 $ 7,500
CA DISABILITY ACCESS AND EDU $ 4 $ 4 $ 4 $ 4
CA BLDG. STD. AD. FUND $ 51 $ 51 $ 935 $ 935
SUB TOTAL $ 42,224 $ 42,225 $ 505,771 $ 505,771
DESIGN REVIEW $ 2,825 $ 2,825 $ 2,825 $ 2,825
GRADING, FILLING, OR EARTHWORK REQUIRING DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL $ 805 $ 805 $ 805 $ 805
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $ 50 $ 1,600 $ 50 $ 1,600
TOWN OF TIBURON SUB TOTAL $ 45,904 $ 47,455 $ 509,451 $ 511,001
SCHOOL DISTRICT FEE $ 7,747 $ 7,747 $ 21,600 $ 21,600
WATER INSTALLATION FEES $ 4,420 $ 5,290 $ 44,200 $ 44,200
WATER CONNECTION FEES (BUY
INTO SYSTEM) $ 7,022 $ 24,578 $ 58,520 $ 58,520
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 98
SEWER HOOKUP SANITARY
DISTRICT NO 5 $ 5,000 $ 17,000 $ 35,000 $ 41,000
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
REVIEW FEE $ 151 $ 151 $ 151 $ 604
SPECIAL DISTRICT SUB TOTAL $ 24,340 $ 54,766 $ 159,471 $ 165,924
GRAND TOTAL $ 112,469 $ 144,446 $ 1,174,692 $ 1,182,696
ASSUMED DEVELOPMENT IN SQ FT 3,255 3,255 40,000 40,000
ASSUMED CONSTRUCTION COST PER
SQ FT $ 386 $ 386 $ 584 $ 584
ASSUMED IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,250 X 1.5 = 4,875 440,000 X 1.5 = 60,000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,256,430 $ 1,256,430 $ 23,360,000 $ 23,360,000
ASSUMED LAND VALUE 0.5 ACRE
FOR SFR, 0.75 FOR MF PROJECT $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $ 2,468,899 $ 2,500,876 $ 29,534,692 $ 29,542,696
PROPORTION OF TOWN FEES/
EXACTIONS VERSUS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST 1.9% 1.9% 1.7% 1.7%
PROPORTION OF TOTAL FEES/
EXACTIONS VERSUS TOTAL
DEVELOPMENT COST
4.6% 5.8% 4.0% 4.0%
Source: Town of Tiburon, 2022
While these costs are typical for the market area, development fees and exactions can pose a
constraint to the development of affordable housing. In an effort to remove this constraint, the Town
waives and/or reduce fees for affordable housing developments and inclusionary units. Program H-
bb directs the Town to continue to waive or reduce fees for affordable housing developments and
inclusionary units.
4.4 PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
The Tiburon Zoning Ordinance closely tracks the General Plan, but in addition provides detailed
development standards and processing procedures. Below is a description and analysis of the current
residential development review process in the Town of Tiburon. The analysis addresses properties
that allow housing development, both in residential zones and in commercial zones.
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND STREAMLINED REVIEW
As discussed in Section 4.2, the Town has adopted objective design and development standards for
qualifying new multifamily housing developments. Objective design and development standards
applied when a proposed development project requests permit streamlining in compliance with State
law (i.e., Senate Bill 35) and for reviewing applications under the Housing Accountability Act. The
intent of Senate Bill 35 and the Housing Accountability Act is to facilitate and expedite the
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 99
construction of housing through the application of objective standards and, with Senate Bill 35,
ministerial and streamlined approval procedures.
Consistent with State law (i.e., Senate Bill 330), the Town allows a housing developer to submit a
“preliminary application” for a development project that includes residential units; a mix of
commercial and residential uses with two-thirds of the project’s square footage used for residential
purposes; or transitional or supportive housing. The pre-application allows a developer to provide a
specific subset of information on the proposed housing development ahead of providing the full
amount of information required by the Town. Upon submittal of an application and a payment of the
permit processing fee, a housing developer is allowed to “freeze” the applicable fees and
development standards that apply to their project while they assemble the rest of the material
necessary for a full application submittal. After submitting the preliminary application to the Town,
an applicant has 180 days to submit a full application, or the preliminary application will expire.
Also in compliance with SB 330, the Town limits the number of public hearings for applicable housing
development projects to five, including Planning Commission, Town Council, and appeal hearings.
Eligible projects are required to comply with objective zoning standards and General Plan
requirements as well as CEQA. CEQA hearings or hearings related to zoning variances or code
exemptions are not including in the public hearing limit.
REVIEW PROCESS AND TIMELINE
Tiburon processes the typical small development in three to four months from application to building
permit approval. This is due to the efficiency of a small town government, the lack of an application
backlog, and the fact that most public facilities are already in place. Single-family housing
development applications generally take less time to review than multi-family proposals. When
proposed single family developments are in conformity with the General Plan and existing zoning, it
is possible to process the required applications within several months. Some new single-family and
multifamily development proposals are subject to Design Review. Major projects may also require an
EIR. The total review time for multifamily projects, from the initial developer contact with the Town
to final approval, can take up to a year.
In most of Tiburon’s residential and mixed-use zones (R-1, R-1-B, RO-1, RO-2, R-2, R-3, R-4, MUL, MUH,
and MS) zones, a single discretionary permit (Design Review) is required to construct single family
and/or multifamily housing. In the Planned Residential Zones (RPD and RMP), two discretionary
permits (Precise Development Plan and Design Review) are required. As described above, objective
design standards are used for applicable projects.
The Design Review Board acts on Design Review applications at public hearings. The Design Review
Board reviews any variance applications associated with the site plan and design of the project
simultaneously; other variances are reviewed by the Planning Commission. No additional
discretionary review is required to approve housing projects in the above-listed zones. If the decision
of the Design Review Board or Planning Commission is appealed to the Town Council, the Town
Council will hold a hearing and make the final decision on the application. The Design Review process
typically has the elements and timeline shown in Table 18.
Table 18: Design Review Process and Timeline
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 100
Task Time
Application filed. Project sponsor submits completed application forms, drawings,
supporting documents and fees
1 day
Completeness review. The application is routed to Town departments to
determine whether additional information is required to process the application,
and for recommended conditions of approval.
< 30 days
Completeness notice. Written notice is sent to the applicant informing them
whether the project is complete or incomplete.
1 day
Follow-up submittal. If the application is incomplete, the applicant will submit
follow-up information as requested. The time to complete this task is determined
by the project sponsor, but generally does not exceed 30 days. If the application
was complete, this step is skipped.
Varies
Environmental Review. The application is reviewed to determine whether the
project is exempt from CEQA or if an Initial Study is required. Most projects are
found to be exempt from CEQA. If a Negative Declaration is prepared,
environmental review may take the full 6 months allowed by law.
1 day – 6 months
Staff report. A detailed evaluation of the application is conducted by staff and a
written report is prepared for public review.
30 days
Public meeting. A hearing notice is sent at least 10 days before the meeting to
property owners within 300 feet of the property. The Design Review Board
conducts a public meeting and takes action on the application.
10 days
In Tiburon’s Neighborhood Commercial and Village Commercial zones, current zoning requires two
discretionary permits for residential development. The Planning Commission must approve a
Conditional Use Permit for the residential use and the Design Review Board must approve a Design
Review permit. Each process is separate; processing is sequential. This means that a very similar
task/timeline to that shown above is first performed by the Planning Commission and then by the
Design Review Board, with only the environmental review portion not being repeated by the Design
Review Board.
The Town recognizes that the time required to process a development proposal can be a barrier to
housing production if it is lengthy. The Town has streamlined its development review process and
adopted a new Zoning Ordinance to make the process more efficient, while still providing adequate
opportunity for public review and input. In addition, much of the permit processing time frame is
dictated by state-mandated noticing and processing procedures that help assure community review
of projects. Processing times for projects in Tiburon are similar to, if not faster than, other jurisdictions
in Marin County.
The Town has a maximum of 30 days to conduct an initial review of the project and determine
whether it is “complete,” or whether additional information is needed to evaluate the project. While
this may seem like a long time, it includes time to refer the application to different departments and
outside agencies involved in development review; and to receive and consolidate these comments.
Staff tries to anticipate analyses that will be needed for environmental review or during the public
hearing process (such as any special studies). If the project does not meet various Town standards, it
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 101
may also need to be revised. In the past several years, the Town has improved submittal checklists
and handouts to identify what information is required for an application to be deemed “complete.”
Within 30 days of receiving a complete application, the Town must determine whether the project
requires a Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report or can be categorically exempt. If not
categorically exempt, staff prepares an “Initial study”. If a Negative Declaration is prepared, the state-
required public review period is 20 to 30 days, depending on whether a state agency is involved in the
review. If an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required it can add an additional 6 to 8 months for
preparation and review of the Draft EIR, responses to comments, and preparation of the Final EIR.
Town records indicate that over the past 20 years, more than 99 percent of design review applications
are found to be categorically exempt from CEQA, and the Design Review Board has considered no EIRs
for residential development over that period of time and only a handful of Negative Declarations. All
such projects have been approved by the Board.
The Town works closely with developers to expedite approval procedures so as not to put any
unnecessary timing constraints on development. For a project of scale or a likely controversial project,
an initial pre-consultation meeting with the planning department, public works, and the fire district is
recommended to discuss the development proposal. Then a description of the project and application
must be filed with a site plan, which is first reviewed by the planning division and other agencies such
as public works for consistency with Town ordinances and General Plan guidelines. After the project
is approved, the building division performs plan checks and issues building permits. Throughout
construction, the building division will perform building checks to monitor the progress of the project.
This process does not seem to put an undue time constraint on most developments because of the
close working relationship between Town staff, developers, and the decision-making bodies (Design
Review, Planning Commission, and Town Council). Some projects may include a variance request and
those requests are generally considered at the same hearing as the design review permit to avoid
delays in processing. A vast majority of Design Review applications are approved at the first hearing.
Additionally, appeals of Design Review Board decisions are limited to a single step, directly to the
Town Council, to avoid unnecessary delays from intermediate hearing bodies such as the Planning
Commission.
The Tiburon zoning ordinance provides the criteria used by decision-makers when reviewing a project
for design review approval. The Town also provides illustrations and further details of factors
considered in the Town’s Hillside Design Guidelines and the Downtown Tiburon Design Handbook.
While design review can be subjective to some extent, these guidelines and Town practices strive to
make design review as speedy, objective, and fair as possible.
The guiding principles are intended to decrease uncertainty for applicants, and as much as possible,
provide objective and clear standards, considerations, and expectations for new development. The
Town also provides separate handbooks for design standards for development in the downtown area
and in the hillside areas, which comprise the vast majority of Tiburon’s neighborhoods. These design
guideline handbooks provide a series of easy-to-understand examples, using illustrations with written
explanations, of acceptable and unacceptable design techniques and practices that are useful to
architects, designers, applicants, staff, the community, and decision-makers. These objective tools
are used in the review of development applications and act to reduce uncertainty as to whether an
application will be favorably received by the Town.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 102
4.5 CODES AND ENFORCEMENT
Tiburon adopts and enforces the California Building Standards Code and subsidiary regulations,
contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. While these standards raise construction
costs, they are necessary to protect the public health and safety and are required pursuant to State
law. Title 24 results in energy savings and lower operating cost for property owners and residents.
State law allows local governing bodies to amend the building standards in the new codes as long as
they are more restrictive than the state standards and are based on findings that the amendments
are necessary due to local climatic, topographic or geological conditions.
The Town has amended the Building Code to require an existing structure with a substandard roof to
replace the entire roof with a Class A roof or noncombustible roof when alterations or repairs to the
existing roof involves more than fifty percent of the total existing roof area. Other amendments relate
to installation of automatic fire sprinklers as required by the Fire Protections Districts, address
markings, and construction time limits. The Town has adopted certain voluntary measures of the 2019
CALGreen code as mandatory measures for new residential and non-residential construction (not
including additions). These are Tier 1 measures related to planning and design, water efficiency and
conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. None of the
building code amendments pose a special constraint to the production of housing.
The Tiburon Building Division requires a Residential Building Report (RBR) upon the sale of dwelling
units to ensure that basic life-safety code violations are identified and corrected before a new owner
occupies the building. If these correcting deficiencies pose a hardship to the property owner,
residential rehabilitation loans are available for very low income homeowners through the Marin
Housing Authority. If illegal units or uses are discovered during the inspection associated with the
RBR, the Building Division requires these units to be brought into compliance with the code (legalized)
or abated. The impact of this on the number of housing units has been negligible, as few illegal units
are discovered. Nevertheless, Program H-aa calls for the distribution of a handout explaining the “best
practices” and procedures for legalizing an unauthorized secondary dwelling unit.
The Town’s code enforcement program is complaint-driven. The Town’s planners and the Building
Official investigate alleged code violations and most complaints are resolved voluntarily. The Town
has a nuisance abatement ordinance that may be used if necessary. The Town may charge additional
fees when work has been done without permits and require that the work be brought up to code
standards.
4.6 ON- AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
On- and off-site improvements (not including basic infrastructure and installation of public utilities)
typically include parking, drainage improvements, and streets. These improvements can constitute
constraints to the development of affordable housing, although not market-rate housing of the type
constructed in Tiburon. Chapter 13-8 of the Tiburon Municipal Code requires new construction on lots
fronting unimproved streets to install curbs and gutter as determined by the Town Engineer. With
respect to streets, the Town allows narrow streets (18-20 feet) with occasional “parking bays” as
opposed to wider streets with parallel parking on one or both sides. This reduces construction costs
considerably. Drainage improvements must be adequate to meet standard engineering criteria to
prevent damage and flooding. With respect to on-site parking requirements for affordable housing
projects, the Zoning Code makes provisions for flexible parking standards and “shared parking” to
reduce this constraint.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 103
4.7 HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
As noted in the Special Needs section of the Housing Needs Analysis, persons with disabilities have a
number of housing needs related to the accessibility of dwelling units; access to transportation,
employment, and commercial services; and alternative living arrangements that include on-site or
nearby supportive services. The Town ensures that new housing developments comply with the
California Building Standards Code and federal requirements for accessibility.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
Federal and State law impose an affirmative duty on local government to make reasonable
accommodations in their zoning and other land use regulations to remove barriers to disabled persons
who are seeking housing. The Housing Element must contain policies and programs to implement fair
housing laws and to provide housing for all needs groups. In particular, the Housing Element should
identify and remove constraints to the development of housing for persons with disabilities, including
land use and zoning regulations, and provide reasonable accommodation as one method of promoting
equal access to housing. The fair housing laws require that municipalities apply flexibility or waive
standards when necessary to eliminate barriers to persons with disabilities. For example, it may be
necessary to waive setback standards to allow installation of a ramp to facilitate access to a home.
The California Attorney General has opined that the usual variance or use permit procedure does not
provide the correct standard for making fair housing determinations. In the typical process of granting
relief from a zoning standard, the focus is on special characteristics of the property. However, in the
case of disabled access, the issue is the special need of the individual that makes the zoning standard
a barrier to accessing housing. In response to this problem, many California municipalities are
adopting fair housing reasonable accommodation procedures to address barriers in land use and
zoning regulations.
PROCEDURES FOR ENSURING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
The Town adopted a reasonable accommodation ordinance in 2012 (Municipal Code Chapter 16,
Article IX) to provide a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities
seeking equal housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies, and procedures.
The Director of Community Development reviews and approves a request for reasonable
accommodation as long as no other discretionary permit approval is required.
ZONING AND OTHER LAND USE REGULATIONS
Tiburon implements and enforces Chapter 11A, Housing Accessibility, of the California Building
Standards Code. The Town provides information to all interested parties regarding accommodations
in zoning, permit processes, and application of building codes for housing for persons with disabilities.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 104
The Town has not identified any zoning or other land-use controls that could discriminate against
persons with disabilities or restrict access to housing for disabled individuals. Examples of the ways in
which the Town of Tiburon facilitates housing for persons with disabilities through its regulatory and
permitting processes include:
• The Town permits group homes in all residential districts with no regulatory restrictions, except
compliance with the building code.
• The Town does not restrict occupancy of unrelated individuals in group homes and does not limit
the number of persons living in a housing unit.
• The Town permits housing for special needs groups, including persons with disabilities, without
regard to distances between uses. The Land Use Element of the General Plan does not restrict the
sites of special needs housing.
PERMITTING PROCEDURES
As a small community, the Planning and Building Department is able to provide personalized service
to each resident. Requests to modify homes to meet the needs of the disabled are handled on a case-
by-case basis, with staff working closely with applicants to accommodate their needs. The Zoning
Ordinance facilitates exterior improvements for physically handicapped residents (e.g., an access
ramp) by establishing them as minor permits, approvable by Town staff, and waiving the requirement
for a Design Review public hearing. The Town administratively approves building permits for
wheelchair lifts and elevators. Wheelchair ramps are not considered to be structures under the
Tiburon Zoning Code and are not required to meet setbacks. The Town has the authority to modify
parking standards to accommodate the needs of the disabled and has demonstrated its willingness to
do so in the past.
The Building Division administers Title 24 provisions consistently for all disabilities-related
construction and responds to complaints regarding any violations. The Town has not adopted any
amendments to the 2019 California Building Code that conflict with the ADA. There are no restrictions
on lowered countertops, widened doorways, adjustable showerheads, or other adaptations that meet
the needs of the disabled.
The Housing Element contains policies and implementing programs to ensure reasonable
accommodation and equal access to housing for people with disabilities in the Town’s zoning, permit
processing and building codes. In implementation of this policy, the Town has designated an ADA
Coordinator to ensure compliance with the Town’s Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance and the
provisions of the ADA, and to serve as the primary contact for disabled residents with questions,
concerns, and requests regarding reasonable accommodation procedures and practices.
4.8 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
LAND COSTS
Two major factors contribute to high land costs in Tiburon: high demand and limited supply. Land
costs in Marin vary both between and within jurisdictions based on factors such as the desirability of
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 105
the location and the permitted density. In Tiburon, a 0.96 acre vacant lot at 2225 Vistazo Street Est
Morningside Drive sold in January 2022 for $696,000 32.
Generally, land zoned for multifamily and mixed-use developments is more expensive than property
zoned for single-family. Very little land zoned for multifamily or mixed-use development has sold In
Tiburon in recent years. Site 3 at 1601 Tiburon Boulevard sold in 2019 and has a current assessed land
value of $3.6 million for 0.57 acres, or approximately $6.3 million per acre. The parcel is currently
zoned for 40-45 units per acre, which represents $140,000 to $158,000 per unit.
Land costs can be a constraint to development in Tiburon because affordable housing developers may
look to less expensive areas to develop projects. To address this constraint and improve the financial
feasibility of housing development, the Town significantly increased the maximum permitted density
on sites previously limited to 20.7 units per acre to 45 units per acre. In addition, density bonuses and
development concessions are permitted under State law for developments that include affordable
units; these are designed to increase the financial feasibility of affordable housing development.
Program H-bb Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites identifies a
variety of actions the Town will take to improve the financial feasibility of providing affordable
housing, including regulatory incentives, fast track processing, fee waivers, community outreach, and
assistance in completing funding applications.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction costs include both hard costs, such as labor and materials, and soft costs, including
architectural and engineering services, development fees, and insurance. According to Cumming, a
real estate cost consulting firm, hard construction costs (excluding sitework) for a medium quality,
single-family detached house in San Francisco cost between $322 and $386 per square foot in 2021.
A mid-rise multifamily building cost $449 to $584 per square foot in 2021.33 Construction costs in San
Francisco are among the highest in California and in the nation (second only to New York City).
Comparable construction costs at the low-end of the reported range for a mid-rise multifamily project
are 44% lower in Sacramento, 39% lower in San Diego, and 35% lower in Los Angeles.34
An inclusionary and in-lieu fee study prepared for the Town and several other Marin County
jurisdictions in 2021 estimated development construction costs (excluding land cost) as follows:
single-family subdivision, $299 per square foot; condominium townhome, $304 per square foot; and
rental apartment building, $611 per square foot. Assuming comparable construction costs for
Tiburon, a 50-unit development with a gross building area of 50,000 square feet would have
construction costs of approximately $30.55 million, or about $611,000 per unit.
Construction costs are a constraint to development in Tiburon and the San Francisco Bay Area, as
affordable housing developers may look to less expensive areas to stretch their limited development
dollars. To address this constraint and improve the financial feasibility of housing development, the
32 Realtor.com, accessed 6/3/22.
33 Cumming, U.S. Costs per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area 2021, San Francisco,
https://ccorpinsights.com/costs-per-square-foot/, accessed 5/10/22.
34 Cumming, U.S. Real Estate and Construction Lending Activity, https://ccorpinsights.com/lending-activity/,
accessed 5/10/22.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 106
Town significantly increased the maximum permitted density on sites previously limited to 20.7 units
per acre to 45 units per acre. In addition, density bonuses and development concessions are permitted
under State law for developments that include affordable units; these are designed to increase the
financial feasibility of affordable housing development. Program H-bb Work with Non-Profits and
Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites identifies a variety of actions the Town will take to
improve the financial feasibility of providing affordable housing, including regulatory incentives, fast
track processing, fee waivers, community outreach, and assistance in completing funding
applications. In addition, density bonuses and development concessions are permitted under State
law for developments that include affordable units; these are designed to increase the financial
feasibility of affordable housing development.
FINANCING
Housing development depends heavily on lending liquidity. When conditions are favorable for
lenders, construction volume tends to increase. Loan activity has continued to rise over the past 5
years, although residential and commercial real estate loan origination activity began to taper off in
2021.35
Over the past year, mortgage rates for conventional 30-year fixed rate loans have increased from
about 3.0 percent to 5.3 percent (Freddie Mac). These conforming loans, which are backed by the
federal government through the Federal Housing Administration and the Government Sponsored
Entities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are generally available to home buyers with good credit
histories and adequate down payments. Interest rates on non-conforming loans (also known as
“jumbo” loans) for loan amounts over $970,800 (in Marin County) are about one-quarter percentage
point higher than conforming loan rates. Interest rates are expected to increase, which may put
downward pressure on housing prices. If housing prices stabilize or continue to increase, the overall
cost of owning a home will rise.
Small changes in the interest rate for home purchases dramatically affect affordability. A 30-year
home loan for $500,000 at three percent interest has monthly payments of roughly $2,025. A similar
home loan at five percent interest has payments of roughly 25 percent more, or $2,575.
Affordable housing developments face additional constraints in financing. Though public funding is
available, it is allocated on a highly competitive basis and developments must meet multiple qualifying
criteria, often including the requirement to pay prevailing wages. Smaller developments with higher
per unit costs are among the hardest to make financially feasible. This is because the higher costs
result in a sale price that is above the affordability levels set for many programs. Additionally, smaller
projects often require significant inputs of time by developers, but because the overall budget is
smaller and fees are based on a percentage of total costs, the projects are often not feasible. The
Town selected housing sites over ½ acre and close to transit and services to improve the financial
feasibility of development and ability to attract grant funding for affordable housing.
35 Cumming, U.S. Real Estate and Construction Lending Activity, https://ccorpinsights.com/lending-activity/,
accessed 5/10/22.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 107
4.9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES
California needs both public and private investment, as well as land use solutions to address critical
housing challenges and ensure access to jobs in neighborhoods of opportunity for those living here
today and the generations to follow. Land-use regulations can be modified to increase housing supply,
encourage development of more affordable housing, and build a variety of housing types located near
jobs, transportation, high-performing schools, and other services.
However, even with drastic changes in land-use policy to increase supply, a large number of
Californians will always remain priced out of both the ownership and rental housing market. Public
investment in housing programs is necessary to meet the needs of those who struggle the most to
keep roofs over their heads.
The overview of funding sources below focuses on active local, state, and federal programs
implemented by the Marin Housing Authority, Marin County, HCD, and other agencies to address
housing needs in Tiburon, especially the needs of extremely low, very low, and low income persons
and families.
Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities Program. Funding for housing, transportation, and
land preservation projects that support infill and compact development in proximity to transit to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Affordable Housing and Home Buyer Readiness Program. The Affordable Housing and Homebuyer
Readiness Program is a financial coaching series designed to help individuals and families overcome
obstacles, learn to set goals, and devise a plan to reach them. The program provides information on
how to purchase a below market rate unit in Marin County, improve a credit score, avoid and reduce
debt, and prepare an affordable housing unit application.
Below Market Rate (BMR) Home Ownership Program. The BMR Home Ownership program offers
low and moderate-income, first-time homebuyers the opportunity to purchase specified
condominium units in Marin County at less than market value. Marin Housing administers the sale of
newly constructed units as well as previously owned units being offered for resale. There are
approximately 340 homes in the program located throughout Marin County.
CalHome. Provides grants to local public agencies and nonprofit corporations for first-time
homebuyer and housing rehabilitation assistance, homebuyer counseling and technical assistance
activities.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). CDBG funds community & economic
development & disaster recovery to create suitable living environments by expanding economic
opportunities & providing decent housing to low-income households. CDBG grants are administered
by the Marin County Community Development Agency, which makes grant funds available to eligible
nonprofit agencies and local governments.
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program. Grants to address homelessness by providing funding
for supportive services, emergency shelter/transitional housing, homelessness prevention assistance,
and permanent housing.
4.0 Housing Constraints
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 108
Golden State Acquisition Fund. Loans to developers for acquisition or preservation of affordable
housing. Loans are up to five years and a maximum of $13,950,000.
HOME American Rescue Plan. Assists individuals or households at risk of, or experiencing
homelessness, and other vulnerable populations, by providing housing, rental assistance, supportive
services, and non-congregate shelter.
HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Creates and retains affordable housing for lower-income
renters, homebuyers, or homeowners by funding tenant assistance, or single- or multi-family
acquisition and/or rehabilitation or new construction.
Homekey. Grants to acquire and rehabilitate a variety of housing types to rapidly expand housing for
persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness.
Housing for a Healthy California. Funds the creation and support of new and existing permanent
supportive housing for people who are experiencing chronic homelessness or are homeless and high-
cost health users.
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program. Grant funding for infrastructure improvements that are an
integral part of or necessary to facilitate new infill housing in residential and/or mixed-use projects.
Local Housing Trust Fund Program. Matching grant funds to local and regional housing trust funds
dedicated to the creation, rehabilitation, or preservation of affordable housing, transitional housing,
and emergency shelters.
Multifamily Housing Program. Low-interest, long-term deferred-payment loans for new construction,
rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent rental housing for lower-income households.
National Housing Trust Fund. Federal program to increase and preserve the supply of affordable
housing, with an emphasis on rental housing for extremely low-income households.
Predevelopment Loan Program. Short-term loans to finance predevelopment costs to preserve,
construct, rehabilitate or convert assisted housing for low-income households.
Reissued Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. Administered by the Marin Housing Authority, the
program provides certificates for lenders and current mortgage credit certificates who refinance their
mortgage.
Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program. Administered by MHA, the Residential Rehabilitation Loan
program provides low-interest property improvement loans and technical assistance to qualified very-
low-income homeowners to make basic repairs and improvements, correct substandard conditions,
and eliminate health and safety hazards.
SB 2 Planning Grants Program. Provides funding and technical assistance to local governments to
adopt and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and
accelerate housing production.
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides
decent, safe, and sanitary affordable rental housing for very low-income families throughout Marin
County. Housing is made affordable by assisting the family with a portion of the rent. A family pays
approximately 30% of their monthly income for rent and Marin Housing pays the remainder of the
rent directly to the owner. The program is administered by the Marin Housing Authority.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 109
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
5.1 OVERVIEW
The Housing Element must identify programs to: (1) identify adequate sites, with appropriate zoning
and development standards; (2) assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of
extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households; (3) address, and remove
governmental constraints, including housing for persons with disabilities; (4) conserve and improve
the condition of the existing affordable housing stock; (5) preserve assisted housing developments at-
risk of conversion to market-rate; and (6) promote equal housing opportunities for all persons. The
goals, policies, and programs listed in this section outline the means the Town will use to achieve the
quantified objectives represented by the Regional Needs Housing Allocation discussed in Section 3.1
and the quantified objectives discussed below.
5.2 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES
California law requires that housing elements include quantified objectives for the number of units
likely to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved/preserved by income level for the planning
period. The Town of Tiburon quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 Housing Element are shown in
Table 26 below.
Table 19: Quantified Objectives
Tiburon can meet its remaining Regional Housing Needs Allocation for new construction by December
31, 2030, with the sites described in the available land inventory and the programs described in this
section. While the available land inventory shows additional capacity, the new construction objectives
are a conservative estimate recognizing current economic trends.
5.3 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Tiburon’s housing goals provide for a variety of housing opportunities for all economic segments of
the community through new construction and maintenance of existing housing for an economically
and socially diverse population, while preserving the character of the community.
Policy statements and implementing programs help define how the Town’s housing goals will be
interpreted and implemented. A policy is a specific statement that guides decision making and
indicates a commitment of the local legislative body to a particular course of action. Programs define
exactly what is to be done to put the policies into practice while working towards the Town’s housing
goals.
Extremely
Low
Very
Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Units
New construction 97 96 110 93 243 639
Rehabilitation 50 50 100
Conservation/
preservation 0 0 0 15 0 15
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 110
Goal H-A
Establish a Town leadership role in providing a mix of housing types that matches the needs of
people of all ages and income levels.
Policies
H-A1 Local Government Leadership and Commitment of Resources. Establish affordable housing
as an important priority, with local government taking a proactive leadership role in working
with community groups, property owners, affordable housing providers, developers, and
other jurisdictions, agencies, and stakeholders in implementing the Housing Element. Marshal
and commit the Town’s political leadership, staff, funding sources, and available land
resources toward the implementation of the Housing Element’s goals, policies and programs.
H-A2 Redevelopment Agency (Town of Tiburon as Successor Agency). Maximize the use of
housing set-aside monies in support of affordable housing. Tiburon’s solitary Redevelopment
Project Area includes a portion of the Downtown area where several of the sites listed in the
Housing Element are located. The Town will seek projects where it can expend its Housing
Set Aside funds in conjunction with the Marin Housing Authority. Those funds will be used
toward affordable housing projects in the Tiburon Housing Element area and preferably
within the Redevelopment Project Area boundary.
H-A3 Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee Fund and Other Funding Sources. The Town will seek ways to
reduce housing costs for lower income workers and people with special needs by using
ongoing local funding resources (Housing In-Lieu Fund) and continuing to utilize other local,
state and federal assistance to the fullest extent. The Town will continue to collect and expend
affordable housing in-lieu fees for meritorious affordable housing projects.
H-A4 Collaborate with Housing Providers. Work with private non-profit housing groups to identify
opportunities for, and provide and maintain, affordable housing in Tiburon.
H-A5 Collaborate with Other Marin County Planners. The Town will coordinate housing strategies
with other jurisdictions in Marin County as appropriate to meet the Town’s housing need.
Small municipalities rarely have the staff expertise to maximize assistance to affordable
housing developers, especially in the early stages of project formulation and financing.
Therefore, the Town supports collaboration of local planners within Marin County to
implement Housing Element programs for each jurisdiction.
H-A6 Equal Housing Opportunity. Ensure equal housing opportunities for individuals and families
seeking housing in Tiburon. Ensure that housing seekers are not discriminated against,
consistent with the Fair Housing Act.
H-A7 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. Take meaningful actions, in addition to combating
discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free
from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics, which
are: race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including identity and sexual orientation),
familial status, and disability.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 111
Implementing Programs
H-a Focus Town Resources on Housing Opportunity Sites. Focus Town resources toward
the design, approval, financing, and construction of housing, especially affordable
housing, on multifamily housing opportunity sites identified in the Tiburon Housing
Element.
Responsibility: Town Council, Town Manager, Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund, Redevelopment Funds, other funding (see funding
programs).
Objectives: Construction of housing on one or more of the housing opportunity sites
Timeframe: Encourage development of three or more housing opportunity sites by
2030.
H-b Improve Community Awareness of Housing Needs, Issues, and Programs. The Town
will provide information and promote programs and resources for affordable housing,
homebuyer assistance, rental assistance, housing rehabilitation, energy efficiency
and decarbonization of homes, fair housing, reasonable accommodation requests,
and sources of income laws through the following means:
1. Maintain a page on the Town’s website that describes housing programs, fair
housing laws, and landlord and tenant resources and provide direct links to
County agencies and other resources that administer programs and/or provide
more detailed information.
2. Include information on housing programs, fair housing laws, and landlord and
tenant resources in Town newsletters and other general communications that are
sent to residents.
3. Maintain information and handouts at the Town’s public counter, including
brochures published by Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California.
4. Train selected Town staff to provide referrals.
5. Distribute information on programs at public locations (library, schools).
6. Collaborate with other agencies and local jurisdictions (County of Marin, Marin
Housing Authority, Chamber of Commerce, EAH) to prepare presentations and
distribute informational materials to improve awareness of housing needs,
issues, fair housing, and available housing programs.
7. Distribute materials and brochures to neighborhood groups, homeowner
associations, property owners and managers, real estate agents, ADU owners,
religious institutions, businesses, and other interested groups (Rotary, Chamber
of Commerce, etc.).
8. Adopt a Fair Housing Month proclamation each year.
Responsibility: Administration, Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Obtain and distribute materials; coordinate with other organizations.
Timeframe: Update website and distribute handouts and brochures by 2024.
Dedicate one Town newsletter each year to promote housing programs and
resources and educate community members on fair housing laws.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 112
H-c Community Outreach when Implementing Housing Element Programs. Coordinate
with local businesses, housing advocacy groups, neighborhood groups, and the
Chamber of Commerce in building public understanding and support for workforce
and special needs housing and other issues related to housing, including the
community benefits of affordable housing, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented
development. The Town will notify a broad representation of the community when
housing programs are discussed by the Planning Commission or Town Council.
Specific outreach activities include:
1. Maintain the Housing Element mailing list and send public hearing notices
to all interested community members, non-profit agencies, and affected
property owners.
2. Post notices at Town Hall, the library, and the post office.
3. Publish notices in the local newspaper.
4. Post information on the Town’s website.
5. Conduct outreach (workshops, neighborhood meetings) to the
community as Housing Element programs are implemented.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Undertake outreach for each Housing Element program per the Housing
Element implementation schedule
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-d Inclusive Outreach. Conduct targeted outreach to underrepresented community
members, including the disabled, seniors, low-income households, people of color,
and people who do not speak English as a first language. Provide housing-related
materials in Spanish and provide language translation on the Town’s website. Provide
surveys in Spanish and Spanish translation for workshops, and conduct focus groups
with underrepresented community members. Utilize the Town’s affordable housing
providers, Chamber of Commerce, and community groups representing protected
class members to assist in outreach efforts.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: Staff time, General Fund
Objectives: Outreach to underrepresented communities, resulting in participation
that reflects the make-up of the community
Timeframe: Targeted outreach to occur in conjunction with the housing element
update cycle and annually with a campaign to publicize affordable housing resources
H-e Promote Countywide Collaboration on Housing. Participate in a Housing Working
Group that consists of staff at all Marin cities and towns and the County of Marin to
participate in countywide housing projects, share best practices, and discuss housing
issues.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 113
Objectives: Meet with Housing Working Group
Timeframe: Monthly, or as scheduled
H-f Foster Meaningful Assistance from Other Agencies. Town staff will meet and work
with other public agencies and special districts (water, fire, schools, sanitary districts,
etc.) to promote affordable housing through the provision of fee waivers, fee
reductions, development of property, or other assistance for affordable housing
projects.
Responsibility: Town Manager, Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund, Redevelopment Funds, other funding (see funding
programs)
Objectives: Assistance and incentives for affordable housing
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-g Conduct Outreach for Developmentally Disabled Housing and Services. Work with
the Golden Gate Regional Center to implement an outreach program that informs
families within Tiburon on housing and services available for persons with
developmental disabilities. Provide information on services on the Town’s website
and distribute brochures supplied by the service providers.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Support programs to address needs of the developmentally disabled
Timeframe: Initiate a cooperative outreach program with the Golden Gate Regional
Center in 2023
H-h Review the Housing Element Annually. As required by State law, the Town will review
the status of Housing Element programs and submit a progress report to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development and the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research by April 1st.
Responsibility: Town Council, Planning Commission, Community Development
Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Annual review of Housing Element implementation progress
Timeframe: Annually by April 1st
H-i Update the Housing Element. Update the Tiburon Housing Element consistent with
State law requirements.
Responsibility: Town Council, Planning Commission, Community Development
Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Update and adopt housing element in compliance with State-mandated
due date
Timeframe: 2031
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 114
H-j Coordinate with Water and Sewer Providers. As required by State law, the Town will
provide a copy of the adopted housing element update to water and sewer providers,
including the Marin Municipal Water District, Sanitary District Number 5 of Marin
County, Richardson Bay Sanitary District, and Sanitary District Number 2 of Marin
County. The Town will also provide a summary and quantification of Tiburon’s
regional housing need allocation.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Provide copy of Housing Element Update to water and sewer providers
Timeframe: Within one month of housing element adoption
H-k Apply for State and Local Funds for Affordable Housing. Apply for state and local
affordable housing funds including, but not limited to, the programs listed in Section
4.8. Commit these funds to one or more projects located on designated housing sites
as shown in the Housing Sites Inventory Table 10, to projects targeted for persons
with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities, and to projects
targeted to extremely-low income households.
Responsibility: Town Council, Community Development Department, Town Manager
Financing: Staff time
Objectives: Develop funding sources for affordable housing
Timeframe: Apply for funding at least three times during the planning period
H-l Redevelopment Funding (Town of Tiburon as Successor Agency). In conjunction with
the Marin Housing Authority, use remaining housing set-aside funds to meet existing
affordable housing obligations and, once those are met, expend the funds solely for
the provision of affordable housing in Tiburon consistent with the Tiburon General
Plan.
Responsibility: Town Council, Planning Commission, Town Manager, Community
Development Department
Financing: Housing set-aside funds
Objectives: Meet existing affordable housing obligations and facilitate the
development of at least one affordable housing development
Timeframe: Ongoing and develop one affordable housing project by the end of 2030.
H-m Work with Non-Profits on Housing. The Town will work with non-profits to assist in
achieving the Town’s housing goals and implementing programs. Coordination should
occur on an ongoing basis, and as special opportunities arise related to specific
housing sites and as the Housing Element is implemented. The Town will reach out to
developers of supportive housing to encourage development of projects targeted for
persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities. The Town will also
reach out to developers of affordable housing for extremely-low income households.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: Staff time
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 115
Objectives: Ongoing working relationship with non-profit housing sponsors
Timeframe: Outreach to non-profits by the end of 2023 and every two years
thereafter
H-n Work with the Marin Housing Authority. Continue to implement the agreement with
the Marin Housing Authority (MHA) for management of the affordable housing stock
to ensure permanent affordability. Implement resale and rental regulations for very
low, low, and moderate income units, and assure that these units remain at an
affordable price level.
Responsibility: Community Development Department, Town Manager
Financing: Staff time, General Fund
Objectives: Implement agreements to maintain affordability
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-o Staff Training. Work with Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California to conduct
training sessions for Town employees regarding the receipt, documentation, and
proper referral of housing discrimination complaints and other fair housing issues.
Responsibility: Administration, Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Conduct training sessions for staff
Timeframe: As needed
H-p Housing Discrimination Complaints. Refer discrimination complaints to the
appropriate legal service, county, or state agency or Fair Housing Advocates of
Northern California (FHANC). The Community Development Director is the
designated person in Tiburon with responsibility to investigate and deal appropriately
with complaints. Discrimination complaints will be referred to Fair Housing Advocates
of Northern Marin, the Marin Housing Authority, Legal Aid, HUD, or the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing, as appropriate. Information regarding
the housing discrimination complaint referral process will be posted on the Town’s
website. Encourage FHANC to conduct fair housing testing in Tiburon.
Responsibility: Community Development Department, Town Manager
Financing: Staff time, General Fund
Objectives: Implementation of Fair Housing laws
Timeframe: Ongoing. Reach out to FHANC by the end of 2023.
H-q Reasonable Accommodation. Post information on the Town’s website regarding
reasonable accommodation procedures and instruction for submitting
accommodation requests.
Responsibility: Community Development Department, Town Manager
Financing: Staff time, General Fund
Objectives: Implementation of Fair Housing laws
Timeframe: By the end of 2023
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 116
Goal H-B
Provide housing for special needs populations that is coordinated with support services.
Policies
H-B1 Provision of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Households. Provide opportunities
through affordable housing programs for a variety of housing types and affordability levels
to be constructed or acquired for special needs groups, including assisted housing and
licensed board and care facilities.
H-B2 Health and Human Services Programs Linkages. Support housing that incorporates facilities
and services to meet the health care, transit or social service needs of extremely low income
households and persons, and persons living with disabilities. As appropriate to its role, the
Town will assist service providers to link together services serving special needs populations
to provide the most effective response to homelessness or persons at risk of homelessness,
youth needs, seniors, persons with mental or physical disabilities, substance abuse problems,
HIV/AIDS, physical and developmental disabilities, multiple diagnoses, veterans, victims of
domestic violence, and other economically challenged or underemployed workers.
H-B3 Density Bonuses for Special Needs Housing. The Town will use density bonuses to assist in
meeting special housing needs, housing for lower income elderly and disabled.
H-B4 Countywide Efforts to Address Housing for the Homeless. In recognition that there is a lack
of resources to set up separate systems of care for different groups of people, including
homeless-specific services for the homeless or people “at risk” of becoming homeless, local
governments in Marin must coordinate efforts to develop a fully integrated approach for the
broader low-income population. The Town will support countywide programs Marin County
Continuum of Care36 actions for the homeless including emergency shelter, transitional
housing, supportive housing, and permanent housing.
H-B5 Emergency Shelter Facilities Located in Tiburon. The Town of Tiburon recognizes the need
for and desirability of emergency shelter housing for the homeless and will allow a year-round
emergency shelter as a permitted use in commercial zones as established in the Zoning
Ordinance.37 In addition, the following would apply:
1. The Town will encourage positive relations between neighborhoods and
providers of permanent or temporary emergency shelters. Providers or
sponsors of emergency shelters, transitional housing programs and community
36 The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allocates HUD homeless assistance grants to
organizations that participate in local homeless assistance program planning networks. Each of these networks is
called a Continuum of Care. HUD introduced the concept to encourage and support local organizations in
coordinating their efforts to address housing and homeless issues. The Marin County Continuum of Care is
operated through the County’s Health and Human Services Agency.
37 Standards for Emergency Shelters consistent with SB2 are contained in Municipal Code Section 16-40.060 -
Emergency Shelters.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 117
care facilities shall be encouraged to establish outreach programs within their
neighborhoods and, when necessary, work with the Town or a designated
agency to resolve disputes.
2. It is recommended that a staff person from the provider agency be designated
as a contact person with the community to review questions or comments from
the neighborhood.
H-B6 Adaptable/Accessible Units for the Disabled. The Town will ensure that new multi-family
housing includes units that are accessible and adaptable for use by disabled persons in
conformance with the California Building Code. This will include ways to promote housing
design strategies to allow seniors to “age in place.”
H-B7 Transitional and Supportive Housing. The Town of Tiburon recognizes the need for and
desirability of transitional and supportive housing and will treat transitional and supportive
housing as a residential use that will be subject only to the same restrictions that apply to
other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
H-B8 Emergency Housing Assistance. Participate and allocate funds, as appropriate, for County
and non-profit programs providing disaster preparedness and emergency shelter and related
counseling services.
Implementing Programs
H-r Provision of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Households. Continue to facilitate
programs and projects which meet federal, state, and local requirements to provide
accessibility for seniors, persons with disabilities, including developmental
disabilities, large families, and single-person and single parent households. Apply
current inclusionary housing provisions that require 10% of new units to be designed
for special needs households. Specific types of housing include:
1. Smaller, affordable residential units, especially for lower income single-
person and single parent households.
2. Affordable senior housing to meet the burgeoning needs of an aging
population, including assisted housing and board and care (licensed
facilities).
3. Affordable units with three or more bedrooms for large family
households.
4. Affordable housing that is built for, or can easily and inexpensively be
adapted for, use by people with disabilities (specific standards are
established in California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations for new and
rehabilitation projects, augmented by Americans with Disabilities Act
guidelines) and people with developmental disabilities.
Responsibility: Town Council, Community Development Department
Financing: Staff time.
Objectives: Construction of at least 50 housing units for people with special needs.
Timeframe: Ongoing
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 118
H-s Emergency Housing Assistance. Actively engage with other jurisdictions in Marin to
provide additional housing and other options for the homeless, supporting and
implementing Continuum of Care actions in response to the needs of homeless
families and individuals. Participate and allocate funds, as appropriate, for County and
non-profit programs providing emergency shelter and related counseling services.
Responsibility: Town Manager, Town Council, Community Development Department
Financing: Affordable Housing Fund
Objectives: Respond to requests for assistance
Timeframe: Attend Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers (MCCMC)
Elected Officials Homeless Subcommittee meetings at least four times per year;
consider funding requests during Town’s budget setting process.
H-t Provide Town Employee Housing Assistance. Identify opportunities for local
government employees (especially public safety personnel) to find housing locally
through such efforts as acquisition of affordable units, construction of workforce
housing at public facilities or parking lots, or subsidizing mortgages or rents.
Responsibility: Town Manager, Town Council
Financing: Staff time
Objectives: Provide housing assistance to 5 percent of Town employees
Timeframe: Ongoing
Goal H-C
Protect and conserve the existing housing stock and mix of unit types.
Policies
H-C1 Support Housing Conservation and Affordability. Pursue funding for conservation and
rehabilitation of existing housing to preserve neighborhood character and retain the supply
of affordable housing units.
H-C2 Condominium Conversions. Except for limited equity cooperatives and other innovative
housing proposals which are affordable to lower income households, the Town will prohibit
conversion of existing multi-family rental dwellings to market rate condominium units unless
the Town’s rental vacancy rate is above 4.5 percent.
H-C3 Protection of Existing Affordable Housing. Ensure that affordable housing provided through
governmental subsidy programs, incentives and deed restrictions remains affordable, and
intervene when necessary to help preserve such housing.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 119
H-C4 Preserve “Old Tiburon” Housing. Limit the loss of housing units in “Old Tiburon” through
conversion of existing two-family or multi-family dwellings into single-family dwellings or
buildings containing fewer units.38
H-C5 Rental Assistance Programs. Continue to publicize and create opportunities for using
available rental assistance programs for extremely low, very low and low income households
in coordination with the Marin Housing Authority (MHA).
H-C6 Reconstruction at Existing Densities. Protect and preserve housing units by granting density
bonuses that allow the re-establishment of housing developments containing affordable
housing units (regardless of the current General Plan density limit for the site) at the pre-
existing density, in the event that such developments are damaged or destroyed by fire,
earthquake, or similar disaster.
H-C7 Preserve the Housing Stock. In order to protect and conserve the housing stock, the Town
will, to the extent permitted by law, prohibit the conversion of residential units to other uses
and regulate the conversion of rental developments to non-residential uses unless there is a
clear public benefit or equivalent housing can be provided.
H-C8 Maintenance and Management of Quality Housing. Support good management practices
and the long-term maintenance and improvement of existing housing through housing and
building code enforcement, rehabilitation programs for viable older housing, and long-term
maintenance and improvement of neighborhoods.
H-C9 Energy and Resource Conservation. Promote development and construction standards that
conserve resources and encourage housing types and designs that use cost-effective energy
and resource conservation measures (water, electricity, etc.) and therefore cost less to
operate over time, supporting long-term housing affordability for occupants.
H-C10 Resale Controls to Maintain Affordability. Continue to impose resale controls and rent and
income restrictions to the maximum extent possible (at least 55 years) to ensure that
affordable housing, provided through zoning and other government incentives and/or as a
condition of development approval, remains affordable over time to the income group for
which it is intended. The Town will implement long-term or in-perpetuity agreements and/or
deed restrictions with owners and/or developers to govern the affordability of such units. This
assurance will be provided through recorded agreements and by monitoring their continuing
affordability, or other equally effective means.39
Implementing Programs
38 This modification is contained in the Zoning Ordinance, which requires a conditional use permit for conversion
to fewer units.
39 The Marin Housing Authority is the agency designated to administer inclusionary housing programs on behalf of
the Town, although the Town has flexibility to designate another agency or entity.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 120
H-u Rehabilitation Loan Programs. In cooperation with the Marin Housing Authority
(MHA), improve citizen awareness of rehabilitation loan programs. Utilize the Town’s
website, newsletter, social media, and counter handout to publicize programs.
Responsibility: Community Development Department, MHA
Financing: MHA
Objectives: Facilitate rehabilitation loans for 3 low income households
Timeframe: Update the Town’s website by the end of 2023 and update and publicize
annually thereafter.
H-v Conduct Residential Building Report Inspections. The Town will continue to inspect
and report on all residential units prior to resale, with the intent to maintain and
upgrade the safety of housing within the town consistent with adopted Building
Codes. In addition to health and safety concerns, the residential building report
discloses the authorized use, occupancy and zoning of the property and an
itemization of deficiencies in the dwelling unit.
Responsibility: Building Division
Financing: General Fund through fee charged for residential building report
inspections
Objectives: Complete Residential Building Reports for all housing units prior to
resale
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-w Rental Assistance Programs. Continue to publicize and participate in rental
assistance programs such as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers in coordination with
the Marin Housing Authority (MHA). Utilize the Town’s website, newsletter, social
media, and handouts to publicize programs. Provide multilingual links to the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s Sources of Income Fact
Sheet and FAQ and printed materials. Collaborate with at least two other
organization, schools, or agencies to post handouts at their locations.
Responsibility: Community Development Department, Marin Housing Authority
Financing: Staff time Objectives: Publicity and increased use of Section 8 vouchers
Timeframe: Update website and distribute handouts by 2024. Dedicate one
newsletter each year to promote the Housing Choice Voucher program and fair
housing laws.
H-x Condominium Conversions. Preserve rental housing by enforcement through the
Town's condominium conversion ordinance and Housing Element policy.40
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
40 See 16-52.050 - Condominium Use Permit
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 121
Objectives: Protection of the Town’s rental housing stock.
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-y Coordination with Affordable Housing Providers. Work with affordable housing
providers and managers to ensure affordable units are well-maintained. Conduct
outreach to affordable housing tenants on code enforcement issues and procedures
for filing complaints. Facilitate communication between tenants and affordable
housing providers and managers and work to resolve issues of concern.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Protection of the Town’s affordable housing stock
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-z Tenant Protection Strategies. Work with the County of Marin and other Marin
jurisdictions to explore strategies that protect tenants from rapidly rising rents and
displacement. These may include:
Rent stabilization: Currently, the State imposes rent caps on some
residential rental properties (AB 1482) through 2030. Consider adopting a
permanent policy and/or expansion to units not covered by AB 1482, as
permitted by law.
Just cause for eviction: AB 1482 also establishes a specific set of reasons
that a tenancy can be terminated. These include: 1) default in rent
payment; 2) breach of lease term; 3) nuisance activity or waste; 4)
criminal activity; 5) subletting without permission; 6) refusal to provide
access; 7) failure to vacate; 8) refusal to sign lease; and 9) unlawful
purpose. Consider expanding on these protections or extending if State
protections expire.
Local relocation assistance: Consider developing a countywide relocation
assistance program that provides greater relocation assistance to special
needs groups (e.g., seniors, disabled, female-headed households) and
reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.
Right to Purchase: When tenants are being evicted due to condominium
conversion or redevelopment, offer first right to purchase to displaced
tenants to purchase the units.
Right to Return: When tenants are being evicted due to
rehabilitation/renovation of the property, offer first right to displaced
tenants to return to the improved property.
Tenant Bill of Rights: Adopt a tenant’s bill of rights that considers
extending protections for subletters and family members and addresses
severe habitability issues and market pressures. This provision could also
provide anti-retaliation protection for tenants that assert their rights and
a right to legal representation in the case of evictions.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 122
Financing: Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grants; staff time
Objectives: Exploration of and possible action on tenant protection strategies
Timeframe: Explore options with Marin jurisdictions in 2024 and bring forward for
Council direction, including possible ordinance adoption, in 2025.
H-aa Link Code Enforcement with Public Information Programs on Town Standards and
Rehabilitation and Energy Loan Programs. Implement housing, building, and fire
code enforcement to ensure compliance with basic health and safety building
standards and provide information about rehabilitation loan programs for use by
qualifying property owners who are cited. Specific actions include:
1. Coordinate with the Marin Housing Authority and utility providers to
publicize available loan programs to eligible owner and renter-occupied
housing.
2. Provide public information on alternative energy technologies for
residential developers, contractors, and property owners.
3. Publicize tenant assistance and energy conservation programs that are
available to provide subsidized or at-cost inspection and corrective
action.
4. Provide an informational guide to homeowners explaining the benefits,
“best practices” and procedures for adding or legalizing a secondary
dwelling unit.
Responsibility: Community Development Department, Marin Housing Authority,
PG&E, and MCE
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Upgrades to the Town’s housing stock and compliance with codes.
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-bb Provide Information on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs. Provide
information on available energy efficiency, renewable energy, and decarbonization
rebates, incentives, loans, and program, highlighting any programs that serve and/or
provide deeper discounts for low-income households. Specific actions include:
1. Coordinate with the County of Marin, the Marin Climate & Energy
Partnership, BayRen, and utility providers to identify, fund, design, and
publicize programs.
2. Utilize the Town’s website, newsletter, social media, and counter
handouts to provide information on alternative energy technologies for
residential developers, contractors, and property owners.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Upgrades to the Town’s housing stock.
Timeframe: Ongoing with annual social media and newsletter campaign.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 123
Goal H-D
Facilitate the development of new infill housing in Downtown Tiburon and on identified
underutilized sites throughout the Town that are close to services and transit. Continue to
encourage accessory dwelling units to provide additional housing opportunities throughout
established neighborhoods.
Policies
H-D1 Variety of Housing Choices. In response to the broad range of housing needs in Tiburon, the
Town will strive to achieve a mix of housing types, densities, affordability levels and designs.
This will include an adequate supply and variety of housing opportunities to meet the needs
of Tiburon’s workforce and their families, striving to match housing types and affordability
with household income. The Town will work with developers of non-traditional and
innovative housing approaches in financing, design, construction, and types of housing that
meet local housing needs. Housing opportunities for families with children should not be
limited because necessary facilities are not provided on site.
H-D2 New Affordable Housing. Facilitate the design, approval, and construction of affordable
housing projects using a variety of mechanisms, including mixed-use development
incentives, inclusionary zoning, density bonus programs, affordable housing overlay zones,
and creation of accessory dwelling units.
H-D3 Key Housing Opportunity Sites. Given the diminishing availability of developable land, the
Town will identify housing opportunity areas and sites where a special effort will be made to
provide workforce and special needs affordable housing. The Town will take specific actions
to promote the development of affordable housing units on these sites (identified in the
Implementing Programs).
H-D4 Mixed Use Infill Housing. The Town will encourage well-designed mixed use developments
(residential mixed with other uses) where residential use is appropriate to the setting and
development impacts can be mitigated. The Town will develop incentives to encourage mixed
use development in appropriate locations, such as in and near to the downtown that are in
proximity to transit and services and would support downtown businesses.
H-D5 Redevelopment of Commercial Shopping Areas and Sites. The Town will encourage the
development of housing in conjunction with the redevelopment of commercial shopping
areas and sites when it occurs.
H-D6 Density Bonuses and Other Incentives for Affordable Housing Developments. The Town will
use density bonuses and other incentives to help achieve housing goals, including provisions
consistent with State Density Bonus Law.41
41 State density bonus law, Government Code Section 65915, was first enacted in 1979. The law requires local
governments to provide density bonuses and other incentives to developers of affordable housing who commit to
providing a certain percentage of dwelling units to persons whose incomes do not exceed specific thresholds.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 124
H-D7 Retention and Expansion of Multifamily Sites at Medium and Higher Density. The Town will
strive to protect and expand the supply and availability of multifamily and mixed use infill
housing sites for housing. The Town will not re-designate or rezone residential land for other
uses or to lower densities without re-designating equivalent land for higher density
multifamily development.
H-D9 Accessory Dwelling Units. Encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) as an important way to provide affordable rental
housing opportunities, especially for senior households, single persons, single parents, and
young households.
H-D11 Inclusionary Housing Requirements. Implement the Town’s inclusionary housing provisions
to generate affordable housing units and in-lieu fees that can be effectively used to support
affordable housing projects on less constrained housing opportunity sites.
Implementation Programs
H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites.
Encourage cooperative and joint ventures between owners, developers, and non-
profit groups in the provision of below market rate housing. Work with non-profits
and property owners to seek opportunities for affordable housing development on
key housing opportunity sites that are close to services, transit, and jobs. Undertake
the following actions to encourage development of multi-family, affordable housing:
1. Meet with non-profit housing developers and property owners of Sites 1-
9 to identify housing development opportunities, issues, and needs during
2023.
2. Select the most viable sites during 2023 and 2024.
3. Undertake community outreach in coordination with potential developers
and property owners during 2023 and 2024.
4. Complete site planning studies, continued community outreach, and
regulatory approvals in coordination with the development application.
5. Facilitate development through regulatory incentives, reducing or waiving
fees, fast track processing, lot consolidation, and assistance in
development review.
6. Require affordable units to be affirmatively marketed to communities of
Cities also must provide bonuses to certain developers of senior housing developments, and in response to certain
donations of land and the inclusion of childcare centers in some developments. Essentially, state density bonus
law establishes that a residential project of five or more units that provides affordable or senior housing at specific
affordability levels may be eligible for a “density bonus” to allow more dwelling units than otherwise allowed on the
site by the applicable General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning. The density bonus may be approved only in
conjunction with a development permit (i.e., tentative map, parcel map, use permit or design review). Under State
law, a jurisdiction must provide a density bonus, and concessions and incentives granted at the applicant’s request
based on specific criteria.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 125
color and protected classes. Utilize publications, venues, and community
groups that serve Black and Latinx communities, especially outside of
Marin County.
Responsibility: Community Development Department, Town Manager, Planning
Commission, Town Council
Financing: General Fund, Redevelopment Set-Aside, other funding
Objectives: Encourage development of housing opportunity sites
Timeframe: Actions as identified above and development of housing sites by 2030
H-dd Implement “Affordable Housing Overlay Zone” and Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance. Annually monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the Affordable
Housing Overlay Zone and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance as part of the annual
Housing Element review (see Program H-h). As part of the annual review The Town
will determine if the number and/or percentage of affordable units required by
income category need to be adjusted in order to achieve the Town’s affordable
housing goals without unduly impacting overall housing production and supply. The
Town will amend the zoning ordinance as necessary.
Responsibility: Community Development Department, Town Manager, Planning
Commission, Town Council
Financing: General Fund, Redevelopment Set-Aside, Housing Fund, other funding.
Objectives: Development of one or more key housing sites by 2022
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-ee Bonuses for Affordable Housing Projects Consistent with State Density Bonus Law.
Offer density bonuses consistent with the State Density Bonus Law.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Application of State Density Bonus law
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-ff Design of Multifamily Housing. Conduct design review to assure excellence of design
in new multifamily housing development and utilize objective design and
development standards for applicable projects.
Responsibility: Community Development Department Financing: General Fund
Objectives: Development of well-designed multifamily housing
Timeframe: Ongoing
H-gg Outreach and Education for Accessory Dwelling Unit Development. Encourage and
facilitate ADU and JADU development to provide additional housing opportunities
throughout established neighborhoods. Take the following actions:
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 126
1. Provide information on Tiburon’s ADU standards for posting on the
MarinADU website.
2. Provide ADU and JADU application checklists on the Town’s website.
3. Develop a handout on ADU standards and the application process and
distribute at Town Hall.
4. Provide links to the California Department of Fair Employment and
Housing’s Sources of Income Fact Sheet and FAQ in Town
communications and printed handouts at the building counter.
5. Promote the MarinADU website in the Town’s newsletter and ADU
handout, on social media, and on the Town’s website.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: 72 new ADUs and JADUs by the end of 2030
Timeframe: Develop new materials, update the Town’s website, and provide
counter handouts by the end of 2023. Update and publicize annually
thereafter.
H-hh Track and Evaluate Accessory Dwelling Unit Production. Continue to track ADU
and JADU permits, construction, and affordability levels. Review ADU and JADU
development at the mid-point of the planning cycle to determine if production
estimates are being achieved as identified in the housing site inventory. Depending
on the findings of the review, revise the housing sites inventory to ensure adequate
sites are available to accommodate the remaining lower income housing need.
Responsibility: Community Development Department
Financing: General Fund
Objectives: 72 new ADUs and JADUs by 2030 with affordability levels as follows: 21
very low, 21 low, 21 moderate, and 9 above moderate
Timeframe: Ongoing tracking and mid-point planning cycle review by June 2027
5.4 AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH)
The Housing Element must include an identification and prioritization of significant contributing
factors to segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to
opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs. Contributing factors are described in detail in
Appendix D and summarized below in descending order of priority, along with the Housing Element
programs that address them.
LACK OF FAIR HOUSING TESTING, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH
The AFFH analysis determines that the Town lacks information on fair housing law and discrimination
complaint filing procedures on the Town website. Current outreach practices may not provide
sufficient information related to fair housing, including federal and state fair housing law, and
affordable housing opportunities. Cost burdened households may be unaware of affordable housing
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 127
opportunities. The Town also lacks sufficient education and outreach related to reasonable
accommodations and ADA laws. Further, while fair housing testing was conducted in the County, fair
housing tests in Tiburon may be insufficient for monitoring housing discrimination.
Contributing Factors
• Lack of fair housing testing/monitoring
• Lack of targeted outreach
Housing Element Programs to Address Contributing Factors
The Housing Element contains programs to provide information to residents, landlords, and
prospective tenants on fair housing laws, including source of income laws, through the Town’s
communication channels, including the newsletter, website, social media, counter handouts, and
tabling at community events. Programs include H-b Improve Community Awareness of Housing
Needs, Issues; H-p Housing Discrimination Complaints; H-q Reasonable Accommodation; H-w Rental
Assistance Programs; and H-gg Outreach and Education for Accessory Dwelling Units. Program H-p
also directs the Town to encourage Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California to conduct fair
housing testing in Tiburon.
DISPARITIES IN HOME OWNERSHIP RATES AND POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATION IN HOME
SALES MARKET
The AFFH analysis identifies some potential for discrimination in the home loan application process.
although the race/ethnicity of nearly one-quarter of the applicants was unknown. The analysis finds
that the Whites are 81.6% of the population in Tiburon, and the Hispanic/Latino, two or more races,
and Asian populations make up the second, third, and fourth largest racial/ethnic populations in the
Town. A majority of Asian/API, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and other/multiple race
households are renter households, compared to only 29.3 percent of non-Hispanic White households.
Asian and Hispanic owner-occupied households are also cost burdened at the highest rates.
Contributing Factors
• Lack of fair housing testing/monitoring
• Availability of affordable housing
Housing Element Programs to Address Contributing Factors
Program H-p Housing Discrimination Complaints directs the Town to encourage Fair Housing
Advocates of Northern California to conduct fair housing testing in Tiburon. The Housing Element
contains several programs to increase the availability of affordable housing in Tiburon, including
programs H-a Focus Town Resources on Housing Opportunity Sites; H-l Redevelopment Funding;
Program H-m Work with Non-Profits on Housing; Program H-r Provisions of Affordable Housing for
Special Needs Households; Program H-ee Bonuses for Affordable Housing Projects Consistent with
State Density Bonus Law; H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity
Sites; H-dd Implement Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and Inclusionary Housing Ordinances; and H-
gg Outreach and Education for Accessory Dwelling Unit Development.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 128
COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The AFFH analysis finds community opposition to housing development remains the number one
barrier to housing development in Marin County. Community resistance to development includes
concerns about traffic congestion; a desire for the preservation of open spaces; loss of local control;
and the impact on schools. Resistance to affordable housing is most prevalent in White
neighborhoods in Marin County.
The housing opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element were extensively vetted by the
community and supported by a majority of residents. Nonetheless, there was significant opposition
to the proposed housing sites and densities.
Contributing Factors
• Availability of affordable housing in all areas of the Town
• Community concern about housing densities, traffic impacts on Tiburon Boulevard, water
availability, and school capacity
Housing Element Programs to Address Contributing Factors
The Housing Element contains several programs to increase the availability of affordable housing in
Tiburon, including programs H-a Focus Town Resources on Housing Opportunity Sites; H-l
Redevelopment Funding; Program H-m Work with Non-Profits on Housing; Program H-r Provisions of
Affordable Housing for Special Needs Households; Program H-ee Bonuses for Affordable Housing
Projects Consistent with State Density Bonus Law; H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners
on Housing Opportunity Sites; H-dd Implement Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and Inclusionary
Housing Ordinances; and H-gg Outreach and Education for Accessory Dwelling Unit Development. In
addition, the Housing Element contains programs to foster community support for housing
development including H-b Improve Community Awareness of Housing Needs, Issues, and Programs
and H-c Community Outreach when Implementing Housing Element Programs.
SUBSTANDARD HOUSING CONDITIONS
The AFFH analysis states that 85 percent of the Town’s housing stock is older than 30 years, and 54%
is over 50 years old. Although the Town’s housing stock is older, it is generally in excellent condition.
Due to the high real estate value in Tiburon, properties, especially single family houses, are generally
well-maintained. According to the Town’s Planning & Building department, approximately 120-150
apartments are in in need of rehabilitation, and no housing units are in need of replacement. Cost of
repairs can be prohibitive, especially for low-income households.
Contributing Factors
• Age of housing stock
• Cost of repairs or rehabilitation
Housing Element Programs to Address Contributing Factors
The Housing Element contains programs to promote available rehabilitation loans to lower income
households. Programs include H-u Rehabilitation Loan Programs and H-aa Link Code Enforcement
with Public Information Programs on Town Standards and Rehabilitation and Energy Loan Programs.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 129
AFFH ACTION MATRIX
Programs to affirmatively further fair housing are organized by Action Areas in Table 20. These are as
follows:
• Enhance housing mobility strategies.
• Encourage development of new affordable housing in high resource areas.
• Improve place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization,
including preservation of existing affordable housing.
• Protect existing residents from displacement.
• Conduct fair housing outreach and education
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 130
Table 20: AFFH Action Matrix
Action Area Programs Implementation Action
(see program in Section 5.3 for additional details)
Housing Mobility H-b Improve Community
Awareness of Housing Needs,
Issues, and Programs
Provide information and promote programs and resources for affordable housing, rental assistance,
and fair housing laws. Utilize the Town’s website, newsletter, counter handouts and distribute
information at public locations and to homeowners’ associations, property managers and owners,
and other community groups. Update website and distribute handouts and brochures by 2024.
Dedicate one Town newsletter each year to promote housing programs and resources and educate community members on fair housing laws.
H-w Rental Assistance Programs Publicize and participate in rental assistance programs such as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers in
coordination with the Marin Housing Authority (MHA). Utilize the Town’s website, newsletter, social
media, and handouts to publicize programs. Provide multilingual links to the California Department
of Fair Employment and Housing’s Sources of Income Fact Sheet and FAQ and printed materials.
Collaborate with at least two other organization, schools, or agencies to post handouts at their
locations. Update website and distribute handouts and brochures by 2024. Dedicate one Town newsletter each year to promote Housing Choice vouchers and educate community members on fair
housing laws.
H-gg Outreach and Education for
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Development
Encourage and facilitate ADU and JADU development to provide additional housing opportunities
throughout established neighborhoods. Take the following actions:
1. Provide information on Tiburon’s ADU standards for posting on the MarinADU website.
2. Provide ADU and JADU application checklists on the Town’s website.
3. Develop a handout on ADU standards and the application process and distribute at Town Hall.
4. Provide links to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s Sources of Income
Fact Sheet and FAQ in Town communications and printed handouts at the building counter.
5. Promote the MarinADU website in the Town’s newsletter and ADU handout, on social media,
and on the Town’s website.
Develop new materials, update the Town’s website, and provide counter handouts by the end of
2023. Update and publicize annually thereafter. Develop 72 new ADUs and JADUs by the end of 2030.
New Housing
Opportunities in
H-a Focus Town Resources on
Housing Opportunity Sites
Focus Town resources toward the design, approval, financing, and construction of housing,
especially affordable housing, on multifamily housing opportunity sites identified in the Tiburon
Housing Element. Encourage development of three or more housing opportunity sites by 2030.
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 131
High Resource Areas H-cc Work with Non-Profits and
Property Owners on Housing
Opportunity Sites
Encourage cooperative and joint ventures between owners, developers, and non-profit groups in
the provision of below market rate housing. Work with non-profits and property owners to seek
opportunities for affordable housing development on key housing opportunity sites that are close to
services, transit, and jobs. Undertake the following actions to encourage development of multi-
family, affordable housing:
1. Meet with non-profit housing developers and property owners of Sites 1-9 to identify housing
development opportunities, issues, and needs during 2023.
2. Select the most viable sites during 2023 and 2024.
3. Undertake community outreach in coordination with potential developers and property owners
during 2023 and 2024.
4. Complete site planning studies, continued community outreach, and regulatory approvals in
coordination with the development application.
5. Facilitate development through regulatory incentives, reducing or waiving fees, fast track
processing, lot consolidation, and assistance in development review.
6. Require affordable units to be affirmatively marketed to communities of color and protected
classes. Utilize publications, venues, and community groups that serve Black and Latinx
communities, especially outside of Marin County.
Place-based
Strategies
H-q Reasonable Accommodation Post information on the Town’s website by the end of 2023 regarding reasonable accommodation
procedures and instructions for submitting accommodation requests.
H-u Rehabilitation Loan Programs In cooperation with the Marin Housing Authority (MHA), improve citizen awareness of rehabilitation
loan programs. Utilize the Town’s website, newsletter, social media, and counter handout to
publicize programs. Update the Town’s website by the end of 2023 and update and publicize annually thereafter. Facilitate loans for three lower-income households by the end of 2030.
Tenant Protections
and Anti-
Displacement
H-z Tenant Protection Strategies Work with the County of Marin and other Marin jurisdictions to explore strategies that protect
tenants from rapidly rising rents and displacement. These may include:
Rent stabilization
Just cause for eviction
Local relocation assistance
Right to Purchase
Right to Return
Tenant Bill of Rights
5.0 GOALS, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | 132
Explore options with Marin jurisdictions in 2024 and bring forward for Council direction, including possible ordinance adoption, in 2025.
Fair Housing
Outreach and
Enforcement
H-b Improve Community
Awareness of Housing Needs,
Issues, and Programs
Provide information and promote programs and resources for affordable housing, rental assistance,
and fair housing laws. Utilize the Town’s website, newsletter, counter handouts and distribute
information at public locations and to homeowners’ associations, property managers and owners,
and other community groups. Update website and distribute handouts and brochures by 2024.
Dedicate one Town newsletter each year to promote housing programs and resources and educate
community members on fair housing laws.
H-p Housing Discrimination
Complaints
Encourage Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) to conduct fair housing testing in
Tiburon. Reach out to FHANC by the end of 2023.
H-q Reasonable Accommodation Post information on the Town’s website by the end of 2023 regarding reasonable accommodation
procedures and instructions for submitting accommodation requests.
H-w Rental Assistance Programs Publicize and participate in rental assistance programs such as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers in
coordination with the Marin Housing Authority (MHA). Utilize the Town’s website, newsletter, social
media, and handouts to publicize programs. Provide multilingual links to the California Department
of Fair Employment and Housing’s Sources of Income Fact Sheet and FAQ and printed materials.
Collaborate with at least two other organization, schools, or agencies to post handouts at their
locations. Update website and distribute handouts and brochures by 2024. Dedicate one Town
newsletter each year to promote Housing Choice vouchers and educate community members on fair
housing laws.
H-gg Outreach and Education for
Accessory Dwelling Units
Educate landlords and tenants on fair housing laws related to ADUs. Provide links to the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s Sources of Income Fact Sheet and FAQ in Town
communications and printed handouts at the building counter. Update the Town’s website and
provide counter handouts by the end of 2023. Update and publicize annually thereafter.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | A-1
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC OUTREACH
It’s time to update the Town’s General Plan, and we’re bringing in the experts: you!
The General Plan outlines policies
that will shape how Tiburon will look
and feel in the future, guiding growth
over the next 20 years.
createtiburon2040.org
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE?
Updating the General Plan will take
approximately two years. There
will be plenty of opportunities for
community members to get involved
and voice their opinions.
To
w
n
o
f
T
i
b
u
r
o
n
15
0
5
T
i
b
u
r
o
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
Ti
b
u
r
o
n
,
C
A
9
4
9
2
0
Jan. 2021
Launch website and first
community survey at CreateTiburon2040.org
Feb - Sept 2021
Community Workshops and
Surveys on Different Topics
Jan. - Nov. 2021
Town Council
and Commission Meetings
Mar. 2022
Public Review Draft
General Plan Released
Apr. 2022
Community Open House
Oct. 2022
Commission Meetings
Nov. 2022
General Plan Adopted
P
H
A
S
E
1
:
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
K
I
C
K
O
F
F
NOV ‘22
P
H
A
S
E
2
:
G
A
T
H
E
R
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
P
H
A
S
E
3
:
D
R
A
F
T
P
L
A
N
2021
2022
THE ISSUES
How can we support
businesses and create a
more vibrant and diverse
marketplace?
How can we support
new housing
opportunities?
How can we enhance
the existing circulation
system?
How can we protect the
community from hazards
like sea level rise and
wildfire?
How should we enhance
the Town’s parks and
recreation opportunities?
How can we protect the
natural environment?
How can the general
plan help to create a
sustainable community?
HOW CAN YOU GET INVOLVED?
CREATE TIBURON 2040
Take Our Surveys
The first survey is now live on
CreateTiburon2040.org.
More surveys will be posted
throughout this process.
Subscribe to the Mailing List
Be the first to hear updates by subscribing
to the mailing list at CreateTiburon2040.org
or calling Town staff at 415-435-7373.
Participate in a
Community Workshop
In 2021, workshops will be hosted on
different topic areas. Meetings will be on
Zoom until we can safely gather in person.
Follow Us
We will be posting pop surveys and
information about upcoming workshops on
Facebook and Instagram.
Stay Informed
Visit our website at
CreateTiburon2040.org
Every 8 years, the Town of Tiburon is required to update its Housing Element to
accommodate housing needs and address barriers to housing production. The Town is
not required to build housing but must ensure that its regulations enable development
of housing affordable to all economic segments of the community. As part of the
current Housing Element update, the Town needs to plan for the construction of 639
new homes over the next decade.
The Town will be holding two community workshops to discuss the Housing Element
update. The first workshop on November 9th will give an overview of existing housing
conditions and needs and begin to explore potential sites and strategies for new
housing. Where should new housing go? How can we make sure it fits in? And how
can the Town’s housing policies support broader goals for a thriving economy and a
more equitable and resilient community?
We’re updating the housing element and want to hear
from you! Join us for a virtual community workshop
on Tuesday, November 9th, from 6-8pm.
Housing I
Community Workshop
Visit CreateTiburon2040.org
for more information and to register for the workshop.
Cada 8 años, la ciudad de Tiburón está obligada a actualizar su Elemento de vivienda
para acomodar las necesidades de vivienda y tratar los obstáculos para la producción
de viviendas. La ciudad no está obligada a construir viviendas, pero debe asegurarse
de que sus reglamentaciones permiten el desarrollo de viviendas asequibles a todos
los segmentos económicos de la comunidad. Como parte de las novedades actuales
del Elemento de vivienda, la ciudad necesita planificar la construcción de 639 nuevas
casas durante la próxima década.
La ciudad celebrará dos talleres de la comunidad para hablar sobre las novedades
del Elemento de vivienda. En el primer taller, que será el 9 de noviembre, se dará un
resumen de las condiciones y necesidades de vivienda existentes y se comenzará a
explorar posibles lugares y estrategias para la construcción de nuevas casas. ¿Dónde
deberían construirse las nuevas casas? ¿Cómo podemos asegurarnos de que se adapta?
¿Y cómo pueden las políticas de vivienda de la ciudad apoyar objetivos más amplios
para una economía próspera y una comunidad más equitativa y resiliente?
¡Estamos actualizando el plan de vivienda y queremos
escuchar su opinión! Acompáñenos en un taller virtual de la
comunidad el martes, 9 de noviembre, de 6:00 a 8:00 p.m.
Taller de la comunidad Vivienda I
Visite CreateTiburon2040.org
para obtener más información e inscribirse en el taller.
Every 8 years, the Town of Tiburon, like all local governments in California, must update
the chapter of its General Plan known as the Housing Element to accommodate housing
needs and address barriers to housing production. For the next Housing Element
planning cycle, the Town must ensure its zoning regulations can enable the construction
of 639 new homes over the next decade.
This workshop builds on feedback we gathered from the first housing workshop in
November. The purpose of this workshop will be to select housing opportunity sites and
identify unit capacities for each site. We will discuss existing zoning and site constraints
as well as potential changes to uses, building heights, and residential densities to
accommodate more housing. We will also explore design techniques that ensure new
buildings fit into the existing context.
We’re updating the housing plan and want to hear from
you! Join us for a virtual community workshop on Tuesday,
February 22nd, from 6-8pm.
Housing II
Community Workshop
Visit CreateTiburon2040.org
for more information and to register for the workshop.
Cada ocho años, la ciudad de Tiburon, al igual que todos los gobiernos locales de
California, está obligada a actualizar el capítulo de su Plan general conocido como
Elemento de vivienda para satisfacer las necesidades de vivienda y abordar las
barreras de la construcción de viviendas. Para el próximo ciclo de planificación del
Elemento de vivienda, la ciudad debe garantizar que su reglamentación de calificación
permita la construcción de 639 nuevas viviendas durante la próxima década.
Este taller se basa en los comentarios que recogimos en el primer taller sobre vivienda
celebrado en noviembre. El propósito de este taller será seleccionar los sitios de
oportunidad de vivienda e identificar las capacidades de las unidades para cada sitio.
Hablaremos sobre la calificación de vivienda existente y de las limitaciones del terreno,
y de los posibles cambios en los usos, las alturas de las cuadras y las densidades
residenciales para dar cabida a más viviendas. También exploraremos las técnicas de
diseño que garantizan que las nuevas cuadras se integren en el contexto existente.
¡Estamos actualizando el plan de vivienda y queremos
escuchar su opinión! Acompáñenos en un taller de la
comunidad virtual el martes 22 de febrero de 6:00 a 8:00 p.m.
Taller de la comunidad Vivienda II
Visite CreateTiburon2040.org
para obtener más información e inscribirse en el taller.
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop I 1
TIBURON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Housing Workshop I Summary
November 9, 2021, 6:00-8:00pm
The purpose of the Housing Community Workshop I was to:
• provide an overview of existing housing conditions and needs in Tiburon;
• provide background information on the legal requirements of a housing element and the
Regional Housing Needs Allocation process;
• begin to explore sites and strategies to accommodate new housing in Tiburon; and
• gather questions and comments from participants about housing needs, concerns, and goals.
Feedback received will inform the content of a future community workshop and will guide the
preparation of the Housing Element Update.
The community meeting was held via Zoom on Tuesday, November 9, 2021, from 6:00-8:00 pm and was
facilitated by Town staff and the consultant team. All materials were made available in Spanish and
posted on the project website prior to the meeting, and a translator was available to facilitate a small
group discussion in Spanish. There were approximately 95 participants The format of the meeting is
described in the agenda below:
• Welcome & Introductions
• Presentation
• Q&A
• Small Group Discussion
• Small Group Report Outs
• Next Steps & Close
ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: 95 attendees
Town Staff
• Dina Tasini, Director of Community Development
• Christy Fong, Senior Planner
• Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner
Consultant Team
• O'Rourke & Associates – Christine O'Rourke
• Sustainable Community Planning – Bob Brown
• WRT – Peter Winch
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Dina Tasini opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and giving an overview of the meeting purpose
and goals. Christine O’Rourke gave an overview of the meeting agenda and initiated a live poll (see
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop I 2
results below). After the poll closed, Christine gave a presentation on the General Plan update process,
Housing Element requirements, local and regional housing conditions and needs, the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) process and determination for Tiburon, available sites for housing to meet
RHNA requirements for the various household income categories, and housing concepts that were
presented at a community workshop on the Downtown in April 2021.
After the presentation, Christine gave an overview of the small group discussion logistics and opened
the breakout rooms which participants were randomly assigned. A facilitator was assigned to each
breakout room. There were approximately twelve attendees in each breakout room.
The presentation slides and a video recording of the workshop was posted on the General Plan Update
website at createtiburon2040.org.
Live Poll
1. Where do you live? (select one)
• 86% live in Tiburon
• 14% live in Marin County, but not in Tiburon
• 0% live outside Marin County
2. Do you own or rent your home? (select one)
• 83% own their home
• 17% rent their home
3. What type of housing do you live in?
• 71% live in a detached single-family home
• 8% live in an attached single-family home (e.g., duplex or townhome)
• 22% live in a multifamily home (e.g., condo or apartment)
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Approximately half of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through
facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in six breakout rooms on a virtual
whiteboard in response to the discussion prompts below (see appendix for images of virtual white
boards). The summary below provides a high-level overview of themes that emerged from the small
group discussions. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of breakout rooms in which the
referenced comment was expressed.
Small Group Discussion Prompts
• Are there any specific groups of people who are most in need of housing in Tiburon?
• What type of housing is most needed or is in short supply in Tiburon?
• Where should new housing go?
• Are there other strategies we should consider to accommodate our housing need?
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop I 3
• How can Tiburon’s housing policies and programs foster a more diverse and inclusive
community?
Main Takeaways
Are there any specific groups of people who are most in need of housing in Tiburon?
• We need housing for our workforce, e.g., firefighters, police, teachers, restaurant and retail
workers (6)
• Families (5)
• Seniors (5)
• Empty nesters who want to downsize but stay in the community (1)
• People of color (3)
• Domestic workers, e.g., landscapers, childcare providers, domestic help (1)
• Homeless (1)
• People who come to Tiburon for church (1)
What type of housing is most needed or is in short supply in Tiburon?
• Housing that supports the local economy and activates Downtown (2)
• Housing that does not generate a lot of vehicular traffic on Tiburon Boulevard and accesses
alternative transportation (2)
• Mixed use with commercial uses on the ground floor and housing above (2)
• Rental units (1)
• Housing affordable to low-income households (2)
• Community-oriented housing that provides gathering places and a neighborhood feeling (2)
• Community Land Trust development that allows people to build equity and a path to
homeownership (1)
• Workforce housing that can be used in recruitment (1)
• Higher densities and small units in the Downtown (1)
• Multifamily housing (2)
• Accessory dwelling units (1)
• Assisted living (1)
• Microhomes throughout the community (1)
Where should new housing go?
• Large sites along Tiburon Boulevard like Chase Bank, Bank of America, CVS, parking lots (6)
• Near the four-lane section of Tiburon Boulevard north of Trestle Glen (2)
• Downtown (3)
• Property near Blackie’s Pasture owned by the Sanitation District (2)
• The Baptist Church on Greenwood Beach Road (1)
• The Tiburon Peninsula Club (1)
• Reuse of office buildings (1)
• Expand Hilarita (1)
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop I 4
• Homesharing (1)
• Densification of single family lots through SB 9 and ADUs (1)
• City-owned parcels (1)
• Add housing at Library, Town Hall, Schools, Fire Department (1)
Are there other strategies we should consider to accommodate our housing need?
• Consider traffic and strategies to relieve traffic congestion and dependence on the automobile
(2)
• Consider safety and evacuation access (1)
• Densification of existing older multifamily sites (1)
• Decouple parking from units to make housing less expensive and subsidize transit (bus, ferry)
passes (1)
• Provide incentives for utility hookups for additional units (1)
• Require affordable units to be built in new housing developments (2)
• Restrict unit sizes in some instances (1)
• Prioritize units for the workforce (1)
• Community land trust (1)
• Homesharing program (1)
• Parcel tax/real estate tax upon sale to provide funding for affordable housing (1)
• Update the ADU ordinance to allow larger ADU sizes (1)
• Rezone open space, churches, and schools that have open space for housing development (1)
• Provide education and potentially subsidies for ADUs (2)
• Incorporate larger area into the Town (1)
• Infill existing homes and parcels (1)
• Eliminate barriers and address construction costs, topographic challenges (1)
How can Tiburon’s housing policies and programs foster a more diverse and inclusive community?
• Rebrand Tiburon as a more inclusive community. Show people, rather than images of yachts. (1)
• Mandate more affordable units (1)
• Create a safer environment (1)
• Encourage economic diversity (1)
• Make people feel welcome (1)
• Address social needs (1)
• Increase middle class employment (1)
• Speak with those most impacted in Tiburon, such as residents of the Hilarita and renters (1)
• Create conversation to open up opportunities for change (1)
Housing I Survey Results Summary 1
Summary of Housing I Survey
As of survey close on January 10, 2022
67 survey responses
The Housing I survey asked a series of open-ended questions. The responses are summarized
below.1 The number in parenthesis indicates the number of people who expressed the next to
the response indicates how many people expressed the comment. One response could be
categorized in more than one category.
1. What type of housing is most needed or is in short supply in Tiburon?
Affordable housing (19)
Single family homes (9)
Rental housing (8)
Smaller homes, townhomes, and condominiums (7)
Senior housing and elderly care facilities (6)
Multifamily housing (5)
Workforce housing (3)
All types (2)
None (9)
2. Where should new housing go?
Downtown (22)
Near Highway 101 (8)
On undeveloped lots and where there are vacant buildings (7)
Accessory dwelling units (5)
Near shopping and transit (3)
Expansion of the Hilarita (3)
Tiburon Baptist Church property (1)
Open space (2)
Wherever there is space (3)
Don’t know (2)
No new housing (9)
1 Due to a technical error, the survey did not record responses to two questions: “Are there any specific groups of
people who are most in need of housing in Tiburon?” and “Are there other strategies we should consider to
accommodate our housing need?” These questions will be included in the next housing survey.
Housing I Survey Results Summary 2
3. How can Tiburon’s housing policies and programs foster a more diverse and inclusive
community?
Make it more affordable, including housing (18)
Build more housing (4)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Other
Belvedere resident
Tiburon business owner
Employee/worker of a Tiburon business or
household
Tiburon resident
I am a:
0 5 10 15 20 25
Under 21
21-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80 or over
Your age:
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 1
TIBURON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Housing Workshop II Summary
February 22, 2022, 6:00-8:00pm
The purpose of the Housing Community Workshop II was to select housing opportunity sites for the
Town’s Housing Element Update and identify unit capacities for each site to demonstrate compliance
with the state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Potential housing sites included
Downtown, the Cove Shopping Center, a vacant portion of the Reed Elementary School site, and the
Tiburon Baptist Church on Greenwood Beach Road. The workshop focused on providing workforce and
affordable housing on sites that are appropriate for lower income housing according to State law and
California Department of Housing and Community (HCD) guidelines. The workshop also explored design
concepts to ensure buildings are attractive and help to create a pedestrian-friendly environment such as
breaking up building massing, varying building facades, stepping back upper levels, activating street
frontages, and providing parking, landscaping, and public paseos.
Feedback received will guide the preparation of the Housing Element Update.
The community meeting was held via Zoom on Tuesday, February 22, 2022, from 6:00-8:00 pm and was
facilitated by the consultant team with assistance from Town staff. The presentation was made available
in Spanish and posted on the project website prior to the meeting, and a translator was available to
facilitate a small group discussion in Spanish. There were approximately 30 participants in addition to
the project team. The format of the meeting is described in the agenda below:
• Welcome & Introductions
• Presentation & Polling
• Small Group Discussion
• Small Group Report Outs
• Next Steps & Close
ATTENDANCE
Meeting participants: 30 attendees in addition to the project team
Town Staff
• Dina Tasini, Director of Community Development
• Christy Fong, Senior Planner
• Samantha Bonifacio, Assistant Planner
Consultant Team
• O'Rourke & Associates – Christine O'Rourke
• WRT – Peter Winch and Poonam Narkar
• Sustainable Community Planning – Bob Brown
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 2
WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Community Development Director Dina Tasini opened the meeting by welcoming attendees and giving
an overview of the meeting purpose and goals. Christine O’Rourke gave an overview of the meeting
agenda and a presentation on the General Plan update process; concerns voiced in the November
Housing I workshop and survey; Housing Element requirements; strategies to meet the Town’s Regional
Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) of 639 units; State law and HCD guidelines for housing opportunity
sites; and the framework the project team developed to identify housing opportunity sites.
Peter Winch and Poonam Narkar from WRT then presented the housing opportunity sites and models
that were developed to illustrate conceptual massing and give community members a sense of building
scale. The models did not show architectural detail. A polling question was posed after each site to
gauge participants’ support for the development concept and to provide a springboard for further
discussion in the breakout room.
Next, Christine described the rezoning proposal for each area and identified potential sites for the
Housing Element site inventory. She provided direction for the breakout room exercise and then opened
the breakout rooms to which participants were randomly assigned. A facilitator was assigned to each
breakout room. There were approximately six attendees in each breakout room.
The presentation slides and a video recording of the workshop was posted on the General Plan Update
website at createtiburon2040.org.
Live Poll
1. Tiburon Blvd. East Corner: What do you think about the corner development concept?
(multiple choice)
• I could support it – (17/26) 65%
• It should provide more housing units – (3/26) 12%
• It should provide fewer housing units – (7/26) 27%
• I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (0/26) 0%
• I prefer no new development (2/26) 8%
2. Tiburon Blvd. East Midblock: What do you think about the midblock development concept?
(multiple choice)
• I could support it – (14/24) 58%
• It should provide more housing units – (5/24) 21%
• It should provide fewer housing units – (7/24) 29%
• I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (1/24) 4%
• I prefer no new development (0/24) 0%
3. Tiburon Blvd. and Beach Rd. West: What do you think about this development concept?
(multiple choice)
• I could support it – (19/24) 79%
• It should provide more housing units – (4/24) 17%
• It should provide fewer housing units – (4/24) 17%
• I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (0/24) 0%
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 3
• I prefer no new development (0/24) 0%
4. Downtown – Main St.: What do you think about this development concept? (multiple choice)
• I could support it – (9/24) 38%
• It should provide more housing units – (4/24) 17%
• It should provide fewer housing units – (7/24) 29%
• I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (4/24) 17%
• I prefer no new development (1/24) 4%
5. Cove Shopping Center: What do you think about this development concept? (multiple choice)
• I could support it – (9/25) 36%
• It should provide more housing units – (4/25) 16%
• It should provide fewer housing units – (6/25) 24%
• I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (4/25) 16%
• I prefer no new development (4/25) 16%
6. Reed School Site: What do you think about this development concept? (multiple choice)
• I could support it – (20/26) 77%
• It should provide more housing units – (2/26) 8%
• It should provide fewer housing units – (1/26) 4%
• I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (2/26) 8%
• I prefer no new development (2/26) 8%
7. Tiburon Baptist Church: What do you think about this development concept? (multiple choice)
• I could support it – (16/26) 62%
• It should provide more housing units – (6/26) 23%
• It should provide fewer housing units – (1/26) 4%
• I prefer no new development over what is currently allowed – (3/26) 12%
• I prefer no new development (2/26) 8%
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARY
Approximately half of the meeting was devoted to gathering input from meeting participants through
facilitated small group discussions. Feedback was recorded in four breakout rooms on a virtual
whiteboard in response to the discussion prompts below (see appendix for images of virtual white
boards). The summary below provides a high-level overview of themes that emerged from the small
group discussions. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of breakout rooms in which the
referenced comment was expressed.
Small Group Discussion Prompts
What do you think of this development concept?
Are there any modifications you recommend?
What is the group’s preferred development concept?
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 4
Main Takeaways
Tiburon Blvd. East, Corner and Midblock Sites
• Midblock buildings should ideally also have street level commercial/retail uses fronting Tiburon
Blvd. (4)
• Architecture needs to be considered and is important to how the development will fit in to the
surrounding area; design standards are very important (4)
• Density/height is appropriate (4)
• Buildings are too large or too high (1)
• Step back the top floor further to reduce its visibility (1)
• Roofline and building height should be varied (1)
• Traffic impacts and access to Tiburon Blvd. need to be considered (3)
• Need to address flooding and sea level rise (1)
• Views need to be considered (1)
Tiburon Blvd and Beach Rd. West
• Proposed density is appropriate and in scale with existing buildings (2)
• 4 stories could be integrated into the development to add more housing vary the roofline (1)
• The Post Office site would also be good for this scale of development (1)
• Access from Juanita allows the building to address Tiburon Boulevard better (1)
• Need to address flooding and sea level rise (1)
• Views need to be considered (1)
Downtown – Main St.
• Traffic impacts and access from Juanita Lane need to be considered (1)
• Historic preservation is important and may render development infeasible (3)
• Main Street is narrow and a third floor may overwhelm the streetscape if not sufficiently
setback (1)
• Must maintain integrity and charm of the area (2)
• Noise could be an issue (1)
• Views need to be considered (1)
Cove Shopping Center
• Parking and circulation is already an issue here (4)
• Existing amount of commercial square footage needs to be preserved (3)
• Traffic impacts need to be considered (2)
• Potential access from Tiburon Blvd. should be considered (1)
• This is a great site for workforce housing and/or because it is near 101 (2)
• This is not a good site for housing (1)
• Views need to be considered (1)
Reed School Site
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 5
• Stepped up town homes are appropriate for the site; consistent with existing multifamily
housing in the area (3)
• Great site for housing for teachers; also, police and firefighters (2)
• This site is not very visible and could be considered for greater density (1)
• Traffic impacts need to be considered (1)
• Views need to be considered (2)
Tiburon Baptist Church
• This is a great site for housing because it is close to 101 (1)
• Building height needs to be appropriate for the site (1)
• Would be ideal if church could remain (1)
• Views need to be considered (1)
Housing Unit Capacity Tallies
Each small group was asked to identify their preferred development concept for each site and
associated housing unit capacity (capacities reflect the low end of the density range as per HCD’s “safe
harbor” guideline). Each group was challenged to meet the total very low, low, and moderate-income
housing need of 400 units on the combined sites. A summary of the unit counts and totals is provided
below. “N/A” means the group did not have time to discuss the site. Additional detail is provided in the
virtual white board images in the appendix.
Site Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Tiburon Blvd East Corner 66 54 48 66
Tiburon Blvd East Midblock 19 26 26 26
Tiburon Blvd and Beach Rd West 134 134 134 N/A
Main Street 12 8 16 N/A
Reed School Site 58 60 58 N/A
Cove Shopping Center 60 60 60 0
Tiburon Baptist Church 64 64 64 64
ADUs 27 27 27 27
TOTAL 440 458 433 N/A
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 6
APPENDIX
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 7
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 8
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 9
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 10
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 11
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 12
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 13
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 14
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 15
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 16
Tiburon General Plan Update – Housing Workshop II 17
Housing II Survey Results | 1
Summary of Housing II Survey Results
As of Survey Close on April 20, 2022
238 survey responses
55
28
23
12
101
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
No housing should be developed at this site
It should eliminate one floor of residential units
It should provide more housing units by adding an
additional floor
It should provide more housing units by eliminating
ground floor commercial use
I could support it
Downtown Tiburon Blvd East Corner: What do you think about this
development concept? (select all that apply)
46
30
23
19
102
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
No housing should be developed at this site
It should include ground-floor commercial use
It should eliminate one floor of residential units
It should provide more housing units by adding
an additional floor
I could support it
Downtown Tiburon Blvd East Midblock: What do you think
about this development concept? (select all that apply)
Housing II Survey Results | 2
44
17
31
112
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
No housing should be developed at this site
It should eliminate one floor of residential units
It should provide more housing units by adding anadditional floor
I could support it
Downtown Tiburon Blvd West Midblock: What do you think about this
development concept? (select all that apply)
48
40
15
25
101
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
No housing should be developed at this site
It needs to preserve the historical facades of existing
buildings
It should eliminate one floor of residential units
It should provide more housing units by adding an
additional floor
I could support it
Downtown Main Street: What do you think about this development
concept? (select all that apply)
Housing II Survey Results | 3
116
25
8
23
54
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
No housing should be developed at this site
It should provide ground floor commercial use for all
buildings
It should eliminate one floor of residential units above
the commercial use
It should provide more housing units by adding an
additional floor above the commercial use
I could support it
Cove Shopping Center Site: What do you think about this
development concept? (select all that apply)
63
21
41
91
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No housing should be developed at this site
It should fewer housing units
It should provide more housing units
I could support it
Reed School Site: What do you think about this development
concept? (select all that apply)
128
24
27
69
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
No housing should be developed at this site
It should fewer housing units
It should provide more housing units
I could support it
Tiburon Baptist Church: What do you think about this development
concept? (select all that apply)
Housing II Survey Results | 4
54
3
25
4
145
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Other
Tiburon business owner
Employee of a Tiburon business
Belvedere resident
Tiburon resident
I am a:
0 5
25
63 57
30 25
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Under 21 21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80 or over
Your age group:
2
11
18
22
24
33
52
59
113
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Facebook/Instagram
Housing Workshop
Other
Create Tiburon 2040 website
Town of Tiburon website
Email from the Town of Tiburon
Tiburon Talk
The Ark
Word of mouth
How did you hear about this survey?
Housing II Survey Results | 5
Survey Comments
Stay away from downtown and east tiburon Blvd keep housing west of mar west
More density that creates more traffic, less parking, more waste products will only create a less desirable place
to live and a lower quality of life. Please leave this lovely town alone and don't ruin it's charm
Too many additional housing for such a small town! Too much traffic
Too much housing. We can't even provide enough water for the existing housing. This shouldn't even be
considered until we have ample water.
Again, parking needs to be considered. As well as public transportation. In these plans, please include more
green spaces and parks/recreation centers, as well as community gardens, green belts with fruiting trees for
people who reside in densely populated buildings. In the commercial spaces, please plan for more groceries /
specialty marts , as well as theaters and concert/event sites that would make Tiburon a lively and exciting
destination for people to visit.
Please contact all property owners in question. I have heard from several in the community that sites under
development haven't even been vetted with the owners. This is quite troubling.
I think this mandate is ridiculous. Firstly, our water supply can't support these additional units.
Also the density added to already dense areas will change the nature and feel of our community.
No new housing should be built.
Traffic sounds horrible water and pollution problems
We should focus on adding density in commercial areas like downtown. Other sites are all residential in nature
and have a much bigger impact on traffic especially the COVE which even at the moment the traffic into that
parking lot is a problem in certain times. I can't imagine how it might be if you add a housing development into
the same entrance.
I am strongly opposed to considering The Cove Shopping Center for further development of any sort. Parking
and traffic is already a real mess and adding housing would make it worse. Also, Nugget has FINALLY
provided a viable local market that is highly successful. This should NOT be disrupted. It took 15 years to get
a viable and thriving market in there.
Furthermore, this area is low lying and subject to flooding. Yes, there are pumps and improvements, but sea
level rise will make this site untenable for further development and expansion. This site should be left "as is"
from a usage standpoint. Trying to develop housing here would be an unmitigated traffic and management
disaster.
Tiburon Baptist Church should not be on the list. It is a thriving institution and has been serving the community
for 61 years and plans to be perpetually into the future.
Tiburon Baptist Church property should be removed from the list
Where are you going to put the cars!!!! The traffic on Tiburon Blvd is already a mess! These ideas are stupid!
The town should resist the state mandate with all means possible because, due to the topography of the
peninsula, Tiburon lacks infrastructure to support additional housing units in the numbers suggested. Traffic on
Tiburon boulevard is unbearable today. Housing sites on Tiburon boulevard would only make it worse.
What worries me most about any of this development is what the increased density will do to the traffic on
Tiburon Blvd. Where are the provisions in all of this to handle the increased transportation needs/demands on
the ONLY way to downtown. There are already times of day where the traffic is so heavy that the road is
practically impassable. I already order my comings and goings to avoid those times of day. Unless you solve
the traffic issues NO increased density should be put on the table. After that, build away!!! I do understand the
need to add this housing. BUT TRAFFIC ISSUES SOLVED FIRST!!!
Housing II Survey Results | 6
Please do not make any plans for the property of Tiburon Baptist Church. Let them continue to do work and
ministry in Marin County from right where they are.
Tiburon Baptist Church has been for 61 years and remains a vibrant, thriving Christian community whose
mission is to call Marin and beyond to live in the fullness of life through Jesus. Throughout its life, the church
has been an active member of Tiburon and Marin communities, opening its facilities to Tiburon voters, AA, Boy
Scouts, and various other nonprofit organizations. For years, the church’s members have volunteered and
supported Open Door, Gilead House, San Quentin inmates, Marin Convalescent Home, and a number of other
worthy causes. Despite the epidemic, church membership, participation in worship and small groups, and
finances have remained strong. The church has taken good care of its facilities, which should serve the
church’s needs well for the indefinite future. The church has no plans to sell or develop the property and fully
expects to continue to use its facilities to pursue its mission into eternity. (24 instances of the same comment)
The church facility on this site is active and adds value to Tiburon. It needs to be deleted from the list of
proposed sites.
Are you planning to condemn any of these properties? Hope not. Are you planning to pay market value for
these properties or offer incentives for developers to do so? Planning to raise taxes for this?
I am quite confused why The Tiburon Baptist Church would be on this list. The church is one of the few in the
town and has a strong community and congregation. It also has no plans of going away and will hopefully
thrive into the distant future. Thank you.
Tiburon Baptist Church has been an active church for 61 years. It is active today. The building and grounds are
well maintained. This site should be completely removed from consideration.
adding extra housing or re-zoning next to a school, church or the small cove shopping center is not
appropriate and it’s ridiculous to even consider these options. Please remove these options from the list !
Our family has been attending Tiburon Baptist Church (TBC) since 2008. Our children have grown up in this
church and were all baptized in this church. Our family, as well as many others, are active and involved
members. I help to lead worship, our children also help with this on occasion and we are all involved in Bible
Studies or a Life Group. I am currently a deacon and my husband was a deacon for 3 years, chaired the
deacons and is now the church Treasurer. TBC is alive and well! We are thriving! And TBC is a very important
part of our lives as a family. Our membership and participation are a priority as a family. TBC reaches people
in and around TIburon and should most definitely be removed from this list.
Tiburon Baptist Church is a vibrant, active faith community in the Town. It should not be considered for
housing.
If the town decides to force a church that has no intention of relocating to become housing, we will soon get
unwelcome national news coverage and ridicules.
I'm confused by the Tiburon Baptist Church suggestion. My understanding is they have no plans to leave.
How can their property be developed?
Tiburon Baptist Church should be removed from this list and plans all together.
No building should be forced upon Tiburon Baptist Church.
Rezone existing apartment complexes to allow more units, and floors. just doing this will over meet the
requirement and will be decades until it gets built. Make sure architecture blends into the town. should all look
like what was proposed at the Baptist center. Think about housing types which will effect demographics and
traffic, and strain the town even further. Make sure you plan for climate change. be smart and don't build in the
flood zone
More housing is important but increasing the traffic on Tiburon Blvd is a nightmare for current residents.
With more housing congestion issues need to be addressed for down town tib as well as tib blvd
Housing II Survey Results | 7
It’s time to make downtown more appealing with some modern spaces, such as live/work units above and
parking below, instead of parking lots. There is no reason to have a parking lot without a building above it.
The traffic is a complete mess already. High priority should be close access to freeway.
Tiburon Baptist Church is one of few places of worship in Tiburon. It serves the congregation and the
community. It is a good neighbor and works to make the community better. It was recently refreshed with an
abundance of building improvements designed to allow the congregation to improve on it's service to the
community and beyond.
It strikes me that there are many other basic considerations that need to be addressed before choosing sites
for an additional 600+ housing units. Before any development of any additional housing occurs, planning
commissions must satisfactorily address the following: 1) water availability and affordability for the existing and
potential new residents (current residents are already being told to shut off and/or ration water and are being
charged exorbitant rates), 2) energy availability (elimination of blackouts) and affordability, 3) traffic planning
and construction (this should include safety considerations around having only one main artery to highway 101
during emergency/evacuation situations as well as consideration of available parking near public spaces and
near public transportation such as the Ferry); 4) close proximity/availability of key resources such additional
police/fire department resources, schools, urgent care facilities, groceries, pharmacies, gas or charging
stations, and any other needs for a more highly populated community. While I understand that the state has
mandated additional housing, not all areas are created equal and appropriate consideration/planning must be
given before increasing population density on a narrow peninsula with limited access to key resources
necessary for sustaining a larger population.
I have been a member of Tiburon Baptist Church for several years now and am part of that church and believe
in their mission to be a positive light in the community. I strongly support the municipality and their search for
locations for new housing but TBC needs to be part of the long term community development rather than be
simply a lot designated for development.
How much retail space is needed? Pay attention to mix of retail and residences to avoid waste of space stores
that sell luxury goods and things we don't need.
Traffic for emergency purposes must be considered and is something to think about when realizing Tiburon’s
infrastructure cannot handle more automobile traffic. A hazard waiting to happen!
Tiburon needs to resist the Newsome scourge. These high density monstrosities will destroy the character of
our Town. Time to fight back and say No!
Needs to be incorporated with the full 2040 plan and include more mobility options. Should have electric
charging stations and really focus on scooters and e-bikes and other similar ways to get around.
Remove the cove and the church !
Remove these locations ! It’s rdidiculous
Thé Tiburón BLVD is already very congested and any more traffic will be a huge burden on the résidants near
downtown. Thanks
Create workforce housing for people working for the town, at our schools, Tiburon businesses, etc
The addition of housing to the Tiburon Blvd East site would be an enormous boon to the town in general. That
site is currently an eyesore and not utilized to its full potential. It is not a welcome entry to our downtown, and a
mixed use development would bring needed foot traffic to downtown businesses and is well positioned to
transit. Regardless of housing mandates, I think this would be a benefit to our community.
Use the CVS , and bank sites east side of Tiburon Blvd.
Use the TIb. Pensul. Club. Property.
Housing II Survey Results | 8
The parking an traffic capacity at reed school and cove is already at its limits. Squeezing in units at close
proximity to this extremely busy sites will significantly add up to the problem and will make navigating a
nightmare for the new residents, old residents and the whole town.
Traffic is the main issue for all of these ideas. Tiburon Blvd is already a mess for much of the day. How will the
traffic issue be mitigated with any of these developments.
Good ideas. I think this housing would blend in well with the town.
Tiburon Blvd, cannot deal with more traffic, especially if there's a fire and everyone needs to evacuate. Sue
the state to find additional housing requirement. Deem the area an animal habitat as Woodside did.
The proposed over crowding in Tiburon is not safe due to the one road in and one road out nature of the
peninsula that we live on. Over crowding our town will ruin the beauty, esthetic, and serene nature of the town.
It will cause increased traffic, congestion, fire safety issues, increase crime, reduce parking and many other
unintended consequences. We paid a lot to live here and don’t want to live on top of each other.
As a community we need to stop with the NIMBY mentality and invite more people to our beautiful town. This
will help revitalize the dying downtown area.
Multiple story buildings great as long as they don’t shadow neighbors or cut sunlight, or reduce existing views
of immediate neighbors
Because of terrible traffic now and severe water shortage, we cannot have more housing.
I have been a member of Tiburon Baptist Church for 40+ years and it has been my spiritual home and church
family. We reach out to the community, provide many services and ministries. It is also one of the only Baptist
churches in the area. I don't understand how you can consider even developing our property.
The Tiburon Baptist Church has been at this location for 61 years and my understanding is that they are not in
any hurry to leave.
Traffic situation in Tiburon is already not good. There are only two lanes in and out of the large part of the
peninsula. Building more dense housing only makes sense in down town, assuming whoever is going to live in
these luxury (let's be real!) condos, is going to be either local/retired or hopefully working nearby. Then we can
hope it won't make it much worse. Building in already dense traffic areas such as Cove and Bel Air would make
traffic situation there worse and would defeat the purpose and new residents won't be able to get to their job in
the morning. Baptist church site sounds best in terms of connection to both 101 and downtown and not making
traffic situation much worse.
It's disappointing that our Town has once again failed us. Other towns continue to fight the ridiculous demands
for increased density on their small communities, while ours surrenders once again. The higher density
requirements imposed on Tiburon are completely unreasonable and we should be using every legal means at
our disposal to fight back. Unfortunately, our representatives only respond to corporate developers and a
small minority of our community who are determined to turn our lovely, quaint town into the same cookie cutter,
corporate, over-commercialized model that has ruined America. Nice work.
I’ve been a Tiburon resident since 1975 and enjoyed the small community ethos and care for it. It is regrettable
that our valued public servants are unable to reside nearby for a natural sense of mutual trust , proximity in
event of emergency ( fire , police, school personnel) and simply identifying with the community as m “my home
too” so investing in caring of towns physical needs as well as being an integral part of serving / participating
community of “US” or ‘buy in’.
Painful and regrettable that we as a people lean toward NIMBY as, “ I now have mine you figure out how to
get yours”. Helpful to learn to appreciate everyone’s investment and contribution and role in making us a more
healthy community.
Housing II Survey Results | 9
Definitely not Tiburon Baptist!!..This is a place of worship!..My family has had memorials there and attended
church services!..This option shout NOT be on list!
Thanks
We need to build more diverse housing, and not be afraid to increase density along all major roads. More
people = healthier downtown. People do not directly equate to traffic. School Buses and more ferry service
should help
I am alarmed by the proposed plans and that this has even made it to this stage without dissent from smart-
minded people. The town has no right to design buildings and propose them to the public with no consent from
the private landowners. One cannot walk into town hall and propose building plans for a plot of land they do not
own without having documentation of ownership. This has to be the case for towns and cities as well. Who is
fronting the costs for these builds? This seems like a senseless waste of money spent and the people who
created this clearly have no idea of the charms of this small town nor the traffic congestion that already
plagues us. To think this money could have been used to fix things in need of repair such as our rising tide
issue.
This is a lot of wishful thinking and no provisions for parking. The neighborhood around The Cove will be
decimated is something like this goes in.
I worship and volunteer at Tiburon Baptist Church. Our church is vital to many families and worshipers from all
across Marin. Our church property is not at all suitable for consideration for development for housing.
I think traffic and parking issues need to be addressed very clearly. Tiburon Boulevard is already a parking lot
during key commute and school times. The Blackfield/Tiburon Boulevard turn often gets backed up as cars
wait for other cars to turn into the Cove; this situation would be made untenable if the Cove was redesigned to
accommodate 70-90 units. Perhaps recirculating the plans with more details on parking and traffic abatement
would make it easier for the community to understand how these concepts would actually work (or not).
I strongly support the proposed downtown developments. I strongly opposed the proposed development at the
Cove, which would be inconsistent with the character and functionality of the neighborhood and would impose
significant hardships on existing residents.
The downtown sites, close to the vibrant "heart" of Tiburon and - critically - close to transit make far and away
the most sense. Adding more residential units, ie more people, would likely also increase the ability for retail
businesses to survive and thrive, adding revitalization on top of housing. In contrast, the Cove site would
create further traffic and parking issues at an already difficult intersection where traffic already gets backed up
in circulation; takes away some vibrancy from the only shopping option on the west side of town / changes an
existing "good" site vs. making use of empty space elsewhere in town; and in no way fits with the "character of
the neighborhood", a huge push that exists in Bel Aire. Residents are de facto prohibited from adding second
stories, or even half stories, so building 2-3 story apartment and town-house in the zone seems wildly out of
place
Don’t overbuild Tiburon. This is why we live here. The cove shopping center is already congested. More
housing will make it feel like a strip mall center. This is exactly why I don’t live I. Other parts of California.
Tiburon is a one lane road in and out and the traffic is already bad. Tiburon should be fighting with the state to
put increased housing in areas of Marin that can handle it.
We all live in homes that were built because the existing residents of Tiburon permitted expansion of their town
and welcomed new residents. We owe it to the next generation to support growth.
Specifically Cove Shopping center provides much needed services to most of Belvedere Tiburon. Any
construction project as imagined here, will result in massive retail and business disruptions and a loss of
grocery options will impact the many seniors negatively. Concerns with having units that may impact Reed
school is also an issue.
Our community already has a horrible situation with traffic. The water rationing has begun and can't support
larger population. Additional housing can be provided in areas outside of congested areas such as Tiburon.
Housing II Survey Results | 10
Cove shopping center is absolutely the worst solution. The traffic on Blackfield for Bel Aire Schools is already a
mess. This would endanger children biking to school.
I live in the Bel Aire area and the with the timing of the school arrival and dismissal, the traffic concerns around
this area would be drastically negatively impacted. The area already is at maximum traffic capacity with the
commercial business traffic flow due to the Cove Shopping Center.
I would be interested in understanding the impact of ADUs in lieu of some of this development.
The Cove Shopping center is already PACKED and Blackfield is a nightmare as is. Downtown needs
revitalization and adding housing/commercial can help with that effort
Adding housing units in any of these locations without addressing the traffic problems is a non-starter
regardless of location. Building at the Cove would be a HUGE negative for those who live in Bel Aire and up
Blackfield Drive...and for students who attend Bel Air school. I'm surprised there aren't proposals to expand
existing multi-family structures in town.
The Cove is already a huge mess getting into from any direction. Backups regularly- not suitable. Downtown
and Reed School areas seem logical based on current development, lack of people going to downtown, and
open space.
The Cove shopping center should be completely eliminated from this plan as there is already a capacity issue
handling traffic in and out of the surrounding neighborhood due to general daily traffic at the shopping center
and peak hours during school drop off/pick up. The bank of America and sites in downtown Tiburon are optimal
for such a development as the lot size allows for multi-use development.
The vast bulk of the new units ( 80-90%) must be built as close/within the downtown as possible. This is the
nexus of public transportation, given the ferry services available, and the Paradise Drive option to get out onto
highway 101 for N/S auto traffic. Would also lead to a rejuvenation of Tiburon's downtown. Higher
residential buildings much more feasible there as all those hillside/hilltop condo views would not be blocked!
The CVS store could easily be placed on the ground floor of a 2-5 story residential building.
The Cove shopping center is a very busy complex and should not be removed when there are many other
locations that are open or have low usage. The Cove supports a large area of residential homes and it would
create a great hard ship on the elderly people in the area that rely on it. There is a small elder living facility
behind it and the localized area is full of elderly people. Please don't remove the Cove Shopping Center.
important to keep commercial spaces for grocery and other community needs, important that public
transportation is part of the development, important that environmental green building practices are part of this
plan (solar, energy efficient, low water use, green materials)
The Cove shopping center is a gem, especially Nugget Market. Any housing here would exasperate traffic
jams from cars entering and leaving the shopping center. At times Northbound traffic on Blackfield road backs
up to Tiburon Blvd, as cars try to enter and exit the shopping center. Likewise, Southbound traffic on Blackfield
road backs up over a block, as cars try to enter and exit the shopping center.
My thoughts with both options near schools, Reed and Cove are the lunatic congestion.
Supplementally Cove would be a huge loss to surrounding areas as a hub for shopping, coffee, USPS,
supermarkets and would mean everyone going to Safeways instead of walking and supporting local small
business
Development downtown and in downtown adjacent areas should be the priority because of access to
transportation, access to the path, walkability and access to businesses.
Please don’t take away our Cove Shopping Center. Nuggets and Peete’s and Sweet Things are three of the
most loved stores in Tiburon. And the charming neighborhood of Bel Air would be very negatively impacted by
traffic.
Housing II Survey Results | 11
The Cove shopping center is not a good option.
This is an extremely busy intersection with narrow streets, and traffic to and from BelAire school.
It is difficult to enter and exit this area, dangerous for the children riding bikes to and from school, and is also
dangerous for pedestrians.
Anything above two stories would significantly alter the feeling of tiburon to its detriment.
Cove Shopping Center has traffic problems as it is. Multi story buildings would detract from the Bel Aire
neighborhood.
This project will destroy the essence of Tiburon.
I’m against all of it!
More housing, more means more people, means more infrastructure needs, means more global warming,
means worsening life for all.
Who is responsible for this edict? We need to vote them out of office as this is very unpopular and not in the
interests of the people who live here. If you doubt this put it to a vote/referendum.
Infrastructure is absolutely not suitable for added housing. Will end up being a horrific nightmare in any kind of
emergency situation. Downtown is the only place available or way north on 101 closer to Novato. Not in
Southern Marin.
Traffic is always a consideration. Additional housing would allow residents to access GG Transit as well as the
ferry system. They would also close to a library, post office and grocery store as well as restaurants and
entertainment. This would create a more vibrant downtown. The Cove site is not desireable due to the flood
issues and the plan to seemingly buikd iver the East Creek which is the discharge site for the Cove Watershed
to the Bay, gathering water stormwater from the surrounding hills and neighborhood. Somehow the planners
have missed this important point. Trying to replace a vibrant shopping center and large marjet with a smaller
one seems ludicrous. This would force mire traffic on Tib Blvd, to go to the downtown to shoo at a large
grocery store. The Reed school site should stay a school as it serves the community and there are no other
sites downtown. Children and their education are an inportant part of the community.
The Cove Shopping Center should NEVER be considered as a building option. It is already an intense traffic
choke point multiple times/day with Cove shopping and Bel Air Neighborhood traffic AND Bel Aire School
traffic. It is impossible to add 70-90 units at that choke point and have a safely functioning intersection. The
Tiburon Planning Commission voted to prevent a Round Table Pizza from opening in the Milanos space at the
Cove a few years ago because Round Table intended to have delivery cars and pick up service and that was
going to create too much traffic to be safe. Adding cars for 70-90 units would dwarf the Round Table problem!
Also, the Cove is a known flood hazard so how are we going to build new 3 story construction in a flood zone?
Also, and perhaps most obvious, why isn't the CVS shopping parking lot being considered as an option? It is
vacant and virtually unused 365 days/year.
What is mean failed to be explained is why we have to have this much housing. It seems ridiculous to change
an entire town when most people will be against it.
Why was there only 1 open lot on this survey. Tiburon should consider developing more open space vs higher
density. City hall and Chase and CVS are very inefficient uses of land which should be considered as well.
The cove shopping site is a nonstarter as it would not have parking for the commercial businesses on the
ground floor, would be built over a creek that drains the watershed to the bay, and would eliminate a thriving
and busy commercial center that is necessary to the surrounding and greater community. The height of the
proposed buildings also is not in character with the surrounding neighborhood.
Housing II Survey Results | 12
My main concern is about traffic on Tiburon Blvd., which is already a problem. Any additional housing past the
Cove is simply going to add to it.
This is going to be a nightmare. No matter what location you select, neighbors and residents will object and
lawsuits will likely be filed. The fact is that Tiburon does not have vacant land to support more and more
housing developments. Eliminating popular and useful services like shopping centers and main street should
be avoided completely. Vacant lands should be prioritized as there is no existing service or commodification
that would be eliminated. I also think it is extremely unrealistic and disingenuous to refer to any of these
proposals as “low-income”. This is one of the most affluent places in the world, and the residents and members
of the public recognize that even if local/state agencies do not.
Why can't Tiburon hold public meetings in Town Hall instead of this mandatory Zoom and online nonsense?
Other town's and the County do, what's wrong with Tiburon?
Get some guts and tell ABAG to go to hell. The same way town's and cities told ICE to shove it.
If you can't represent the vast majority of people here who are against this, resign and go into the private
sector.
The traffic is already too much at the cove and Parking is consistently full. It’s a very poor choice for additional
multi family housing. Plus there is additional traffic with bel air school drop off and pick up. And finally, I
wouldn’t build housing and take away the views in downtown.
The Cove shopping center is already surrounded by condos and multi family housing. There is already traffic
and lack of parking at the shopping center. And during school drop off and pick up the traffic is already
excessive. The location simply is too saturated for more housing. And I would not build new housing and
comprise the views or the skyline of downtown -- it's part of the attractiveness and charm of tiburon.
The Cove plan won't fix the terrible traffic backups at that intersection and would lose most of the parking that
now exists at the shopping center.
This entire development concept is a very bad idea. Tiburon can not support an additional 639 housing units.
This is going to be a nightmare. There are other "opportunity zones" outside of Tiburon that can withstand this
type of project. The logistical ramifications of adding this many dwellings into such a small area will be very
negative. Please do not ruin Tiburon with this project. Thank you
Biking is already dangerous enough. Too many cars on the road. Our roads cannot sustain it. Already at a
breaking point
This amount of housing will disrupt traffic, create chaos, and mostly, be a hazard in case of an emergency
evacuation!
We should focus on developing senior housing downtown within walking distance to shops, restaurants, post
office and ferry. The most logical parcel is CVS/Chase Bank. Giving empty nesters an opportunity to remain
in the community and allow young families to move into larger homes on the hills.
Comments on Tiburon Blvd East Corner Site
keep it commercial
What is the plan for parking for residences and for people to patronize the commercial establishments
Should not look like a commercial development! This is not Larkspur, or San Rafael. If you have to build,
make it blend in to the existing architecture. For example, have it look like the Cove apartments, or the
Housing II Survey Results | 13
ones on mar west street. Also traffic is a big problem. Better to rezone existing housing developments
and allow them to add additional units / stories. Will make it less likely to be developed anyways, and
also blend in more
Need to increase access in and out of town, one road in and out will lead to congestion
Only if traffic issues are solved on tib blvd could this make sense
Traffic and congestion is already a problem along Tiburon Boulevard and any concentrated development
in this corridor would exacerbate the problem. There are also other concerns around water availability
(given residents are already being told to shut off water and being charged exorbitant rates). The
periodic PG&E black outs are also a problem and need to be addressed before any further population
expansion. Before any of this proposed development occurs the various government departments need
to resolve current issues regarding traffic, water availability, electricity, etc.. Furthermore, I don't
understand why consideration is not being given to more development on the back side of the peninsula
as opposed to the existing already congested Tiburon Boulevard corridor.
First, Tiburon Blvd cannot handle additional housing downtown. The traffic is a nightmare every day of
the week. Second, its a dangerous precident for municipalities to design and pursue building on land
that is privately owned.
This seems viable, and I have no further opinion about this location.
Downtown with access to transit and making the downtown more vibrant is excellent
I am very concerned about the increase in traffic if all of these proposed housing additions in downtown
tiburon were constructed. Traffic is already very bad. I would NOT want to see all of the poposed
downtown sites developed.
Comments on Tiburon Blvd East Mid-Block Site
Again, parking needs to be considered. Also, in this and other plans, include more green spaces and
parks, as well as community gardens for people who reside in these densely populated buildings.
Congestion concerns with tib blvd
I could support it, IF all-electric or better net zero construction and use
Where's the parking? Maybe fewer commercial sites/more residential
Four stories seems excessive for this location, perhaps just one or two stories would be more suitable.
Downtown with access to transit and making the downtown more vibrant is excellent. More commercial
space is exciting too
I would not want to see this developed for dense housing along with the other proposed downtown
sites.
Housing II Survey Results | 14
Comments on Tiburon Blvd West Mid-Block Site
Again, parking needs to be considered. Also, in this and other plans, include more green spaces and
parks, as well as community gardens for people who reside in these densely populated buildings
Again, parking needs to be considered.
This looks a little nicer, but should look like a small town feel
Only if traffic issues are addressed
I could support it, only if all-electric or net zero. This one doesn't provide much housing,
Not sure exactly where this is. We will not be able to drive everyone on to transit. Parking must be
considered.
More light and air should be incorporated. It looks pretty massive and out of place
I oppose the development of all of the proposed dense housing sites in downtown tiburon. I am very
concerned about traffic, and also about having so much high density housing with so many floors in
what is basically 1 location broken down into 3 proposals
Unclear where this is. Addresses should be included or a clear map.
I worry about it impacting the already scarce parking for visiting downtown. If they added PUBLIC
parking spots in front, in addition to the parking garage for its residents, I would support it. I don't love
the idea of any housing being near downtown.
Comments on Main Street Site
Again, parking needs to be considered. Thinking about commercial, what about a theatre, concert venue,
some establishments that make Tiburon more of a destination and a draw, giving visitors and residents
more things to do, whether they arrive by car, bike, or ferry
would be open to some at this location depending on certain factors
Congestion concerns with tib blvd
It needs to preserve the historical facades of existing buildings,Other: The Tiburon waterfront and Main
Street should be preserved as public spaces and for retail, hospitality, parks and recreation. Adding
housing to this area would likely damage any existing sense of community with Tiburon/Belvedere and
likely be the end of many popular community activities such as Friday Nights on Main, Car Show, Boat
Show, XFestivals and community activities that are cherished/enjoyed by both our adult and youth
populations (likely due to noise/traffic complaints).
No development here, not enough housing to justify more construction.
This is a charming town because of what has been preserved. Multi-stroy buildings on such a small road
will look looming and cast shadows on the waterside restaurants and living spaces. Again, this is a
dangerous precident to design and pursue building on private property. This has clearly been developed
by people who do not live in town nor truely understand the town. Money wasted.
Who's going to buy all of this real estate? Seems very dense. Parking?
Housing II Survey Results | 15
1 or 2 stories would be more suitable for this location; 3 stories seems massive
Downtown with access to transit and making the downtown more vibrant is excellent. More commercial
space is exciting too
I don't like it because parking is already VERY LIMITED in the downtown area and even though there is a
parking garage for its residents, what about their guests? Plus I don't like the idea of changing the quaint
feeling of Main Street and ArK Row.
There is no way this would be considered low income, so it should not be considered low income
housing. This is essentially the development of multi million dollar condos at the expense of the defining
characteristics of downtown Tiburon
Comments on Cove Shopping Center Site
Again, parking needs to be considered. Is the grocery store parking on the Tiburon blvd. side? What
about adding rooftop gardens to some of the planned developments?
This area is already too congested
if owners approve of limited numbers
There is not enough parking at the cove. Its jammed pack and usually there are some unrented stores
already. And it floods. What are you guys thinking? you're out of your mind. Your mandated to add
housing on paper, but doesn't mean it will ever get built. We don't have to be stupid about this and take it
up the ass. We have lots of control over where these units are built. Make them add value to the town, not
be everyones worst nightmare. Must account for architecture style, Traffic, parking, unit size/ type which
will effect demographics and weather they will have children which will burden the roads and school
districts further.
Congestion concerns with tib blvd
Traffic is already unbearable. Terrible place for added housing!
I wonder where the parking is for the grocery store and other retail
This is already a very busy area especially during school days. We need the Nugget and other
businesses in the area and having more housing there is going to make it impossible for residents to drive
to work on busy mornings.
Again, private property. This is actually alarming what type of authority this small town thinks they posess
over landowners.
This would be a disaster for the neighborhood and those who use this shopping center. It's already over
subscribed and there are times when no parking is available
This shopping center provides important and useful resources for the community and should not be
replaced with housing; 3 stories would be too much regardless
Traffic into shopping center backs up into intersection already. Major upgrades needed.
Where is the parking located ? It should not remove the grocery store, which is necessary.
The shopping center is heavily trafficked with circulation an issue; it is an incredibly useful and necessary
retail space for the west side of Tiburon; and build up does not meet the character of the neighborhood
Housing II Survey Results | 16
Would create enormous traffic congestion at the NOW Congested TB/Blackfield/Greenwood Cove Rd
intersection!!
Terrible Idea. Absolutely Not! Nugget Market and others are used by surrounding neighborhoods .
there need to be sufficient parking for grocery store and commercial tenants
Parking, traffic flow in and out of cove and neighborhood, water table issues with underground parking
and liquefaction are issues
The current cove shopping center is one of the most loved retail spots in all of Tiburon with Nugget,
Peete’s and Sweet Things. Please don’t take that away! Plus Blackfield drive is already super busy with
Bel Air school, etc.
Traffic concerns especially with kids going to and from Bel Aire and to catch busses. Also the community
relies heavily on the local market, Nugget.
Completely absurd place for any new housing!!!
There is already too much traffic at this intersection already.
This is the BEST PLAN of ALL of them in my opinion!
This concept is completely out of character with the surrounding built environment. Not only would it
drastically increase traffic on an already extremely congested are with the shopping center and multiple
schools and neighborhoods nearby, but it would eliminate extremely convenient shopping amenities that
support the entire peninsula
There should be parking beneath all of the structures for retail customers.
Comments on Reed School Site
The school should save this land for future school use.
two story only.
no housing
Already too much traffic at this intersection, especially during school time
Congestion concerns with tib blvd
I would be concerned about high population density and traffic around an elementary school. The
commentary in the workshop materials regarding the declining school age population is more likely
attributed to the impact of COVID and extended public school closures. Many families moved out of the
area (either permanently or temporarily to more remote areas) or moved their children to private
schooling options during COVID. I would think that school age populations would increase if additional
housing were created on the peninsula (and assuming no more lockdowns/school closures which were
determined to be ineffective and detrimental to our youth on many levels).
I think it's a terrible idea. Having driven my daughter to Bel Air, it was a terrible experience. Just about
when everyone in the area wants to leave for work, this area from Cove to Bel Air gets gridlocked and
this creates self-reinforcing delays. I've spend countless hours being stuck in this neighborhood. New
residents just won't be able to make it out when they need to get to work.
Housing II Survey Results | 17
This is the most ridiculous idea yet . . the traffic at that corner is already horrendous. The people who
proposed this project are completely incompentent and are not paying any attention to the impact on
existing residents.
If mostly set aside for workforce housing
If this is infact public land then it is more promising then the others. Still, Tiburon Blvd cannot support
such additions due to traffic.
Don't see any parking here either…
I surprised at the thought of replacing this school with housing
This too will add to already terrible traffic congestion.
This seems like a feasible location for a development such as this. There are already multi family units in
close proximity and the rich people who live in expensive homes on the hill will not have their world
class views blocked by towering apartments
Comments on Tiburon Baptist Church Site
Again, parking needs to be considered. Also, in this and other plans, include more green spaces and
parks, as well as community gardens and fruiting trees for people who reside here?
The Church still exists. Has anyone seen if they are planning to leave?
No housing should be built on this site! The church provides great services to the community!
Tiburon Baptist Church is a great service to the community and should be left as it is. The church
building and it's respective land should be left out of these conciderations.
Should be removed from this list
I find it inconceivable that the city of Tiburon is actually considering tearing down a church to make
housing! There are people of faith in our community that value this church. The church provides
meaningful services to the local area.
How are you suggesting developing property where a church currently stands??
Congestion concerns with tib blvd
This area should be reserved for single family units or some of the more moderately priced housing.
As long as the needs of existing residents are taken into consideration, this could be a good
development site since it is near other multifamily dwellings, Tiburon Blvd is two lanes at this point and
also located across the street from the Cove Shopping Center.
Church as been there 60 + yearsand actively used by both congregants as place of worship as well as
community for meeting space including scouts , AA ,al anon, OA, fire department, marin symphony
auxiliary, ecumenical council of Tiburon Belvederechurches
Private property. Also, this will affect people's views who live on the hill behind. Looks atrocious.
Housing II Survey Results | 18
No! Tiburon Baptist Church is home to a large and thriving church community. A development on this
site would be highly inappropriate.
Unclear if these units would be accessed from Tiburon Blvd or Greenwood Road.
This is supposed to be removed from consideration
Needs to have an entrance off Tiburon Blvd, not have all the additional traffic routed down the
residential street.
should be no more than two stories, rendering on right looks like a fortress
I can’t quite tell what is being proposed, but have the same concern about adding so much high density
housing in downtown tiburon because of the traffic impact.
Existing homes viewing the bay will not have their view shed blocked. Tiburon blvd provides buffer for
apartments on the hill across blvd from baptist church, central location.
why not consider New St Hilary's site as well?
1
TIBURON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Housing and Diversity & Inclusion Elements
Focus Group Summary: EAH Residents
As part of the efforts to update the General Plan, including the Housing Element, The Town of
Tiburon has been conducting community outreach to engage with a wide range of residents and
employees about their experience with housing. The recent work, summarized in the present
memo, has focused on seniors and single women headed households, especially low- and
moderate-income residents, many of whom may be underrepresented in traditional outreach and
engagement processes.
The present memo summarizes the findings from three focus groups that took place in May and
June of 2022. Consultant staff worked closely with EAH Housing, the property management
company that operates three important senior residence complexes in Tiburon. EAH staff
members have been very helpful and supportive of the outreach efforts, organizing, scheduling,
and hosting the focus groups on site at their properties as well as facilitating door-to-door
outreach for the housing surveys that are also part of the overall outreach and engagement.
One focus group was held at Cecilia Place, an affordable housing development owned and
operated by EAH. Cecilia Place is located at 321 Cecilia Way. Four residents attended this focus
group held at Cecilia Place, at 10:00 am on Friday, May 27. The second focus group was held at
Bradley House, a former school that was converted into affordable housing. This property is also
owned and operated by EAH and is located at 101 Esperanza. Only one person was able to attend
this focus group. The interview was at 10:00 am on Friday, May 27. The third focus group was
held at The Hilarita, an affordable housing property for families and seniors. This property is
also owned and operated by EAH and is located at 100 Neds Way. Four seniors attended the
focus group conversation held at The Hilarita on June 3 at 10:00 am.
The methodology for these focus groups was to have a fairly informal discussion about housing
in Tiburon, centered on a few key simple questions: What has been your experience with housing
in Tiburon? What is working for you and your family with regarding to housing? What is not
working and what are the problems that have come up as a result? What ideas and
recommendations would you have for improvements? What have you heard about the Town’s
efforts regarding housing? What do you think about these efforts and what concerns do you
have? Additionally, for single women headed households, questions aimed to discern any
particular challenges, concerns, shared experiences and opportunities these residents have unique
to their demographic. Lastly, there were questions for a smaller discussion about diversity,
equity, and inclusion in Tiburon in a effort to also inform the work of the Diversity Inclusion
2
Task Force and the development of the Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Element. The questions
centered on participants’ experiences as newcomers to the Town, the degree of the sense of
welcoming, experiences and perceptions of racial discrimination, both interpersonal and
systemic, as with police interaction. Included in the discussion were questions about what
residents’ recommendations would be for improving equity and the sense of welcoming in
Tiburon. The full list of questions can be found at the end of the memorandum.
In general respondents were remarkably satisfied living in Tiburon. When asked about how
satisfied they are about living in Tiburon nearly all participants responded strongly positive
about their experience. They talked about the accessibility of amenities, the tranquil atmosphere,
their connectedness to neighbors and to Town activities and organizations, the beauty of the
natural environment and the waterfront views, and their appreciation for having found housing in
Tiburon. A big difference among respondents with regard to their experience with housing was
very evident between residents of different apartment complexes. One site reported being
exceptionally satisfied with their apartments, that while small, were in a great location in walking
distance to a grocery store, coffee shops, and other retail shops. They also reported not having
any unusually difficult issues with the apartments in terms of repairs, ongoing issues with
plumbing or other upkeep and maintenance. Conversely, participants living in other complexes
were quick to share their concerns with ongoing challenges and complaints with management of
their units. The present memo is not the forum to detail those issues, for several reasons.
However, it is useful to note some of these issues in general to inform the broader understand of
the context of housing in Tiburon, especially with regarding to populations of interest, including
seniors and women-headed household. There may be opportunities for the Town of Tiburon to
provide services and support to residents and apartment complex owners and managers to
improve maintenance practices, and in that respect some general overview of concerns can be
helpful. This overview is also helpful in planning for and management of forthcoming affordable
housing developments; using the findings of the focus groups as an opportunity to synthesize a
range of cautionary tales and best practices for senior housing in services, maintenance, design
and architecture (centering accessibility).
One important note to point out was the wide range of responsiveness and awareness of the
participants. There were a couple of participants who seemed limited in their engagement in the
conversation due to their advanced age. Conscious to not stigmatize seniors, this observation is
important to note because it speaks to the need for senior services and advocacy for seniors who
are not as capable of speaking for and advocating for themselves, their needs, and for
opportunities to improve their quality of life. Similarly, in the door-to-door outreach for
completing surveys, some respondents were clearly not sufficiently aware or capable of
discussions regarding housing. Lastly, there seemed to be differences between residents at
different site that had a class aspect to it. While the apartments are “affordable” some sites
seemed to be home to lower-income residents while others housed residents that seemed to have
a more comfortable status. Since they were not asked about income and wealth, this is only a
speculation. What seemed to indicate this most were the responses from seemingly “wealthier”
residents who resoundingly offered high praise for their housing, their apartment complex, the
connectedness to neighbors, the near-by amenities, and the high praise for life in Tiburon; they
3
were hard-pressed, for example, to readily identify class and racial tensions or incidents in the
Town. Only after more rapport was created further into the conversation did they begin to recall
incidents that affected friends and neighbors. In contrast, respondents in another focus groups
opened with strong critiques and concerns when asked what is working and what is not working
regarding housing. While these initial finding are compelling and informative, there is clearly an
opportunity to collect a larger sample from the same sites and across other sites to get a more
robust and complete picture of the experience of seniors with regard to housing in Tiburon.
Unlike the surveys, demographic information was requested of focus group participants, so data
such as income were not possible to include in this analysis. Additionally, assumptions about
age, estimated range to be 65-85, gender, race, and ethnicity were made by staff observations
and in a couple of instances based on information participants offered, unsolicited, as part of
their responses: “as a white person from the Midwest.” There were 9 participants in total. Six
were women, three were men. All the men were white and three of the women were women of
color including on US born Latina and one African American woman.
Below are several key questions that were asked in the focus groups followed by a summary of
the responses from all three sites to each question. Provided here are highlights of the discussion
and many of the key learning points gathered from the focus group conversations. The
memorandum regularly notes when a resident had a particular comment, observation, analysis, or
recommendation. In some instances, the group appeared to agree in others some voiced a
differing opinion. Mostly there seemed to be a high level of agreement among resident
comments such that the noted highlights attributed to one participant very often was the apparent
opinion of the majority or of the whole group.
How long have you been in Tiburon? What type of unit do you live in?
Many focus group participants were long-time residents of Tiburon, having lived in the town for
up to 40 years, but none of them is a born-and-raised resident. One participant had lived in
Tiburon for almost 60 years. On the other hand, two focus group attendees at had only lived in
Tiburon for less than 10 years. All participants reported having strong ties strong ties with the
community, and many having lived and/or worked in Marin County prior to moving to Tiburon.
Nearly all participants reported having moved to Tiburon in search of affordable housing and
found that opportunity in the EAH residents. Nearly all participants lived alone in small units,
typically studios. A couple lived with one to two other family members in one-bedroom
apartments. One participant lived with their child and grandchild. While most participants were
retirees, one resident at stated that they own a small business in town.
Some residents expressed frustration with having been at the complex for a long time. One
resident cited bad experiences with the property’s management, having been “kicked down” to a
“horrid” one-bedroom unit after their children had moved out. Because they worked multiple
4
jobs, they could never afford to move out. However, they would be interested in new units if the
level of affordability was the same.
One participant, someone who has been involved in housing advocacy, has been in Tiburon for
17 years but was originally from Santa Barbara before moving first to Marin than Tiburon. They
had originally moved due to
affordable housing, but for them,
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
housing was not as affordable as it
needed to be due to it being
determined based on the area’s
median income. They expressed
support for expanding affordable
housing as critical for the majority of employees who commute to Tiburon, with long and
difficult drives just to get to work. Most participants, to varying degrees of enthusiasm, support
the idea of increasing housing and high density, affordable housing in areas like downtown, but
nearly all mentioned a concern for managing increased traffic from new housing. The rationale
for supporting the housing was evidently a question of equity, fairness, and justice for service
workers. Nearly all of the respondents seemed to know and feel a sense of connection and thus
sympathy to service employees at
the retail shops they frequent, from
coffee shops to restaurants, as well
as teachers they know. It was a
sense of recognizing the
responsibility of Tiburon to do
more to support employees who
struggle with difficult commutes.
What do you like most about Tiburon?
Across all three focus groups, participants expressed positive feelings about Tiburon. Common
themes included accessibility and community connections. One resident noted that the
community is very accessible, with goods and services such as grocery stores located close by in
Tiburon and neighboring communities (Corte Madera, Mill Valley, etc.). Another resident
appreciated the Town’s sense of community, highlighting the different community activities and
feelings of safety. The community’s contribution to the library expansion was cited as an
example of the town’s sense of community. Participants noted that accessibility to goods and
services in the area were convenient. Others said enjoyed the town community with one
specifically arguing that there are a lot of activities and that it is easy to connect with other
people.
“I was a senior so I couldn’t afford any housing
anywhere in the Bay Area. So, I went on Craigslist and
I looked for low-income housing for seniors.”
“If you work by the hour here, you’re gonna have a
real tough time making ends meet if you’ve got a
family, or a home, or rent that you have to make, or
children in school.”
5
What are the housing challenges in town?
When answering this question, focus group participants were encouraged to first think about
their own experiences, but then also consider challenges that other residents may also face about
which they have heard or seen. Residents brought up anti-development sentiments and resistance
to change by homeowners as a challenge against affordable housing in Tiburon. One resident
commented, “People who own in Tiburon do not want to see any further development which will
diminish their assets.” Participants stated that they would prefer to see affordable housing for
service workers who commute into Tiburon (and Marin County overall) and for teachers. One
participant warned that residents’
attitude about potential new
residents being “people less than
them” will make building new
affordable housing difficult.One
resident stressed the need for
“balance” in Tiburon, the idea that
there should be greater
collaboration with lower-income
residents and a balance between the
needs of newcomers and those who
have lived in Tiburon for a long
time.
Traffic on Tiburon Boulevard was
another main concern raised by
residents. Even among residents with
strong affordable housing advocacy
sensibilities, the concern for highly
traffic generated from new development,
especially ones located in downtown,
was worrisome and seemed to cause
ambivalence about what housing production would look like, where it would be sited, and what
the impacts might be. Also mentioned was the high cost of living in Tiburon driving people to
community from neighboring towns in order to find affordable businesses. Additionally, there
were concerns expressed about the efforts to make Tiburon attractive to tourists, since greater
tourism could also make the Town more unaffordable as well as increase traffic.
Participants expressed concern and sympathy for the difficult life of service employees and the
potential shortage of service workers due to the industry’s low pay and the area’s high costs of
living. The small business owner expanded on this by stating that communities of color are
disproportionately impacted by this issue due to them comprising most of service workers.
One participant also noted that preservation of affordable housing is a key challenge that the
Town must take on. They stated that affordable housing developed using the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) is not always affordable to those who need it most (e.g. out-of-
“There has to be a sense of community where
everybody is on the same page. Not ‘Hooray for me
and to hell with you’ as my dad used to say.”
“I would rather have [housing for] somebody
who’s serving the tables downtown who’s
coming from Vallejo [than housing for kids in
Belvedere]”
“A lot of housing that is deemed affordable isn’t
affordable for those who need it the most...when low-
income is considered over $100 thousand a year,
there’s still people who go way, way lower than that.”
6
county service workers), especially when the housing is allocated to households based on Area
Median Income (AMI). Because Marin has a very high AMI, it can be difficult for residents who
make less than what is considered to be “low-income.” Additionally, they noted that affordable
housing properties are not affordable into perpetuity, meaning that the affordability aspect can be
lost. Participants also noted that there have been incidents where landlords have not been
accepting Section 8 vouchers. They also noted the lack of housing for seniors looking to
downsize and for individuals who may not be ambulatory or who may have other disabilities.
Many residents were eager to talk about
the problems with their units and some
related health concerns stemming from
maintenance issues; things like a leaky
pipe causing mold in their aparment and
the ongoing challenges they faced, not having the money to move out and the difficulties in
working with management to resolve the issues. They expressed frustration as being told they
should have have renters insurance when in fact they struggle financially and can’t afford that
cost. Residents also had issues with other maintenance concerns, proper landscaping, mold and
asbestos, and health problems they believed to be related to the maintenance issues. Whether
these complaints are accurate is beyond the scope of the present memo, and management and
owners would presumably have a different explanation, the interest in reporting these here is to
be responsive to the request to gather input from residents about their experience with housing in
Tiburon. When, asked, many participants were eager to share a range of experiences including
ongoing and signficant challenges.
What actions should the Town take to address these concerns?
To garner support for affordable housing in Tiburon from homeowners, participants suggested
that new affordable housing give priority to existing residents first rather than being open to
newcomers. Some asked if the State could take any actions to accommodate increased traffic on
Tiburon Boulevard to mitigate the traffic impacts in town.
Preservation and construction of affordable housing was also a common theme. Residents at all
three focus groups wanted to see new affordable housing in Tiburon. One participant from
Cecilia Place asked about the role of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the Town’s new
Housing Element and whether the Town had any power to encourage their construction. Another
participant stressed that the Town needs to make greater efforts to preserve affordable housing
and to prevent existing affordable units from becoming market rate. They also believe that the
Town needs to keep a closer eye on and better enforce contracts to ensure that managing agents
and owners are doing their jobs. Due to the concerns that Tiburon may see a shortage of service
workers in the future, one attendee brought up the possibility of unions, although they did note
that this may mean an increase in service prices.
Participants also wanted to see a greater diversity of housing types. In addition to ADUs, one
participant suggested that the Town find more creative ways to build units for residents looking
“Well, I can’t afford to move out, so how can I
afford to have renters’ insurance?”
7
to downsize, such as the adaptive reuse of underutilized structures or encouraging condominiums
and other developments like Cecilia Place. Another attendee recommended that the Town look
into providing educational programs that can help and support homeowners interested in
downsizing.
How welcoming is Tiburon?
Focus group attendees were also made aware of the Town’s diversity, equity, and inclusion
efforts and its incorporation in the General Plan through a separate Diversity Element. This was
especially important in the context of recent racial tension incidents that occurred in Tiburon.
There was general support for the Town’s efforts on creating the DEI Element of the General
Plan, although one resident noted that they would like to see greater representation of lower-
income residents as part of the Element’s
development.
Most focus group participants found
Tiburon to be a very welcoming place.
They found that local businesses will
tend to recognize regular patrons and that
residents are typically very friendly. As one resident put it: “I’ve made this my home and this
home has made me.”
However, participants said that the increasing unaffordability of Tiburon has begun to push some
lower-income residents out of town, forcing them to patronize more affordable businesses in
surrounding communities.
Participants did note the disparities
that exist in town, especially regarding
to race. They mentioned that Tiburon
has very little racial diversity,
especially when it comes to the absence of African American people. One participant described
another incident that had occurred in town where a police officer pulled-over and harshly
questioned a South Asian person, an employee who was driving late at night. The driver and the
participant recounting the incident believed this treatment was because they were a dark-skinned
person driving an expensive car in Tiburon at night. Another resident also stated that they had
noticed increasing frequencies of police pulling over people of color. Interestingly, some
participants noted that Tiburon has greater racial diversity than other neighboring communities.
Regarding the Yema incident, most agreed that it was an “awful” occurrence, although they
believed it to be an exception rather
than the norm. One resident
criticized the Town for not looking
into the police officer’s record
before hiring them. One participant
highlighted that Tiburon, and Marin
County in general, had a reputation
“Because people, they’ll see someone who’s dark-
skinned and they’ll assume the worst. Or they’ll
assume that this is a bad person and then they have to
disprove this impression of them.”
I know people of color who don’t want to live in
Marin, and they have money”
“You live in it but it’s not a town you are part of.”
8
when it came to race relations. They stated that they were upset upon learning that the police
“took the word” of a “faceless voice” (the bystander who vouched for the Yema owner) over the
owner of Yema during the confrontation. They expressed disdain for Tiburon residents, who they
said had a “boys will be boys” response to the Tiburon youth that posted anti-Yema comments
online. They argued that there would be outrage if youth from Marin City did the same.
Participants also noted that even though there are People of Color who could afford to live in
Tiburon and surrounding communities, they often choose to live in more diverse communities
like Oakland due to the exclusion and the tensions that exist in town. They stated that Marin
County used to have more “diverse pockets” in the 1970s, both racially and in age.
How can Tiburon be a more welcoming place?
There were many ideas on how to make Tiburon
more welcoming for residents, potential residents,
employees, and tourists. One participant noted that
the Town needs to adequately provide affordable
housing for out-of-county workers to make Tiburon
more welcoming. They also wanted to see greater enforcement of Section 8 and to crackdown on
landowners who were not accepting vouchers. Residents also shared ideas on how to prevent
events like the Yema incident from reoccurring. Some participants noted how the Town’s police
used to be more involved in the community, patrolling on foot, visiting businesses, and mingling
with residents. They praised the Town for hiring the new police chief and praised the police chief
for their work so far; though some were looking forward to seeing what future policies and
practices will actually be like to make a final assessment on the police chief. Many said they
liked that the police have a new system of introducing themselves to local businesses.
To make Tiburon more inclusive, one resident said, “You gotta celebrate cultures.” When asked
about the possibility of more Town-held events, one resident responded that “people tend to shy
away.” They argued that events like Juneteenth are done better in other communities like Marin
City compared to Tiburon. There was support for the idea of celebrating cultures, along with
critiques of existing efforts and ideas for making them more inviting generally. Participants also
expressed their desire for free, accessible, attractive events, such as a flea market or a (more
affordable) farmers market in some of the Town’s underutilized shopping centers, such as the
site of the former Bank of America, and places that are closer to low-income families and
seniors. They noted that some residents need support in accessing affordable food as well as
access to affordable activities and events. They specifically ruled out Main Street as a possible
event location due to the difficulty of parking in the area. One resident criticized the Town’s
failure to hold events itself: “The Town has abdicated and has thrown a lot of the projects that
have been attempted here to the Chamber of Commerce and they’ve been a colossal failure.”
To build on the ideas that participants had shared, participants were asked for their thoughts on a
possible event celebrating the Town’s workforce. One resident stated that employers should give
tickets to such an event directly to their employees as a way to make them feel included. They
“Marin has a reputation, and in
some communities, as being racist”
9
also stressed that the Town needs to do more to support and promote local businesses other than
restaurants.
The interviews were lively, at times with extensive discussions about the problems and
challenges they faced with their housing, at other times very appreciative of the opportunity to
live in a town they enjoyed and felt a part of. For nearly all participants, there were pros and cons
to their individual housing experiences, to the question of housing in general for the Town, and
to the quality of life and experiences of living in Tiburon. At the beginning of the interviews it
was clear that participants only had plans for a short interview, some mentioning that they could
not stay long, and most presenting a friendly-enough but somewhat guarded disposition. Once
they were given the freedom to candidly express their concerns, complaints, recommendations,
and experiences, the mood quickly changed and they all seemed to greatly and deeply appreciate
the opportunity to speak and be heard by a representative of the Town. Across the board, they all
expressed sincere appreciation for the opportunity, noting they had never been approached by the
Town in such a partnership and community engagement way, and they looked forward both to
future opportunities to remain engaged and to the planning and implementation of housing and
housing services in Tiburon.
Focus Group Questions:
• How long have you been in Tiburon? Where are you from originally?
• What do you know about housing issues and opportunities in Tiburon?
• What do you hear from other people about housing in Tiburon?
• What keeps you at this apartment complex?
• What type of unit do you live in?
• Do you have issues with plumbing, electrical, etc.?
• What do you hear from low-income families and seniors about housing in Tiburon?
• How did you get involved in housing issues?
• Do you live alone?
• Do you feel the Town does enough to support you as a single person?
• What services can the Town provide for seniors to be independent and to have affordable
housing?
• Do you have challenges with transportation? Do you drive or take the bus?
• How can local people who aren’t very wealthy enjoy their own town and have a range of
quality and pricing in food and entertainment?
• What are your thoughts about the inclusion and equity?
• What do you know about recent racist and racial tension incidents? What do you think the
Town can do?
• What do you like most about Tiburon? How can we make Tiburon more welcoming?
• What’s your sense about issues, concerns regarding service workers?
10
• What are the challenges in Tiburon? Including personal challenges or challenges other
residents might face.
• What should the Town do to address the challenge of less people working in the service
industry?
• Is it easy to live in Tiburon as a retiree?
• Any additional comments?
TIBURON GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Housing and Diversity & Inclusion Elements
Survey Summary: EAH Residents
Community Outreach
Resident experiences with housing play a key role in the Housing Element update and will be
used to inform future planning for housing. As part of this effort, specific outreach was
conducted at affordable housing developments in Tiburon owned and operated by EAH. This
effort aims to collect the housing experiences of residents living in affordable housing
developments, many of whom may be underrepresented in traditional outreach processes. In
particular, these outreach efforts aimed to gather input from seniors and single women who are
head of their household. The data represented here were collected from surveys completed by
resident of three senior apartment complexes managed by EAH Housing: Cecilia Place, Bradley
House, and Hilarita. Residents at all three sites were also invited to complete a survey about their
housing experiences. This report summarizes those survey results. The survey was promoted by
EAH staff members are the three properties and also helped organize focus groups on their
properties. The survey was available in both English and Spanish. The project team collected a
total of 26 completed surveys. Some were completed by residents and submitted anonymously to
EAH staff, others were completed by consulting staff who knocked on doors and completed the
survey with residents.
Survey Respondent Demographics
Question 1: Place of Residence
The chart above showcases responses to the question Where do you live? All 26 respondents
answered this question. Respondents were able to indicate if they lived in Tiburon, lived
elsewhere in Marin County, or if they lived outside Marin County. All respondents indicated that
they lived in Tiburon.
Question 2: Place of Work
This chart shows respondents’ answers to the question Where do you work? About 72 percent of
respondents stated that they no longer work. About one-fifth of respondents indicated that they
work in Tiburon. Only a few individuals responded that they work outside Tiburon.
Where do you live?
Tiburon Not in Tiburon but in Marin County Outside Marin County
23%
4%
4%
69%
Where do you work?
In Tiburon (including
remote work)
Not in Tiburon, but in
Marin County
Outside Marin County
I do not work (retired,
unemployed, other)
Question 3: Housing Situation
This chart shows respondents’ answers to the question What is your housing situation? The
survey provided four different choices:
• I own my home
• I rent my home
• I live with family/friends (I don't
own/rent)
• I do not have permanent housing
96%
4%
What is your housing situation?
I rent my home
I live with family/friends (I
don't own/rent)
Almost all participants stated that they rent their home. Only one respondent indicated that they
live with family or friends. Notably, no respondent selected the other two response options.
Question 4: Housing Type of Respondents
This chart illustrates participants’ responses to the question What type of housing do you live in?
The survey offered the following options:
• House/duplex/condominium
• Apartment
• Accessory dwelling unit
• Mobile home
Almost all respondents indicated that they live in an apartment. Only one participant selected
House/duplex/condominium. No respondent selected the other two response options
4%
96%
What type of housing do you live in?
House/duplex/condominium
Apartment
5
Question 5: Age
This chart shows breakdown of the age makeup of survey respondents. Almost all respondents
stated that they were 65 or older. One response each was collected for those between the ages of
26-45 and 46-64. No participant was 25 or younger.
Question 6: Race and Ethnicity
The above chart illustrates the racial and ethnic breakdown of survey respondents. Participants
were able to select one or more of the following options:
• American Indian/Alaska Native
• Asian
0%0%
4%4%
92%
What is your age?
18 and under
19-25
26-45
46-64
65 and over
3%7%
3%
18%
0%
61%
4%4%
Race and Ethnicity (select all that apply)
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latinx
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
I prefer not to say
Middle Eastern (write in)
6
• Black or African American
• Hispanic or Latinx
• Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
• White
• I prefer not to say
• Other: _______
A majority of survey participants identified as white. Those who identify as Hispanic or Latinx
make up the second largest group of survey respondents, followed by those who identified as
Asian. Only one respondent identified as Other, for which they wrote-in Middle Eastern.
Question 7: Household Size
The above bar chart displays respondents’ answers to the question How many people live in your
household? A little over 80 percent of participants stated that they live alone. Only two
households had two occupants. Only one response each was received for households with three
individuals and households with four individuals.
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5+
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
Number of People in Household
How many people live in your household?
7
Question 8: Household Income
The above bar chart displays respondents’ answers to the question Which bracket best describes
your household income? All participants indicated that they made less than $65,000, with
approximately 80 percent stating that they make less than $40,000.
Respondents’ Experiences with Housing
Question 9: Housing Discrimination
The above chart illustrates survey respondents’ answer to the question Have you ever faced
discrimination in renting or purchasing housing? Approximately 20% of respondents stated that
they had faced discrimination. Those who had indicated that they had faced discrimination were
asked to elaborate; their comments can be seen below:
0
5
10
15
20
Less than
$40,000
$40,000 to
$64,999
$65,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$124,999
$125,000 or
more
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
Income Bracket
Which bracket best describes your household
income?
81%
19%
Have you ever faced discrimination in
renting or purchasing housing?
No Yes
8
• In the 1970s, "no kids or pets" in rentals
• Due to my disability our high monthly rent cost are high
• Age
• AT ALL LEVELS
• White owners prefer to rent to white owners, different cultures, cultural conflict, hard to
get close
Question 10: Satisfaction Living in Tiburon
This chart illustrates survey responses to the question If you live in Tiburon, how satisfied are
you with living in the town? Most respondents stated that they were “very satisfied” with living
in Tiburon.
Participants also had the opportunity to share any comments about their experience living in
Tiburon. Seven respondents opted to leave comments. Those comments can be found below:
• Love it
• Perfect place to live (for me)
• The city of Tiburon is beautiful. But our place of residence is very small
• Except for the heavy traffic!
• I live at the west edge. I don't visit the town since I'm not driving.
• Would like more affordable
• Worst place I've ever lived in, Hilarita residents are all scared of each other, no sense of
community, isolated, no communication, rich v poor, people are bad (e.g. new rich are
racist, narrow-minded)
84%
12%
4%
If you live in Tiburon, how satisfied are you
with living in the town?
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not satisfied
9
Question 11: Housing Satisfaction
The above chart illustrates responses to the question How well does your current housing meet
your needs? Participants were able to select all that apply of the following options:
• I am satisfied with my housing
• My housing is too far from my job
• My job is too difficult to reach with public transportation
• I would like to downsize but am unable to find a smaller home/unit
• I am unable to house additional family members
• My house/unit is substandard or in bad condition and I need my landlord to respond, or I
cannot afford to make needed repairs
Approximately 72% of responses indicated that respondents were satisfied with their housing.
However, some participants noted their inability to house additional family members and
difficulties reaching their job using public transit.
Respondents were also able to leave additional comments by selecting Other. Five participants
chose to leave additional comments. These are the comments:
73%
0%
3%
0%
7%
0%
17%
How well does your current housing meet your needs?
(choose all that apply)I am satisfied with my housing
My housing is too far from my job
My job is too difficult to reach with
public transportation
I would like to downsize but am unable
to find a smaller home/unit
I am unable to house additional family
members
My house/unit is substandard or in bad
condition and I need my landlord to
respond, or I cannot afford to make
needed repairs
10
• 80% meets my needs, 10% doesn't meet senior needs (e.g. laundry inaccessible, hills are
steep, two weeks ago everyone had to move cars and elderly had no place to move theirs
without having to climb a steep hill)
• Minor repairs needed eventually
• Although there are ongoing challenges
• Wants more housing like Hilarita
• Too many inspections, harassment, fear of eviction
Respondents’ Opinions About Housing in Tiburon
Question 12: Critical Housing Issues
The above bar chart illustrates what survey respondents believe are the most critical housing
issues in Tiburon. Participants were able to select from the following options:
• Substandard housing conditions
• Concentration or segregation of certain groups
• Build more new housing
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Substandard housing conditions
Concentration or segregation of certain groups
Build more new housing
Protections for renters facing displacement or discrimination
Down payment assistance for first time home buyers
Programs to help existing homeowners stay in their homes
Financial assistance for home repairs/renovation
Availability of housing for young families (e.g., 2+ bedrooms)
Availability of housing that is affordable to moderate, low,
and very low-income residents
Other
What do you think are the most critical housing issues in Tiburon?
(choose your top 5)
11
• Protections for renters facing displacement or discrimination
• Down payment assistance for first time home buyers
• Programs to help existing homeowners stay in their homes
• Financial assistance for home repairs/renovation
• Availability of housing for young families (e.g., 2+ bedrooms)
• Availability of housing that is affordable to moderate, low, and very low-income
residents
About 68% of respondents believe that affordable housing availability was a top concern. Other
top concerns include renter protections, programs to prevent homeowner displacement, and the
construction of new housing.
Respondents were also able to leave additional comments by selecting Other. Three participants
chose to leave additional comments. Those comments can be found below:
• Programs to assist people, build more new affordable housing
• I don't know
• My wife and I really want to move into 2 or 3 bedroom apartment
NOTE: Although the question said to “choose your top 5,” some respondents selected more than
five choices. No responses were removed from the analysis.
Question 13: Housing Types
The above bar chart illustrates which housing types survey participants believe are most needed
in Tiburon. Respondents were able to choose all that apply from the following options:
• Housing affordable to low-income households
0 5 10 15 20 25
Housing affordable to low-income households
Housing affordable to middle-income households
For-sale condos or townhomes
Rental housing
Senior housing
Housing with accessibility features for people with disabilities
Housing and/or services for unhoused people
Other
What do you think are the housing types most needed in Tiburon?
(choose all that apply)
12
• Housing affordable to middle-income households
• For-sale condos or townhomes
• Rental housing
• Senior housing
• Housing with accessibility features for people with disabilities
• Housing and/or services for unhoused people
Approximately 86% of participants believe that housing affordable to low-income households
is most-needed In Tiburon, followed by senior housing and housing affordable to middle-income
households.
Respondents were also able to leave additional comments by selecting Other. Four participants
chose to leave additional comments. Those comments can be found below:
• For everyone
• Would support for-sale condos or townhomes if affordable
• I don't know
• ?
Question 14: Affordable Housing Barriers
This bar chart illustrates what survey respondents believe to be the barriers to affordable housing
in Tiburon. Respondents could select all that apply from the following options:
• Lack of resources to help find affordable housing
• Limited availability of affordable units
• Long waitlists
• Quality of affordable housing does not meet my standards
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Lack of resources to help find affordable housing
Limited availability of affordable units
Long waitlists
Quality of affordable housing does not meet my standards
Other
What do you think are barriers to affordable housing in Tiburon?
(choose all that apply)
13
Almost 86% of respondents believe that the limited availability of affordable housing units is a
barrier to affordable housing in Tiburon, followed by long waitlists and a lack of resources to
help those looking for affordable housing.
Respondents were also able to leave additional comments by selecting Other. Seven participants
chose to leave additional comments. Those comments can be found below:
• 3-5 year wait, Not a lot of land, rental units, government needs to build housing that's
affordable
• The people and the government, Town government doesn't care about low-income
residents
• I'm sorry, but I haven't been paying attention to all this.
• City plan in advance rather wait years to look into it
• ?
• NIMBY
• Too much paperwork
Question 15: Additional Comments
Following the survey, participants had the opportunity to add any additional comments about
housing in Tiburon and their experience living in the town. Seven participants chose to leave
additional comments. These comments can be found below:
• SF has big homeless problem, when traveling in Europe there weren't a lot of homeless,
housing in US is too expensive and is a big problem
• Upgrades to Hilarita are needed
• Please give us a low rent for 2- or 3-bedroom apartment due to the small size of our
residence, as well as the various illnesses of my wife and I our current location needs to
be repaired
• I don't know enough about the housing situation in Tiburon to comment, but standard
rental prices are incredibly high as I understand it
• Should be more low-income housing, "Give people a chance"
• Scared of getting harassed by police, feels like Tiburon is like "Nazi Germany", feels
unsafe going to downtown
• New growth brings congestion to a small community like Tiburon
Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-1
APPENDIX B: EVALUATION OF 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-2
Evaluation of 2015-2023 Housing Element Programs
Program Title
Objective
Achievements/Evaluation
Continue,
Modify or
Delete
H-a Focus Town Resources on Key Housing Sites. Focus
Town-controlled resources toward the design, approval,
financing, and construction of housing, especially
affordable housing, on key sites identified in the Tiburon
Housing Element.
Construction of housing on
one or more of the
housing opportunity sites.
Not successful. There was no development of a new
affordable housing project. The Town’s available
funding resources (in-lieu fees and set-aside funds)
are in place and available for use. As of May 2022,
the Low & Moderate Income Housing Fund had an
estimated balance of $1.2 million. The Town has
significantly increased allowable housing densities on
a number of sites in the downtown, which will make
it economically feasible to redevelop commercial
properties with housing and mixed use.
Continue based
on sites list from
2023-2031
Element.
H-b Improve Community Awareness of Housing Needs,
Issues, and Programs. The Town will promote the
availability of Marin County programs for housing
construction, homebuyer assistance, rental assistance,
Marin Housing Authority information, code enforcement,
information about affordable housing, fair housing and
housing rehabilitation through the following means:
(a) Maintain a link on the Town’s website that
describes housing programs and provides direct
links to County agencies that administer the
programs.
(b) Include contact information on County
programs in Town newsletters and other
general communications that are sent to
residents.
(c) Maintain information and handouts at the Town’s public counter.
(d) Train selected Town staff to provide referrals.
Obtain and distribute
materials; coordinate with
other organizations.
Successful. A link to the Marin Housing Authority
website has been created; informational housing-
related handouts are kept at the public counter;
selected Town staff has been trained to provide
referral information; on-going collaboration with
County Housing Authority and EAH on potential
housing projects; housing-related materials
distributed at annual homeowner association
summit.
The Town collaborated with other Marin local
government to provide resources and education
materials to facilitate building, permitting, and
renting second units. They created a website at
adumarin.org that provides case studies, floor plans,
a calculator to estimate construction costs,
information on planning, designing, and constructing and ADU, and resources on being a landlord, from
setting a rent price to complying with fair housing
laws.
Continue
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-3
(e) Distribute information on programs at public
locations (library, schools).
(f) Collaborate with other agencies (County of
Marin, Tiburon Ecumenical Association, Marin
Housing Authority, Rotary, Chamber of
Commerce, Ecumenical Association for Housing,
Housing Council) to prepare presentations and
distribute informational materials to improve
awareness of housing needs, issues and
available housing programs.
(g) Distribute materials to neighborhood groups,
homeowner associations, religious institutions,
businesses, and other interested groups (Rotary,
Chamber of Commerce, etc.) in the Tiburon
area.
H-c. Community Outreach When Implementing Housing
Element Programs. Coordinate with local businesses,
housing advocacy groups, neighborhood groups, and the
Chamber of Commerce and participate in the Marin
Consortium for Workforce Housing in building public
understanding and support for workforce, special needs
housing and other issues related to housing, including
the community benefits of affordable housing, mixed use
and pedestrian-oriented development. The Town will
notify a broad representation of the community when
housing programs are discussed by the Planning
Commission or Town Council. Specific actions should be
linked to the preparation and distribution of materials as
identified in Program H-b. Specific outreach activities
include:
(a) Maintain the Housing Element mailing list and send public hearing notices to all interested
public, non-profit agencies and affected
property owners.
(b) Post notices at Town Hall, the library, and the
post office.
(c) Publish notices in the local newspaper.
Undertake outreach
annually and for each
Housing Element program
per the schedule for the
implementing programs
contained in the Housing
Element.
Successful. The Town conducted public hearings,
published notices in the local paper, posted notices
at Town Hall and on the Town’s website, and sent
notices to all interested parties when considering and
adopting ordinances to implement housing element
programs.
The Town updated its Accessory Dwelling Unit
Ordinance in 2016, 2020, and 2022 to be consistent
with changes in State law. The Town also updated
informational and application forms for Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling
Units (JADU) and added “quick checklists” to enable
owners to determine if their property was eligible for
either type of unit.
The Town collaborated with other Marin local
government to provide resources and education
materials to facilitate building, permitting, and
renting second units. They created a website at
adumarin.org that provides case studies, floor plans,
a calculator to estimate construction costs,
Continue
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-4
(d) Post information on the Town’s website.
(e) Conduct outreach (workshops, neighborhood
meetings) to the community as Housing Element
programs are implemented.
(f) Provide an informational guide to homeowners
explaining the benefits, “best practices” and
procedures for adding or legalizing a secondary
dwelling unit.
information on planning, designing, and constructing
and ADU, and resources on being a landlord, from
setting a rent price to complying with fair housing
laws.
H-d Foster Meaningful Assistance from Other Agencies.
Town staff will meet and work with other public agencies
and special districts (water, fire, schools, sanitary
districts, etc.) to promote affordable housing through the provision of fee waivers, fee reductions, development of
property, or other assistance for affordable housing
projects. In addition, participate in ongoing regional
planning activities related to housing and the Sustainable
Communities initiative.
Assistance and incentives
for affordable housing.
Successful. Consistent with state law, the Town does
not charge impact fees (e.g., traffic impact fees) for
ADUs that are less than 750 SF. In 2017, state
legislation went into effect that prevents special districts from charging fees for junior accessory
dwelling units and certain types of accessory dwelling
units.
Continue
H-e Conduct Outreach for Developmentally Disabled
Housing and Services.
Work with the Golden Gate Regional Center to
implement an outreach program that informs families
within Tiburon on housing and services available for
persons with developmental disabilities. Provide information on services on the Town’s website and
distribute brochures supplied by the service providers.
Support programs to
address needs of the
developmentally disabled.
Partially Completed. In 2016, a link to the Golden
Gate Regional Center was added to the Town’s
website.
Continue
H-f Coordinate with Water and Sewer Providers. As
required by State law, the Town will provide a copy of
the adopted housing element update to water and sewer
providers, including the Marin Municipal Water District,
Sanitary District Number 5 of Marin County, Richardson
Bay Sanitary District, and Sanitary District Number 2 of
Marin County. The Town will also provide a summary
and quantification of Tiburon’s regional housing need
allocation.
Provide copy of Housing
Element Update to water
and sewer providers.
Successful. The Town provided a copy of the housing
element to all water and sewer providers within 15
days of adoption.
Continue
H-g Review the Housing Element Annually. As
required by State law, the Town will review the status of
Annual review of Housing
Element implementation
Partially completed. The Town Council reviewed the
Housing Element programs and the Town submitted
Continue
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-5
Housing Element programs and submit a progress report
to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development and the Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research by April 1st.
progress; submittal of
approved form to HCD.
the Annual Progress Report to HCD for years 2016-
2019.
H-h Update the Housing Element. Update the
Tiburon Housing Element to be consistent with State law
requirements.
Update and adopt housing
element in compliance
with State-mandated due
date.
In progress. Housing Element for 2023-2031 planning
period will be submitted to HCD prior to the due date
of January 30, 2023.
Continue.
H-i Redevelopment Agency (Town of Tiburon as Successor Agency). In conjunction with the Marin
Housing Authority, use remaining housing set-aside
funds to meet existing affordable housing obligations
and, once those are met, expend the funds solely for the
provision of affordable housing in Tiburon consistent
with the Tiburon General Plan.
Meet existing affordable
housing obligations and
facilitate the development
of additional affordable
housing.
Successful. Town staff communicates at least
annually with Housing Authority staff regarding
potential affordable housing projects and the
continuing availability of set-aside funds for this
purpose.
H-j Apply for State Funds for Affordable Housing.
Apply for State affordable housing funds including, but
not limited to, the Multifamily Housing Program, the Cal-
Home Program, and the Homebuyer’s Down-payment
Assistance Program. Commit these funds to one or more
projects located on designated housing sites as shown in
the Town’s Housing Element, to projects targeted for
persons with disabilities, including persons with
developmental disabilities, and to projects targeted to
extremely-low income households.
Develop funding sources
for affordable housing.
Not completed. This action was not undertaken due
to the lack of affordable housing projects for which to
target grant funds.
Continue. Delete
references to
specific
programs.
H-k Apply for and Utilize Local Funds for Affordable
Housing. Potential sources of funds could include, but
would not be limited to:
(a) Marin Workforce Housing Trust
(b) Marin Community Foundation
(c) Federal Grants
Accumulation of funds for
affordable housing.
Not completed. This action was not undertaken due
to the lack of specific affordable housing projects for
which to solicit donations and target such funds. The
affordable housing impact fee and inter-jurisdictional
housing trust fund were not pursued due to staff
availability and work-load.
Continue.
Update funding
sources.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-6
(d) Transportation Authority of Marin
(e) Voluntary donations (such as bequeaths, trusts,
donations of land and buildings, etc.).
(f) Affordable Housing Impact Fee on larger single-
family homes. (Size to be determined — for
example, Marin County has a sliding scale
housing impact fee on homes over 2,000 square
feet in size).
(g) Inter-Jurisdictional Housing Trust Fund (with
Belvedere and Marin County) that could include
housing impact fees, in-lieu fees, co-funding one
nexus study for a housing impact, and the
accumulation of any other housing-related
monies for use in a mutually beneficial way to
meet each jurisdiction's RHNA through a
combination of contributions to the Fund and
units created.
H-l Work with Non-Profits on Housing. The Town
will work with non-profits to assist in achieving the
Town’s housing goals and implementing programs.
Coordination should occur on an ongoing basis, and as
special opportunities arise related to specific housing
sites and as the Housing Element is implemented. The
Town will reach out to developers of supportive housing
to encourage development of projects targeted for
persons with disabilities, including developmental
disabilities. The Town will also reach out to developers of
affordable housing for extremely-low income
households.
Ongoing working
relationship with non-
profit housing sponsors.
Partially successful. In 2018, Town staff met on
several occasions with staff from EAH regarding one
of the Town’s identified affordable housing
opportunity sites and opportunities for an affordable
housing project at that site.
Continue
H-m Work with the Marin Housing Authority.
Continue to implement the agreement with the Marin
Housing Authority (MHA) for management of the
affordable housing stock in order to ensure permanent
affordability, and implement resale and rental
regulations for very low, low and moderate income units,
Implement agreements to
maintain affordability.
Successful. Town staff communicated periodically
with MHA regarding existing and potential affordable
housing units, including resale and rental restrictions
and defending against the loss of affordable status
through lending institution errors.
Continue
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-7
and assure that these units remain at an affordable price
level.
H-n Staff Training. Conduct a training session for
Town employees regarding the receipt, documentation,
and proper referral of housing discrimination complaints
and other information related to housing programs.
Conduct training staff
sessions.
Successful. Housing discrimination complaints are
handled by select Town staff members who are
aware of the proper referrals related to housing
programs.
Continue
H-o Housing Discrimination Complaints. Refer
discrimination complaints to the appropriate legal
service, county, or state agency or Fair Housing of Marin.
The Community Development Director is the designated
person in Tiburon with responsibility to investigate and
deal appropriately with complaints. Discrimination
complaints will be referred to Fair Housing of Marin, the
Marin Housing Authority, Legal Aid, HUD, or the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing,
as appropriate. Information regarding the housing
discrimination complaint referral process will be posted
on the Town’s website.
Implementation of Fair
Housing laws.
Successful. Housing discrimination complaints are
handled by select Town staff members who are
aware of the proper referrals related to housing
programs.
Continue
H-p Provision of Affordable Housing for Special
Needs Households. Continue to facilitate programs and
projects which meet federal, state and local
requirements to provide accessibility for seniors, persons
with disabilities, large families, and single-person and
single parent households. In addition, the Town will
apply current inclusionary housing provisions to 10% of
new units required to meet the special housing needs in
the categories listed. Specific types of housing include:
(a) Smaller, affordable residential units, especially
for lower income single-person and single
parent households.
(b) Affordable senior housing to meet the
burgeoning needs of an aging population,
including assisted housing and board and care
(licensed facilities).
Construction of at least
three housing units for
people living with special
needs.
Not implemented. Inclusionary zoning is in place; lack
of new affordable projects being proposed has
limited the ability to implement this program.
Continue
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-8
(c) Affordable units with three or more bedrooms
for large family households.
(d) Affordable housing that is built for, or can easily
and inexpensively be adapted for, use by people
with disabilities (specific standards are
established in California Title 24 Accessibility
Regulations for new and rehabilitation projects,
augmented by Americans with Disabilities Act
guidelines).
H-q Emergency Housing Assistance. Participate and
allocate funds, as appropriate, for County and non-profit
programs providing emergency shelter and related
counseling services.
Respond to requests for
assistance.
Successful. The County of Marin and local nonprofits
provide services to the homeless have shifted to a
“housing first” model to meet the needs of the
chronically homeless. A rotating emergency shelter program, which was operating in Tiburon’s local
places of worship, ended in April 2018. The County is
now investing $10 million over four years with
another $10 million in matching federal funds, to
create a “Whole Person Care” program.
The Town contributes funds to countywide homeless
programs and works through the Marin County
Council of Mayors and Council Members and the
Marin Managers Association to develop facilities,
services, and programs to address homelessness. In
May 2022, they released an RFP under the
Community Homeless Fund to serve individuals and
families, specifically in Marin County, who are
experiencing homelessness. The RFP seeks proposals
for services including Outreach and Engagement,
Rapid Response, Intensive Case Management, Multi-
Disciplinary Team, and Mobile Shower Services.
Continue
H-r Provide Town Employee Housing Assistance.
Identify opportunities for local government employees
(especially public safety personnel) to find housing locally
through such efforts as construction of workforce
Provide assistance to 5
percent of Town
employees.
Successful. The Town acquired an additional Point
Tiburon Marsh condominium unit in 2019, bringing
the total number of units owned by the Town to
eight. The Town makes these condo units available
Continue
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-9
housing at public facilities or parking lots or subsidizing
mortgages or rents.
to Town employees who qualify. 30% of Town
employees currently live in these units,
H-s Allow Transitional and Supportive Housing in Commercial Zones. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to
specifically identify transitional and supportive housing
as conditionally permitted uses in the neighborhood
commercial (NC) and village commercial (VC) zones.
Transitional and supportive housing will be treated as a
residential use subject only to the same restrictions that
apply to other residential uses in the NC and VC zones.
Adopt Ordinance. Completed. The Zoning Code was amended to define Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing (TMC
16-100.20) and allow transitional and supportive
housing as conditionally permitted uses in the
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Village
Commercial (VC) zones (TMC Section 12-22.030).
Delete
H-t Rehabilitation Loan Programs. In cooperation
with the Marin Housing Authority (MHA), improve citizen
awareness of rehabilitation loan programs.
Provide residential
rehabilitation loans to 3
low income units.
MHA rehabilitation loan brochures are available at
the public counter in Town Hall. No Residential
Rehabilitation Loans were made to Tiburon property
owners since 2015. The program coordinator states
that the program was impacted by the pandemic.
Continue
H-u Conduct Residential Building Report
Inspections. The Town will continue to inspect and
report on all residential units prior to resale, with the
intent to maintain and upgrade the safety of housing
within the town consistent with adopted Building Codes.
In addition to the health and safety concerns, the
residential building report discloses the authorized use,
occupancy and zoning of the property and an itemization
of deficiencies in the dwelling unit.
Complete Residential
Building Reports for all
housing units prior to
resale
Successful. The Town performs an average of at least
150 Residential Building Report Inspections each
year.
Continue
H-v Acquisition of Rental Housing. Contact
potential non-profits (such as Tiburon Ecumenical
Association, EAH, Citizens Housing, BRIDGE Housing, etc.)
who may be seeking to acquire and rehabilitate rental
housing units in order to maintain ongoing affordability
of the units. Provide assistance that will include, but not
be limited to: (1) support necessary to obtain funding
commitments from governmental programs and non-
governmental grants; (2) assistance in permit processing;
(3) waiver or subsidy of fees; and (4) use of local funds if
available.
Acquisition and
rehabilitation of existing
affordable rental housing
subject to expiration of
subsidies.
Implemented but not successful. No new affordable
housing opportunities resulted from occasional
contact with non-profits
Continue
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-10
H-w Use of Rental Assistance Programs. Continue
to publicize and participate in rental assistance programs
such as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers, the Housing
Stability Program, and other available rental programs.
Publicity and increased use
of Section 8 vouchers
As of May 2022, there were 23 Section 8 vouchers
currently in use in Tiburon, a decrease of 4 vouchers
over the prior planning period.
Continue
H-x Condominium Conversions. Preserve rental
housing by enforcement through the Town's
condominium conversion ordinance and Housing
Element policy.
Protection of the Town’s
rental housing stock.
Successful. The Town enforces these policies and
programs.
Continue
H-y Link Code Enforcement with Public Information
Programs on Town Standards, Rehabilitation and
Energy Loan Programs. Implement housing, building and
fire code enforcement to ensure compliance with basic
health and safety building standards and provide
information about rehabilitation loan programs for use
by qualifying property owners who are cited. Specific
actions include:
(a) Coordinate with the Marin Housing Authority
and utility providers to make available loan
programs to eligible owner and renter-occupied
housing.
(b) Provide public information on alternative energy
technologies for residential developers,
contractors, and property owners.
(c) Publicize tenant assistance and energy
conservation programs and weatherization services that are available to provide subsidized
or at cost inspection and corrective action.
(d) Contact owners of structures that appear to be
in declining or substandard condition, offer
inspection services, and advertise and promote
programs that will assist in funding needed
work.
(e) Provide an informational guide to homeowners
explaining the benefits, “best practices” and
procedures for adding or legalizing a secondary
dwelling unit.
Upgrades to the Town’s
housing stock and
compliance with codes.
MHA rehabilitation loan brochures are available at
the public counter in Town Hall. No Residential
Rehabilitation Loans were made to Tiburon property
owners since 2015.
As of May 2022, eight Tiburon homeowners have
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) assessments,
which enabled them to access financing to install
energy efficiency upgrades and renewable energy
projects.
Through the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership,
the Town works with Resilient Neighborhoods to
provide free classes to residents to educate and
motivate them to reduce their carbon footprint.
Classes include information and resources on energy
conservation and efficiency and renewable energy. Thirteen Tiburon households have graduated from
the program.
In partnership with Marin County Energy Watch, the
Town publicized energy efficiency programs available
through BayRen, Rising Sun, and the California Energy
Youth Services. As of May 2022, twenty-nine Tiburon
homeowners had received BayRen rebates, and
Rising Sun had served 11 households. The California
Youth Energy Services program completed 6,901
home energy assessments in Marin County between
2006 and 2018, with an estimated 200 audits
completed in Tiburon. The program provided free
Modify to
generally
provide
information, not
just when linked
to code
enforcement.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-11
energy efficiency products like LED bulbs, power
strips, showerheads, and faucet aerators.
The Town also promoted Electrify Marin, which
provides rebates to swap out natural gas appliances
and heating systems with high efficiency electric
appliances. As of May 2022, thirteen projects in
Tiburon had received a total of $17,000 in rebates.
The program provides higher rebates for lower-
income households.
The Town’s Residential Resale Inspection process,
continuously implemented over the past 45 years,
has greatly aided the condition of the Town’s housing
stock by requiring mandatory corrections.
The Town collaborated with other Marin local
government to provide resources and education
materials to facilitate building, permitting, and
renting second units. They created a website at adumarin.org that provides case studies, floor plans,
a calculator to estimate construction costs,
information on planning, designing, and constructing
and ADU, and resources on being a landlord, from
setting a rent price to complying with fair housing
laws.
H-z Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites. Encourage cooperative and
joint ventures between owners, developers and non-
profit groups in the provision of below market rate
housing. Work with non-profits and property owners to seek opportunities for an affordable housing
development on one of the key housing opportunity
sites. Undertake the following actions to encourage
development of multi-family, affordable housing:
(a) Meet with non-profit housing developers (EAH,
MHA, others) and property owners to identify
Encourage development of
one or more key housing
sites by 2022.
Implemented but not successful. Zoning amendments
were adopted in 2015 to designate new affordable
housing opportunity sites, reduce the percentage of
affordable units required, and allow housing by right
in such zones. No affordable housing projects were constructed, although Town staff continued to review
and encourage conceptual proposals for a mixed use
affordable project on the 1600 Tiburon Boulevard
affordable housing overlay site. See also Program H-
l.
Continue
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-12
housing development opportunities, issues and
needs during 2015.
(b) Select the most viable site during 2015.
(c) Undertake community outreach in coordination
with the potential developer and property
owner during 2015.
(d) Complete site planning studies, continued
community outreach, and regulatory approvals
in coordination with the development
application.
(e) Facilitate development through regulatory
incentives, reducing or waiving fees, fast track
processing, and assistance in development
review.
(f) Develop ongoing and annual outreach and
coordination with non-profit housing developers
and affordable housing advocates to assist in
the development of housing for extremely low-
income households.
(g) Facilitate development of housing for extremely low-income households by allowing housing as a
use by-right as part of the “Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone.”
(h) Review funding options as part of the annual
Housing Element review and apply for funding
or support funding applications as opportunities
are available, and will undertake other actions
(such as modifications to parking requirements
and granting concessions and incentives) to
assist in the development of housing for
extremely low income households.
H-aa Modify and Implement “Affordable Housing Overlay Zone” Zoning for Affordable Projects. Annually
monitor the effectiveness of the “Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone” as part of the annual Housing Element
review (see Program (H-g) and implement the affordable
housing overlay zone where residential densities will be
increased up to 100% if a specified level of affordability is
Modification to the AHO Zoning by 2012 and review
progress annually as part
of Program H-e to
encourage development of
one or more key housing
sites by 2014.
Implemented but not successful. Zoning ordinance amendments implementing the overlay zone
revisions set forth in this program were adopted in
March 2015. No affordable housing units were
approved or built pursuant to the affordable housing
overlay zone.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-13
achieved. As part of the annual review there will be a
review as to whether the program has been effective in
encouraging very low and low income housing. The
program will be revised if it is found to be ineffective.
H-bb Bonuses for Affordable Housing Projects
Consistent with State Density Bonus Law. The Town will
offer density bonuses consistent with the State Density
Bonus Law.
Application of State
Density Bonus law.
Implemented but not successful. No applications
requesting state-mandated density bonuses were
received.
H-cc Design of Multi-Family Housing. Conduct design
review to assure excellence of design in new multi-family
housing development that is compatible with the
surrounding area.
Development of well-
designed multi-family
housing
Successful. In 2022, the Town adopted objective
development and design standards for qualifying
multifamily projects.
H-dd Housing Impact Fee for Larger Homes. Consider
an affordable housing impact fee on larger single-family
homes.
Additional funding for
affordable housing based
on impacts of larger
homes.
Not completed. This action was not undertaken due
to staff availability and workload. Due to the small
number of new single family homes that are
constructed in Tiburon, the potential revenue
generated from this action is most likely not cost-
efficient. Instead, efforts should be focused on
realizing affordable inclusionary units in multifamily
development.
Delete.
H-ee Implement Second Dwelling Unit Development
Standards and Permit Process. Continue to allow second
dwelling units.
8 new low income second
units by 2022
Successful. The Town approved 26 ADUs and 18
JADUs between 2015 and June 2022. To date, 14
have been constructed and 15 are under
construction. Based on a regional study, affordability
levels are assumed to be 7 very low income units, 7
low income units, 7 moderate income units, and 3
above moderate income units.
Modify to
include tracking
and review at
mid-point of the
planning cycle.
H-ff Adopt Standards for Junior Second Units. Review
and consider adopting standards to allow the creation of
junior second units.
Consider adoption in 2015 Completed. Ordinance No. 555 N. S. adopting
standards for junior second units was adopted in
February 2015. 17 JADUs were approved between
20115 and 2021.
Delete.
H-gg Jobs/Housing Fee. Adopt a Jobs/Housing
Linkage Fee Ordinance that includes the following or
similar exaction requirements:
(a) Exaction requirements for dwelling units and/or
in-lieu fees should be set according to
Additional funding for
affordable housing from
commercial development
Not completed. As significant jobs creation projects
in Tiburon are highly unusual, any such ordinance
would rarely if ever be utilized. On those several
sites in the Downtown area where the Town has
Delete.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | B-14
empirically based evidence and must comply
with all other legal tests.
(b) The inclusion of affordable housing units within
developments of hotels, offices, or other
commercial buildings if feasible (options may
include housing on-site, off-site, subsidizing
mortgages or rents, or paying an in-lieu fee for
housing production), or
(c) Payment into the Housing Fund of in-lieu fees
based on a dollar amount per square foot of
office, commercial, and industrial building
development.
(d) In-lieu fees would be waived in projects
containing significant affordable housing
components
placed an affordable housing overlay zone, such an
ordinance could actually be counterproductive.
H-gg Encouraging Residential on Mixed Use Sites.
Encourage residential development on key housing sites
that are designated for mixed use. Incentives are
identified in the Affordable Housing Overlay zone.
Residential development
on mixed use sites.
Implemented but not successful. In 2016, Town staff
met on several occasions with representatives of
ACV-Argo and provide advice on the development of
a mixed-use project in Downtown that included
affordable housing units. In 2017, staff met with ACV-
Argo to review conceptual designs for a mixed use
project on the former Sharks Deli site at 1600 Tiburon
Boulevard. Density bonus provisions were discussed
as well as Town incentives to encourage the project,
however the mixed use project did not move
forward.
Continue.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | C-1
APPENDIX C: DETAILED SINGLE FAMILY HOME SITE INVENTORY
Address APN
Lot size
(acre)
Zoning
District
GP
Des.
New Unit
Capacity
47 VIA LOS ALTOS 034-330-01 0.50 RPD M 4
4944 RANCH RD 038-041-38 0.50 RO-2 M 4
4850 PARADISE DR 038-053-01 0.60 RO-2 M 4
4755 PARADISE DR 038-091-29 0.50 RO-1 ML 4
70 PARENTE RD 038-091-39 1.70 RO-1 ML 4
8 Parente Vista Lane 038-111-36 8.10 RPD PDR 4
4725 PARADISE DR 038-121-04 1.00 RO-1 ML 4
4565 PARADISE DR 038-141-17 1.00 RO-1 ML 4
4476 PARADISE DR 038-151-09 0.20 RO-1 ML 3
OLD LANDING RD 038-162-44 2.50 RO-1 ML 4
4200 PARADISE DR 038-171-44 0.30 RO-2 M 4
3 VIA CAPISTRANO 038-311-05 0.40 RO-2 M 4
8 VIA ELVERANO 038-410-09 0.50 RPD M 4
31 HACIENDA DR 039-012-23 1.00 RO-1 ML 4
3805 PARADISE DR 039-021-07 1.00 RPD L 4
3825 PARADISE DR (Rabin) 039-021-13 31.00 RPD PDR 11
5 ACACIA DR 039-121-15 1.00 RO-1 ML 4
12 Midden Lane 039-151-65 1.40 RO-1 ML 4
12 Midden Lane 039-151-66 1.10 RO-1 ML 4
197 GILMARTIN Dr 039-161-37 1.30 RDP M 4
2 GILMARTIN Dr 039-171-08 0.38 RO-1 M 4
210 GILMARTIN DR 039-171-23 2.40 RPD M 4
255 ROUND HILL Rd 039-202-04 0.44 RO-2 M 4
PARADISE Dr (Tiburon Glen) 039-241-01 26.00 RPD PDR 8
12 VIA PARAISO EAST 039-290-46 1.10 RPD ML 4
3875 PARADISE Dr (SODA) 039-301-01 21.00 RPD PDR 8
835 STONY HILL Rd 055-252-09 0.64 RPD M 4
805 STONY HILL Rd 055-252-12 0.80 RPD M 4
11 GILMARTIN Dr 055-253-17 0.39 R-1 MH 4
STONY HILL Rd (Ling) 055-261-34 5.30 RPD PDR 4
8 ROLLING HILLS RD 058-111-24 1.00 RO-2 M 4
100 MT TIBURON CT 058-261-36 1.00 RO-1 ML 4
130 LYFORD DR 058-272-01 0.35 RO-2 M 4
3 HEATHCLIFF DR 058-281-08 0.37 RO-2 M 4
26 VENADO DR 058-321-08 0.60 RO-2 M 4
107 MT TIBURON RD 058-351-23 1.30 RO-1 ML 4
619 RIDGE RD 059-013-07 0.50 RO-2 M 4
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | C-2
2225 VISTAZO EAST ST 059-091-55 1.00 RO-2 M 4
2235 VISTAZO EAST ST 059-091-56 1.00 RO-2 M 4
1911 MAR WEST ST 059-121-36 0.14 R-2 H 1
2 RESERVA LN 059-122-47 0.30 R-2 H 1
2224 VISTAZO EAST ST 059-141-07 0.18 R-1 MH 4
2360 MAR EAST ST 059-195-24 0.33 R-2 H 2
2359 PARADISE DR 059-201-52 0.17 R-2 H 1
TOTAL 179
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-1
APPENDIX D: AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-2
Appendix D: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A. Introduction and Overview of AB 686
Assembly Bill (AB) 686 passed in 2017 requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers
that restrict access to opportunity 1and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively
further fair housing2. AB 686 mandates that local governments identify meaningful goals to address the
impacts of systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal educational
or employment opportunities to the extent these issues create and/or perpetuate discrimination against
protected classes3. In addition, it:
• Requires the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities to administer their programs
and activities related to housing and community development in a way that affirmatively furthers
fair housing
• Prohibits the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities from taking actions materially
inconsistent with their AFFH obligation
• Requires that the AFFH obligation be interpreted consistent with the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 2015 regulation, regardless of federal action regarding
the regulation
• Adds an AFFH analysis to the Housing Element (an existing planning process that California cities
and counties must complete) for plans that are due beginning in 2021
• Includes in the Housing Element’s AFFH analysis a required examination of issues such as
segregation and resident displacement, as well as the required identification of fair housing goals
The bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element that includes the following
components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the Town’s fair housing enforcement
and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities; an
assessment of contributing factors; and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.
B. Analysis Requirements
An assessment of fair housing must consider the elements and factors that cause, increase, contribute
to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant
disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs.4 The analysis must address
patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time. This analysis should compare the
locality at a county level or even broader regional level such as a Council of Government, where
appropriate, for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities.
For the purposes of this AFFH, “Regional Trends” describe trends the Bay Area (the members of ABAG)
when data is available in the Data Needs Package as well as data that could be gathered from the U.S.
1 While Californian’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do not provide a definition of opportunity,
opportunity usually related to the access to resources and improve quality of life. HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC) have created Opportunity Maps to visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such
as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility
2 “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” is defined to mean taking meaningful actions that “overcome patterns of segregation
and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for communities of color, persons with
disabilities, and others protected by California law
3 A protected class is a group of people sharing a common trait who are legally protected from being discriminated against on
the basis of that trait.
4 Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subds. (c)(10)(A), (c)(10)(B), 8899.50, subds. (a), (b), (c); see also AFFH Final Rule and Commentary (AFFH
Rule), 80 Fed. Reg. 42271, 42274, 42282-42283, 42322, 42323, 42336, 42339, 42353-42360, esp. 42355-42356 (July 16, 2015). See
also 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.150, 5.154(b)(2) (2016).
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-3
Census and trends within the boundaries of Marin County. “Local Trends” describe trends specific to the
Town of Tiburon.
1. Sources of Information
The Town used a variety of data sources for the assessment of fair housing at the regional and local level.
These include:
• Housing Needs Data Packets prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),
which rely on 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) data by the U.S. Census Bureau for
most characteristics
o Note: The ABAG Data Packets also referenced the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
reports (based on the 2013-2017 ACS)
• U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community
Survey (ACS)
• Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in January 2020 (2020 AI).
• Local Knowledge
Some of these sources provide data on the same topic, but because of different methodologies, the
resulting data differ. For example, the decennial census and ACS report slightly different estimates for
the total population, number of households, number of housing units, and household size. This is in part
because ACS provides estimates based on a small survey of the population taken over the course of the
whole year. 5 Because of the survey size and seasonal population shifts, some information provided by
the ACS is less reliable. For this reason, the readers should keep in mind the potential for data errors when
drawing conclusions based on the ACS data used in this chapter. The information is included because it
provides an indication of possible trends. The analysis makes comparisons between data from the same
source during the same time periods, using the ABAG Data Package as the first source since ABAG has
provided data at different geographical levels for the required comparisons. As such, even though more
recent ACS data may be available, 2015-2019 ACS reports are cited more frequently (and 2013-2017 for
CHAS data).
The Town also used findings and data in the 2020 Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice (2020 AI) for its local knowledge as it includes a variety of locally gathered and available
information, such as a surveys, local history and evens that have affected or are affecting fair housing
choice. The Town also used the HCD’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for its
regional findings and data.
In addition, HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer. The AFFH Data Viewer consists of map
data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the components within
the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time frame used in the AFFH
mapping tools may differ from the ACS data in the ABAG package. The Town tried to the best of its ability
to ensure comparisons between the same time frames but in some instances, comparisons may have
been made for different time frames (often different by one year). As explained earlier, the assessment
is most useful in providing an indication of possible trends.
5 The American Community Survey is sent to approximately 250,000 addresses in the United States monthly (or 3 million per
year). It regularly gathers information previously contained only in the long form of the decennial census. This information is
then averaged to create an estimate reflecting a 1- or 5-year reporting period (referred to as a “5-year estimate”). 5-year
estimates have a smaller margin of error due to the longer reporting period and are used throughout the AFFH.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-4
For clarity, this analysis will refer to various sections of the County as North Marin, West Marin, Central
Marin, and Southern Marin. Tiburon is part of Southern Marin. These designations are shown in Figure
D-1 and include the following communities and jurisdictions:
• North Marin: Black Point-Green Point, Novato, Lucas Valley-Marinwood
• West Marin: Dillon Beach, Tomales, Inverness, Point Reyes Station, Nicasio, Lagunitas-Forest
Knolls, San Geronimo, Woodacre, Bolinas, Stinson Beach, Muir Beach
• Central Marin: Sleepy Hollow, Fairfax, San Anselmo, Ross, Santa Venetia, San Rafael, Kentfield,
Larkspur, Corte Madera
• Southern Marin: Mill Valley, Tiburon, Strawberry, Tamalpais-Homestead Valley, Marin City,
Belvedere, Sausalito
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-5
Figure D-1: Marin County Communities
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-6
C. Assessment of Fair Housing Issues
1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities
to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure
community members are aware of fair housing laws and rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach
capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating
complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing The Fair Housing Advocates of
Northern California (FHANC) provides fair housing services to Marin County residents, including fair
housing counseling, complaint investigation, and discrimination complaint assistance. FHANC is a non-
profit agency whose mission is to actively support and promote fair housing through education and
advocacy. FHANC also provides fair housing workshops in English and Spanish. Workshops educate
tenants on fair housing law and include information on discriminatory practices; protections for
immigrants, people with disabilities, and families with children; occupancy standards; and landlord-
tenant laws. FHANC also provides educational workshops on home buying and affordable
homeownership. FHANC hosts a fair housing conference in Marin County annually.
The County works in close partnership with the Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) (a division of
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, FHANC). FHAM is the only HUD-certified Housing
Counseling Agency in the county, as well the only fair housing agency with a testing program in the
county. Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) provides free services to residents protected under
federal and state fair housing laws. FHAM helps people address discrimination they have experienced,
increasing housing access and opportunity through advocacy as well as requiring housing providers to
make changes in discriminatory policies. FHAM provides the following services:
(1) Housing counseling for individual tenants and homeowners;
(2) Mediations and case investigations;
(3) Referral of and representation in complaints to state and federal enforcement agencies;
(4) Intervention for people with disabilities requesting reasonable accommodations and
modifications;
(5) Fair housing training seminars for housing providers, community organizations, and interested
individuals;
(6) Systemic discrimination investigations;
(7) Monitoring Craigslist for discriminatory advertising;
(8) Education and outreach activities to members of protected classes on fair housing laws;
(9) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) training and activities to promote fair housing for
local jurisdictions and county programs;
(10) Pre-purchase counseling/education for people in protected classes who may be victims of
predatory lending; and
(11) Foreclosure prevention.
Fair Housing Enforcement
Regional Trends
The 2020 AI presented information on housing discrimination basis for the entire County. Discrimination
complaints from both in-place and prospective tenants are filed with FHANC, the Department of Housing
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-7
and Urban Development (HUD), or the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
Complaints filed through HUD/DFEH from 2018-2019, included in the 2020 AI are shown below. More
updated FHANC clients (2020-2021) are also included in Table D-1. A total of 301 housing discrimination
complaints within the County were filed with FHANC from 2020 to 2021 and 14 were filed with HUD from
2018 to 2019. Discrimination complaints by protected class are shown in Table D-1. A majority of
complaints, including 78 percent of complaints filed with FHANC and 57 percent of complaints filed with
HUD, were related to disability status. This finding is consistent with federal and state trends. According
to the 2020 State AI, 51 percent of housing-related complaints filed with DFEH between 2015 and 2019
were filed under disability claims, making disability the most common basis for a complaint. In addition
to the complaints detailed in the table below, FHANC also received four complaints on the basis of age,
three on the basis of sex, two on the basis of color, one on the basis of sexual orientation, and one on the
basis of marital status. Similarly, state trends show that race and familial status are among the most
common basis for discrimination complaints (16 percent and 10 percent, between 2015 and 2019).
Table D-1: Discrimination Complaints by Protected Class – Marin County (2018-2021)
Protected Class FHANC (2020-21) HUD/DFEH (2018-19)
Complaints Percent Complaints Percent
Disability 235 78% 8 57%
National Origin 38 13% 4 29%
Race 22 7% 3 21%
Gender 19 6% 2 14%
Familial Status 13 4% 1 7%
Source of Income 28 9% -- --
Total 301 -- 14 --
Sources: Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2020; Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), 2020-21.
A reasonable accommodation, as defined in the 2020 AI, “is a change or modification to a housing rule,
policy, practice, or service that will allow a qualified tenant or applicant with a disability to participate
fully in a housing program or to use and enjoy a dwelling, including public and common spaces.” The 2020
AI reported that FHANC requested 35 reasonable accommodations for clients with disabilities between
2018 and 2019, 33 of which were approved. County staff also advises clients on reasonable
accommodations requests. FHANC also provides funding for the Marin Center for Independent Living
(MCIL). Since 2017, FHANC has provided funding for 13 MCIL modifications.
As described earlier, the County works with Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) (a division of Fair
Housing Advocates of Northern California, FHANC) to provide fair housing services to Marin residents.
However, FHAM also provides services across a large service area that includes Marin County, Sonoma
County, Santa Rosa, Fairfield, and Vallejo.
Historically, FHAM’s fair housing services have been especially beneficial to Latinos, African-Americans,
people with disabilities, immigrants, families with children, female-headed households (including
survivors of domestic violence and sexual harassment), and senior citizens; approximately 90 percent of
clients are low-income. FHAM’s education services are also available to members of the housing, lending,
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-8
and advertising industry. Providing industry professionals with information about their fair housing
responsibilities is another means by which FHAM decreases incidences of discrimination and helps to
protect the rights of members of protected classes.
From 2017 to 2018, the organization served 1,657 clients (tenants, homeowners, social service providers,
and advocates), a 22 percent increase from the previous year; provided counseling on 592 fair housing
cases (a 26 percent increase); intervened for 89 reasonable accommodations granted (a 33 percent
increase) of 97 (a 24 percent increase) requested for people with disabilities; funded eight (8) reasonable
modification requests to improve accessibility for people with disabilities; investigated 71 rental
properties for discriminatory practices; filed 15 administrative fair housing complaints (a 15 percent
increase)and one (1) lawsuit; garnered $71,140 in settlements for clients and the agency; and counseled
71 distressed homeowners and assisted homeowners in acquiring $228,197 through Keep Your Home
California programs to prevent foreclosure.
During Fiscal Year 2018 to 2019, FHAM counseled 393 tenants and homeowners in Marin County,
screening clients for fair housing issues and providing referrals for non-fair housing clients or callers out
of FHAM’s service area. Of the households counseled, 211 alleged discrimination and were referred to an
attorney or bilingual housing counselor for further assistance (e.g., receiving information on fair housing
laws, interventions with housing providers requesting relief from discriminatory behavior, making 35
reasonable accommodation requests on behalf of disabled tenants, four referrals to HUD/DFEH and
representation in administrative complaints). Though the complaints FHAM received were on every
federal and protected basis, the fair housing administrative complaints filed with the Department of HUD
or the California Department of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity alleged discrimination on the basis
of disability, race, national origin, gender, and familial status.
Local Trends
FHANC received 55 housing discrimination complaints from Tiburon residents from 2016 to 2021,
including eight related to nine different protected classes in 2021 (Table D-2). All eight of the complaints
filed in 2021 were related to disability status. One complaint was related to both disability status and
marital status. Seven of the eight cases related to disability status opened in 2021 requested reasonable
accommodations. Six clients received advice from FHAM. Discrimination complaints related to disability
status were the most common in Tiburon during the 2016-2021 period (68.7 percent), followed by
national origin (10.4 percent), age (4.5 percent), and race (4.5 percent).
The HCD Data Viewer records HUD fair housing inquiries. Fair housing inquiries are not official fair
housing cases but can be used to identify concerns about possible discrimination. According to 2013-2021
HUD data, there were only 0.21 inquiries per 1,000 persons in Tiburon. The fair housing inquiry rate in the
Town is similar to Belvedere to the south, and lower than Sausalito, Mill Valley, and Corte Madera to the
west and north. There were two total inquiries from Tiburon residents during this period, one on the basis
of disability status and two with no basis. One inquiry was found to have no valid basis and one failed to
respond.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-9
Table D-2: Discrimination Complaints by Protected Class – Tiburon (2016-2021)
Protected Class 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total
Disability 63.6% 46.2% 60.0% 78.6% 80.0% 88.9% 46 68.7%
Marital Status 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 1 1.5%
National Origin 9.1% 23.1% 20.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 7 10.4%
Age 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 10.0% 0.0% 3 4.5%
Ancestry 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.5%
Race 0.0% 7.7% 10.0% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% 3 4.5%
Religion 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.5%
Gender 9.1% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 3.0%
Sexual Orientation 0.0% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2 3.0%
Familial Status 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1 1.5%
Total Complaints 9 10 7 13 8 8 55 --
Total Bases 11 13 10 14 10 9 67 100.0%
Sources: Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), 2020-21.
Fair Housing Testing
Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use
of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a
landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws.
Regional Trends
During the 2018-2019 FY, FHANC conducted email testing, in-person site, and phone testing for the
County. FHANC conducted 60 email tests to “test the assumption of what ethnicity or race the average
person would associate with each of the names proposed.” Email testing showed clear differential
treatment favoring the White tester in 27 percent of tests, discrimination based on income in 63 percent
of tests, and discrimination based on familial status in 7 percent of tests. Three paired tests (6 tests total)
also showed discrimination based on both race and source of income. In 80 percent of tests (24 of 30
paired tests), there was some discrepancy or disadvantage for African American testers and/or testers
receiving Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs).6
6 The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families,
the elderly, and persons with disabilities to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Since housing
assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, participants are able to find their own housing, including single-family
homes, townhouses and apartments. Participants are free to choose any housing that meets the requirements of the program
and is not limited to units located in subsidized housing projects. Participants issued a housing voucher are responsible for
finding a suitable housing unit of their choice where the owner agrees to rent under the program. A housing subsidy is paid to
the landlord directly by the local Public Housing Agency (PHA) on behalf of the participant. The participant then pays the
difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. Beginning on January
1, 2020, housing providers, such as landlords, cannot refuse to rent to someone, or otherwise discriminate against them, because
they have a housing subsidy, such as a Housing Choice Voucher, that helps them to afford their rent.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-10
In-person site and phone tests consisted of an African American tester and a White tester. Of the 10
paired in-person site and phone tests conducted, 50 percent showed differential treatment favoring the
White tester, 60 percent showed discrepancies in treatment for HCV recipients, and 30 percent showed
discrimination on the basis of race and source of income.
The conclusions of the fair housing tests included in the 2020 AI are as follows:
• Housing providers make exceptions for White Housing Choice Voucher recipients, particularly in
high opportunity areas with low poverty.
• Email testing revealed significant evidence of discrimination, with 27% of tests showing clear
differential treatment favoring the White tester and 63% of tests showing at least some level of
discrimination based upon source of income.
• Phone/site testing also revealed significant instances of discrimination: 50% of discrimination
based upon race and 60% based on source of income.
In Fiscal Year 2018 to 2019, Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) conducted systemic race
discrimination investigations as well as complaint-based testing, with testing for race, national origin,
disability, gender, and familial status discrimination. FHAM monitored Craigslist for discriminatory
advertising, with the additional recently added protection for individuals using housing subsidies in
unincorporated parts of Marin. FHAM notified 77 housing providers in Marin during the year regarding
discriminatory language in their advertisements.
The 2020 State AI did not report any findings on fair housing testing. However, the AI concluded that
community awareness of fair housing protections correlates with fair housing testing as testing is often
complaint-based, like it is for FHAM in Marin County. According to the 2020 State AI, research indicates
that persons with disabilities are more likely to request differential treatment to ensure equal access to
housing, making them more likely to identify discrimination. The 2020 State AI highlighted the need for
continued fair housing outreach, fair housing testing, and trainings to communities across California to
ensure the fair housing rights of residents are protected under federal and state law. The 2020 State AI
recommended that the state support the increase of fair housing testing to identify housing
discrimination.
The 2020 State AI also reported findings from the 2020 Community Needs Assessment Survey.
Respondents felt that the primary bases for housing discrimination were source of income, followed by
discriminatory landlord practices, and gender identity and familial status. These results differ from the
most commonly cited reason for discrimination in complaints filed with DFEH and FHANC. The State
survey also found that most (72 percent) respondents who had felt discriminated against did “nothing”
in response. According to the 2020 State AI, “fair housing education and enforcement through the
complaint process are areas of opportunity to help ensure that those experiencing discrimination know
when and how to seek help.”
Local Trends
FHAM reports that there are no records of fair housing testing in Tiburon. The agency began entering
data on fair housing testing into their system two years ago. No prior information was available.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-11
Fair Housing Education and Outreach
Regional Trends
As stated earlier, the 2020 State AI has concluded that fair housing outreach and education is imperative
to ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help. FHANC organizes an
annual fair housing conference and resource fair for housing providers and advocates. Housing rights
workshops are offered to landlords, property managers, and community members. Information on
federal and state fair housing laws, common forms of housing discrimination, protected characteristics,
unlawful practices, and fair housing liability is presented to workshop participants. The Marin County
Housing Authority website includes the following information in 103 languages:
• Public Housing, including reasonable accommodations, grievance procedures, transfer policies,
Section 3, maintenance service charges, fraud and abuse, resident newsletters, forms and other
resources;
• HCVs, including for landlords, participants, fraud and abuse and voucher payment standards;
• Waitlist information and updates;
• Resident Services, including the Supportive Housing Program and Resident Advisory Board;
• Homeownership including Below Market Rate Homeownership Program, Residential Rehab
Loan Program, Mortgage Credit Certification Program and the Section 8 Homeownership
Program; and
• Announcements and news articles, Agency reports and calendar of events.
The County established a Fair Housing Community Advisory Group in 2016. The Community Advisory
Group provides advice and feedback on citizen engagement and communication strategies to County
staff, participates in inclusive discussions on fair housing topics, identifies fair housing issues and
contributing factors, and assists in developing solutions to mitigate fair housing issues. The County also
established a Fair Housing Steering Committee consisting of 20 members representing public housing,
faith-based organizations, the Marin County Housing Authority, Asian communities, cities and towns,
African American communities, business, persons with disabilities, children, legal aid, persons
experiencing homelessness, Latino communities, and philanthropy. The Steering Community advises on
citizen engagement strategies, identifies factors contributing to fair housing impediments, incorporates
community input and feedback, and provides information on a variety of housing topics to inform actions
and implementation plans.
From 2017 to 2018, Fair Housing Advocates of Marin (FHAM) educated 221 prospective homebuyers;
trained 201 housing providers on fair housing law and practice, a 28 percent increase from the previous
fiscal year. From 2017 to 2018, FHAM also reached 379 tenants and staff from service agencies through
fair housing presentations and 227 community members through fair housing conferences (a 37 percent
increase); distributed 4,185 pieces of literature; had 100 children participate in the annual Fair Housing
Poster Contest from 10 local schools and 16 students participate in the first Fair Housing Poetry Contest
from 11 local schools; and offered Storytelling shows about diversity and acceptance to 2,698 children
attending 18 Storytelling shows.
As of 2021, FHAM agency reaches those least likely to apply for services through the following: ·
• Translating most of its literature into Spanish and some in Vietnamese;
• Continuing to advertise all programs/services in all areas of Marin, including the Canal, Novato,
and Marin City, areas where Latinx and African-American populations are concentrated and live
in segregated neighborhoods;
• Maintaining a website with information translated into Spanish and Vietnamese;
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-12
• Maintaining bilingual staff: As of 2021, FHAM has three bilingual Spanish speakers who offer
intake, counseling, education and outreach to monolingual Spanish speakers; in addition, they
have one staff member who is bilingual in Mandarin and another in Portuguese;
• Maintaining a TTY/TDD line to assist in communication with clients who are deaf/hard of hearing
and offering translation services in other languages when needed;
• Conducting outreach and fair housing and pre-purchase presentations in English and Spanish;
and
• Collaborating with agencies providing services to all protected classes, providing fair housing
education to staff and eliciting help to reach vulnerable populations – e.g. Legal Aid of Marin, the
Asian Advocacy Project, Canal Alliance, ISOJI, MCIL, Sparkpoint, the District Attorney’s Office,
Office of Education, and the Marin Housing Authority.
Local Trends
The Town promotes fair housing through the following actions:
• The Town adopted a reasonable accommodation ordinance in 2012 (Municipal Code Chapter 16,
Article IX) to provide a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with
disabilities seeking equal housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations,
policies, and procedures. The Director of Community Development reviews and approves a
request for reasonable accommodation as long as no other discretionary permit approval is
required.
• The Community Development Director is the designated person in Tiburon with responsibility to
investigate and deal appropriately with complaints, including referral to Fair housing Advocates
of Northern Marin.
• The Town participated in the development of the adumarin.org website, which provides
information on laws related to being a landlord, especially with regard to discrimination. The
website links to the Guide to Residential Tenants’ and Landlords’ Rights and
Responsibilities published by the California Department of Consumer Affairs for an overview of
California laws that regulate certain aspects of the rental housing market.
The Town could do more to provide information to residents, landlords, and prospective tenants on
fair housing laws, including source of income laws. The Housing Element contains programs to
provide this information through the Town’s communication channels, including the newsletter,
website, social media, counter handouts, and tabling at community events. Programs include H-b
Improve Community Awareness of Housing Needs, Issues; H-p Housing Discrimination Complaints; H-q
Reasonable Accommodation; H-w Rental Assistance Programs; and H-gg Outreach and education for
Accessory Dwelling Units.
2. Integration and Segregation
Race/Ethnicity
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair
housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household
size, locational preferences and mobility. For example, prior studies have identified socioeconomic
status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”-
households with extended family members and non-kin.7 These factors have also been associated with
7 Harvey, H., Duniforn, R., & Pilkauskas, N. (2021). Under Whose Roof? Understanding the living arrangements of children in
doubled-up households. Duke University Press, 58 (3): 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9101102
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-13
ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas
though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the
suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tends to stay in metro
areas/ports of entry).8
To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) provides racial or ethnic dissimilarity trends. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the
evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed
across the geographic units, such as block groups within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 100,
with 0 denoting no segregation and 100 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The
index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to
produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, if an index
score above 60, 60 percent of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation.9
The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <40: Low Segregation
• 40-54: Moderate Segregation
• >55: High Segregation
Regional Trends
Non-Hispanic Whites make up 71.2 percent of Marin County’s population, a significantly larger share than
in the Bay Area region10, where only 39 percent of the population is non-Hispanic White. The next largest
racial/ethnic group in Marin County is Hispanic/Latino, making up 16 percent of the population, followed
by Asian population (5.8 percent), and population of two or more races (3.8 percent) (Table D-3). Of the
selected jurisdictions surrounding Tiburon, Larkspur and Sausalito have the most concentrated Hispanic
population, where 11 and 8.1 percent of residents are Hispanic or Latino, respectively. Mill Valley has the
smallest Hispanic population of only 4.2 percent, but Belvedere has the largest White population of 92.3
percent. These trends differ from the Bay Area, where Asians make up the second largest share of the
population (27 percent). While Asians make up the third largest share of the population in Marin County,
they account for only six percent of the population. The White populations in all the selected jurisdictions
is larger than the proportion countywide.
8 Sandefur, G.D., Martin, M., Eggerling-Boeck, J. , Mannon, S.E., & .Meier, A.M. (2001). An overview of racial and ethnic
demographic trends. In N. J. Smelser, W.J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.) America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences.
(Vol I, pp. 40-102). National Academy Press Washington, D.C. .
9 Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
10 The “Bay Area” data covers the members of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which are the counties of:
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-14
Table D-3: Racial Composition in Neighboring Cities and County
Bay Area1 Marin County Tiburon Belvedere Corte Madera Larkspur Mill Valley Sausalito
White, non-Hispanic 39.3% 71.2% 81.6% 92.3% 78.5% 77.9% 86.2% 86.7%
Black or African American, non-Hispanic 5.8% 2.1% 1.0% 0.0% 2.3% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2%
Asian, non-Hispanic 26.7%1 5.8% 2.7% 2.0% 6.1% 5.4% 5.0% 3.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic N/A 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Some other race, non-Hispanic N/A 0.9% 2.5% 0.0% 1.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6%
Two or more races, non-Hispanic N/A 3.8% 4.4% 0.6% 4.4% 4.0% 3.8% 0.4%
Hispanic or Latino 23.5% 16.0% 7.6% 5.1% 7.1% 11.0% 4.2% 8.1%
Total 7,710,026 259,943 9,144 2,134 9,838 12,319 14,330 7,116
1. The “Bay Area” data covers the members of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which are the counties of: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. 2. Asian and Pacific Islander combined; ABAG Data Package presented data with some races combined. Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates). ABAG Housing Needs Data Package.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-15
As explained above, dissimilarity indices measures segregation, with higher indices signifying higher
segregation. In Marin County, all minority (non-White) residents combined are considered moderately
segregated from White residents, with an index score of 42.6 in 2020 (Table D-4). Since 1990,
segregation between non-White (all non-white residents combined) and White residents has increased.
Dissimilarity indices between Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and White residents have also
increased since 1990, indicating that Marin County has become increasingly racially segregated. Based
on HUD’s definition of the index, Black and White residents are highly segregated and Hispanic and White
residents are moderately segregated, while segregation between Asian/Pacific Islander and White
residents is considered low.
Table D-4: Dissimilarity Indices for Marin County (1990-2020)
1990 Trend 2000 Trend 2010 Trend Current
Marin County
Non-White/White 31.63 34.08 35.21 42.61
Black/White 54.90 50.87 45.61 57.17
Hispanic/White 36.38 44.29 44.73 49.97
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 19.64 20.13 18.55 25.72
Sources: HUD Dissimilarity Index, 2020.
In California, based on the figures provided in the 2020 State AI, segregation levels between non-White
and White populations were moderate in both entitlement and non-entitlement areas. However,
segregation levels in non-entitlement areas are slightly higher with a value of 54.1, compared to 50.1 in
entitlement areas. Segregation trends Statewide show an increase in segregation between non-White
and White populations between 1990 and 2017 in both entitlement and non-entitlement areas. The 2020
State AI found that California’s segregation levels have consistently been most severe between the Black
and White populations, a trend paralleled in Marin County. Also, like Marin County, State trends show
Asian or Pacific Islander and White residents are the least segregated when compared to other racial and
ethnic groups, but levels are still increasing.
Figure D-2 and Figure D-3 below compare the concentration of minority populations in Marin County
and the adjacent region by census block group11 in 2010 and 2018. Since 2010, concentrations of
racial/ethnic minority groups have increased in most block groups regionwide. In Marin County, non-
White populations are most concentrated along the eastern County boundary, specifically in North and
Central Marin in the cities of San Rafael, Novato, and the unincorporated communities of Marin City and
San Quentin (where a State Prison is located). Red block groups indicate that over 81 percent of the
population in the tract is non-White. While non-White populations appear to be increasing across the
Marin region, these groups are generally concentrated within the areas described above. However,
minorities are more highly concentrated in jurisdictions east and south of Marin County. Most of the
block groups along the San Pablo Bay and San Francisco Bay shores in Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda,
11 Block groups (BGs) are the next level above census blocks in the geographic hierarchy (census blocks are the smallest
geographic area for which the Bureau of the Census collects and tabulates decennial census data). A BG is a combination of
census blocks that is a subdivision of a census tract or block numbering area (BNA). A county or its statistically equivalent entity
contains either census tracts or BNAs; it can not contain both. The BG is the smallest geographic entity for which the decennial
census tabulates and publishes sample data.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-16
and San Francisco County have higher concentrations of minorities (over 61 percent) compared to North
Bay counties (Marin, Sonoma, and Napa).
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-17
Figure D-2: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group (2010)
Figure D-3: Regional Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentrations by Block Group (2018)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-18
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-19
Figure D-4 shows census tracts in Marin County and the neighboring region by predominant racial or
ethnic groups. The intensity of the color indicates the population percentage gap between the majority
racial/ethnic group and the next largest racial/ethnic group. The higher the intensity of the color, the
higher the percentage gap between the predominant racial/ethnic group and the next largest
racial/ethnic group. The darkest color indicator for each race indicates that over 50 percent of the
population in that tract is of a particular race/ethnicity. Gray indicates a White predominant tract, green
indicates a Hispanic predominant tract, purple indicates an Asian predominant tract, and red indicates a
Black predominant tract. There are only four tracts in the County with non-White predominant
populations. Three tracts in Central Marin and one tract in Southern Marin have predominant non-White
populations. Two tracts in San Rafael have Hispanic predominant populations (green), one of which has
a Hispanic population exceeding 50 percent (90 percent, darkest green), and one tract in the
unincorporated San Quentin community has a Black predominant population (40 percent, red). In
Southern Marin, one tract in unincorporated Marin City has a Black majority population (41 percent, red).
In all other tracts countywide, Whites are the predominant race (grey). By comparison, many census
tracts in Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco counties have predominant minority
populations (shades of purple, green, and red).
It is important to note that Marin City, a historic African American enclave, is experiencing significant
declines in its African American population – in 1990, the community was about 90 percent Black/African
American, and is currently around 28 percent.
COVID-19 has accelerated these trends, exemplifying the communities that are increasingly at risk.
Hispanic/Latino populations represent about 16 percent of the County, and 34 percent of Rental
Assistance requests, while Black/African American residents represent about two percent of the
population, but 8.5 percent of Rental Assistance requests.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-20
Figure D-4: Regional Racial/Ethnic Majority Tracts (2018)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-21
Local Trends
Like the County, Tiburon’s population is mostly White (81.6 percent). As presented in Table D-5, the
Town’s White population decreased from 87.2 percent in 2010, while the Hispanic/Latino has increased
from 5.1 percent in 2010 to 7.6 percent in 2019. Since 2010, the Asian population has also decreased,
currently comprising 2.7 percent of the population. The Black/African American, some other race, and
two or more race populations have seen growth since 2010. There are no Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific
Islander residents in the Town.
Table D-5: Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition (2010-2019)
2010 2019
Persons Percent Persons Percent
White, non-Hispanic 7,703 87.2% 7,459 81.6%
Black or African American, non-Hispanic 0 0.0% 92 1.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native, non-Hispanic 25 0.3% 15 0.2%
Asian, non-Hispanic 531 6.0% 251 2.7%
Some other race, non-Hispanic 38 0.4% 233 2.5%
Two or more races, non-Hispanic 85 1.0% 399 4.4%
Hispanic or Latino 449 5.1% 695 7.6%
Total 8,831 100.0% 9,144 100.0%
Sources: 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
ABAG provides segregation analyses for Bay Area jurisdictions for the purpose of this AFFH assessment.
According to this report, dissimilarity indices in Tiburon are lower than the Bay Area average. From 2000
to 2020, the White and non-White communities in Tiburon have become less segregated, and
segregation between White and non-White groups town-wide is considered low based on HUD’s
definitions for dissimilarity indices (Table D-6). Segregation between Latinx and White communities and
Black/African American and White communities have increased since 2000, while Asian/Pacific Islander
and White communities have become less segregated. In general, racial segregation is less of an issue in
the Town compared to the Bay Area as a whole. It is important to note that some of the racial/ethnic
minority populations in the Town are small, therefore dissimilarity index estimates may be inaccurate.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-22
Table D-6: Dissimilarity Indices for Tiburon and Bay Area (2010-2020)
Tiburon Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 16.3* 3.4 0.5 18.5
Black/African American vs. White 1.3* 2.9* 18.9* 24.4
Latinx vs. White 3.3* 5.0* 3.6 20.7
People of Color vs. White 8.7 3.8 2.1 16.8
* Index based on racial group making up less than 5 percent of jurisdiction population. Estimates may be unreliable. Source: ABAG/MTC AFFH Segregation Report, 2022.
Figure D-5 and Figure D-6 compare racial/ethnic minority populations by block group in 2010 and 2018.
It is important to note that the block group encompassing Angel Island State Park contains very few
residential units. According to 2018 ESRI data from the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, there are 32 people
residing on Angel Island, all of which are State Park ranger and employees.
On mainland Tiburon, there are three block groups, two in the northwestern corner of the Town and one
in the southern section of the Town, where more than 21 percent of the population belongs to a racial or
ethnic minority group. Approximately 25 percent of the small population residing on Angel Island also
belongs to a racial/ethnic minority group. Non-White populations represent fewer than 20 percent of the
population in the remaining five block groups. Since 2010, the non-White population has increased most
significantly in the three block groups mentioned previously, located in the northern and southern
sections of the Town. As presented in Figure D-7, the entirety of Tiburon is predominantly White,
consistent with the surrounding jurisdictions, other than the unincorporated community of Marin City.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-23
Figure D-5: Minority Concentrations by Block Group (2010)
Figure D-6: Minority Concentrations by Block Group (2018)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-24
Figure D-7: Racial/Ethnic Majority Tracts (2018)
Sites Inventory
As discussed previously, all Tiburon block groups are comprised of non-White populations below 40
percent. It is important to note that block groups in the Town have populations of racial/ethnic minorities
ranging from 9.6 percent to 23.5 percent. The ranges shown in Figure D-8 and Table D-7 below may
exaggerate the concentrations of non-White populations.
Most units (80.9 percent) are in block groups where 20 percent or less of the population belongs to a
racial or ethnic minority group, including most lower income units (84.5 percent) and moderate income
units (94.7 percent). The Town’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower or moderate
income units in areas with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minority populations.
Table D-7: Distribution of RHNA Units by Racial/Ethnic Minority Concentration
Percent Non-White (Block Group)
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units All RHNA Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
<=20% 283 84.5% 107 94.7% 179 69.9% 570 80.9%
21-40% 52 15.5% 6 5.3% 77 30.1% 135 19.1%
Total 335 100.0% 113 100.0% 256 100.0% 705 100.0%
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-25
Figure D-8: Sites Inventory and Racial/Ethnic Minority Population by Block Group (2018)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-26
Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable
housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed
incomes that further limits their housing options. Persons with disabilities also tend to be more
susceptible to housing discrimination due to their disability status and required accommodations
associated with their disability.
Regional Trends
Marin County’s population with a disability 12 is similar to that in the Bay Area. As presented in Table D-
8, in Marin County, 9.1 percent of the population has a disability, compared to 9.6 percent in the Bay
Area. Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, and non-Hispanic White
populations experience disabilities at the highest rates in both the Bay Area and the County ( 16 percent,
18 percent, and 11 percent in the Bay Area and 15 percent, 12 percent, and 10 percent in Marin County,
respectively). Nearly 37 percent of Marin County’s population aged 75 and older and 14.6 percent aged
65 to 74 has one or more disability, lower shares than in the Bay Area. Ambulatory and independent living
difficulties are the most common disability type in the County and Bay Area.
Table D-8: Populations of Persons with Disabilities – Marin County
Bay Area Marin County
Percent with a Disability Percent with a Disability
Civilian non-institutionalized population 9.6% 9.1%
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 15.9% 14.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 17.5% 12.1%
Asian alone 7.3% 7.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 9.3% 0.8%
Some other race alone 6.8% 4.7%
Two or more races 8.2% 8.9%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 11.3% 9.9%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 7.9% 6.1%
Age
Under 5 years 0.6% 0.7%
5 to 17 years 3.8% 2.9%
12 The American Community Survey asks about six disability types: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty,
ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. Respondents who report anyone of the six
disability types are considered to have a disability. For more information visit:
https://www.census.gov/topics/health/disability/guidance/data-collection-
acs.html#:~:text=Physical%20Disability%20Conditions%20that%20substantially,reaching%2C%20lifting%2C%20or%20carry
ing.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-27
18 to 34 years 4.6% 5.9%
35 to 64 years 8.0% 6.1%
65 to 74 years 19.6% 14.6%
75 years and over 47.8% 36.8%
Type
Hearing difficulty 2.7% 3.0%
Vision difficulty 1.7% 1.5%
Cognitive difficulty 3.7% 3.2%
Ambulatory difficulty 4.8% 4.3%
Self-care difficulty 2.2% 2.0%
Independent living difficulty 3.9% 4.3%
1. The “Bay Area” data covers the members of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which are the counties of: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma. Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates).
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, populations of persons with disabilities in Marin County cities are
generally consistent, ranging from 7.2 percent in Ross to 10 percent in Novato. Figure D-9 shows that
less than 20 percent of the population in all tracts in the County have a disability. Persons with disabilities
are generally not concentrated in one area in the region. Figure D-9 also shows that only few census
tracts in the region have a population with a disability higher than 20 percent. However, multiple census
tracts with a population with disabilities between 15 and 20 percent are concentrated along San Pablo
Bay and San Francisco Bay in Napa, Contra Costa, and Contra Costa Valley.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-28
Figure D-9: Regional Populations of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-29
Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 9.9 percent of Tiburon residents experience a disability, compared to
9.1 percent countywide. Disabilities are most common among elderly residents aged 75 and older (29.3
percent with a disability), followed by adults aged 18 to 34 (15.9 percent with a disability), and seniors
aged 65 to 74 (15.8 percent with a disability) (Table D-9). The most common disabilities in Tiburon are
ambulatory difficulties (5.2 percent) and independent living difficulties (4.4 percent). Ambulatory
difficulties, difficulty walking or climbing stairs, and independent living difficulties are typically most
common among elderly adults. The population of persons with disabilities has increased from 8.4 percent
during the 2008-2012 ACS. This is likely due, in part, to the increase in elderly residents. The elderly
population aged 65 and older in Tiburon grew from 21 percent to 25.7 percent during the same period.
Table D-9: Populations of Persons with Disabilities – Tiburon (2019)
Total Population Percent with a Disability
Total civilian non-institutionalized population 9,113 9.9%
Race/Ethnicity
Black or African American alone 92 59.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 15 0.0%
Asian alone 251 37.1%
Some other race alone 321 15.0%
Two or more races 681 12.2%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 7,428 8.1%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 695 18.0%
Age
Under 5 years 266 0.0%
5 to 17 years 1,675 1.6%
18 to 34 years 794 15.9%
35 to 64 years 4,052 5.9%
65 to 74 years 1,294 15.8%
75 years and over 1,032 29.3%
Type
Hearing difficulty -- 3.9%
Vision difficulty -- 2.6%
Cognitive difficulty -- 1.6%
Ambulatory difficulty -- 5.2%
Self-care difficulty -- 1.4%
Independent living difficulty -- 4.4%
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-30
Sources: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates).
Figure D-10 shows the population of persons with disabilities by census tract based on the 2015-2019
ACS. There are two tracts that encompass the majority of the Town: tract 1241 in the northwestern
section of the Town, also encompassing parts of the unincorporated County including Ring Mountain and
the Strawberry Community; and tract 1242 in the southern section of the Town and most of Angel Island,
also encompassing northern coastal areas that are not part of the Town. Quarry Point, located on the
eastern side of Angel Island, is not included in tract 1242 and is not considered part of Tiburon. A small
portion of the Town is also located in tract 1230, which encompasses mostly the City of Belvedere.
The southwestern Tiburon tract (tract 1242) has a higher concentration of persons with disabilities
compared to the northern tract (tract 1241). According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 6.5 percent of the
population in tract 1241 experiences one or more disability, compared to 12.2 percent in tract 1242. Tract
1230 has a population of persons with disabilities of 8.9 percent.
Tract 1242 on the southern side of the Town contains one block group with racial/ethnic minority
populations exceeding 20 percent; however, block groups with larger racial/ethnic minority populations
are not concentrated in this tract alone. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 20.3 percent of the population
in tract 1241 are aged 65 or older, while 31.4 percent of the population in tract 1242 are aged 65 or older.
The population of elderly adults residing in tract 1242 likely contributes to the heightened concentration
of persons with disabilities.
Sites Inventory
As presented above, tracts in the Town have populations of persons with disabilities ranging from 6.5 to
12.2 percent. The distribution of units selected to meet the Town’s RHNA by population of persons with
disabilities is shown in Table D-10 and Figure D-10, below.
Most RHNA units (80.3 percent) are in the southeastern tract where 12.2 percent of the population
experiences one or more disability. Over 80 percent of above moderate income units, 76.7 percent of
lower income units, and 91.2 percent of moderate income units are in this tract. It is important to note
that this tract encompasses the largest proportion of the total area in the Town. The Town’s RHNA
strategy does not disproportionately expose lower or moderate income units to populations with higher
rates of disabilities.
Table D-10: Distribution of RHNA Units by Population of Persons with Disabilities
Percent with Disability (Tract)
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units All RHNA Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
<10% 78 23.3% 10 8.8% 51 19.9% 139 19.7%
10-20% 257 76.7% 103 91.2% 205 80.1% 566 80.3%
Total 335 100.0% 113 100.0% 256 100.0% 705 100.0%
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-31
Figure D-10: Sites Inventory and Concentration of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-32
Familial Status
Under the Fair Housing Act, housing providers may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial
status covers: the presence of children under the age of 18, pregnant persons, any person in the process
of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial
status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins
the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody, or requiring families with children to live on specific
floors or in specific buildings or areas. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law.
Regional Trends
According to the 2019 ACS, there are slightly fewer households with children in Marin County than the
Bay Area. About 27 percent of households in Marin County have children under the age of 18, with 21
percent married-couple households with children and six percent single-parent households (Figure D-
11). In the Bay Area, about 32 percent of households have children and like in the County, the majority of
households with children are married-couple households. Within Marin County, the cities of Larkspur and
Ross have the highest percentage of households with children (50.1 percent and 40.6 percent,
respectively). Larkspur, Corte Madera, and San Rafael have concentrations of single-parent households
exceeding the countywide average. Figure D-12 shows the distribution of children in married households
and single female headed households in the region. Census tracts with high concentrations of children
living in married couple households are not concentrated in one area of Marin County. Most census tracts
have over 60 percent of children living in married-persons households. Regionally, children in married-
person households are more common in inland census tracts (away from the bay areas). The inverse trend
is seen for children living in single-parent female-headed households, is shown in Figure D-13. In most
tracts countywide, less than 20 percent of children live in female-headed households. Between 20 and
40 percent of children live in female-headed households in two tracts: one in Southern Marin in the
unincorporated community of Marin City and one in West Marin near the unincorporated community of
Bolinas. Regionally, tracts with a higher percentage of children in married-persons households are found
along the San Pablo and San Francisco bays.
.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-33
Figure D-11: Households with Children in Marin County and Incorporated Cities (2019)
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-34
Figure D-12: Regional Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-35
Figure D-13: Regional Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-36
Local Trends
Tiburon has seen a slight decrease in the proportion of households with children in recent years (Table
D-11). During the 2006-2010 ACS, there were 1,194 households with children representing 33.6 percent
of all Town households. The most recent 2015-2019 ACS estimates show there is now 1,211 households
with children in Tiburon representing only 31.9 percent of households town-wide. The number of single-
parent female-headed households has increased most significantly, from 92 housing in 2010 to 127
households in 2019, a 38 percent increase. There is no single-parent male-headed households in Tiburon
currently. Female-headed households with children require special consideration and assistance because
of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive
services. The Town has seen an increase in total households of seven percent during this period, but an
increase of only 0.6 percent married couple households with children.
Table D-11: Change in Household Type – Households with Children (2006-2019)
Household Type 2006-2010 2015-2019 Percent Change Households Percent Households Percent
Married-couple family with children 1,001 28.2% 1,007 26.5% 0.6%
Cohabiting couple with children -- -- 77 2.0% N/A
Single-parent, male-headed 73 2.1% 0 0.0% -100.0%
Single-parent, female-headed 92 2.6% 127 3.3% 38.0%
Total Households with Children 1,194 33.6% 1,211 31.9% 1.4%
Total Households 3,551 100.00% 3,798 100.0% 7.0%
-- = data not available. Sources: American Community Survey, 2006-2010 and 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates).
As shown in Figure D-14, more than 80 percent of children in both Tiburon tracts live in married couple
households. Approximately 87 percent of children in tract 1241 on the northwestern side of Town and 85
percent of children in tract 1242 on the southeastern side of the Town live in married couple households.
Less than 20 percent of children live in single-parent female-headed households in both tracts (Figure D-
15).
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-37
Figure D-14: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019)
Figure D-15: Percent of Children in Female-Headed Households by Tract (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-38
Sites Inventory
As presented previously, there are no concentrations of children living in female-headed households in
the Town. Further, both tracts in the Town have populations of children living in married couple
households exceeding 80 percent. Therefore, all units selected to meet the Town’s RHNA are in tracts
with similar populations of children living in married couple or single-parent female-headed households.
The Town’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place RHNA units in tracts with higher
concentrations of children in single-parent households or tracts with lower concentrations of children in
married couple households.
Income Level
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns
of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the
population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).
Regional Trends
According to Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)13 data based on the 2017 ACS, 40.5
percent of Marin County households are low or moderate income, earning 80 percent or less than the
area median income (AMI) (Table D-12). A significantly larger proportion of renter households in Marin
County are LMI. Nearly 60 percent of renter households are considered LMI compared to only 29.8
percent of owner households. Figure D-16 shows that LMI populations are most concentrated in tracts
in West Marin, North Marin (Novato), Central Marin (San Rafael), and the unincorporated communities
of Marin City and Santa Venetia.
Table D-12: Marin County Households by Income Category and Tenure
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 8.7% 26.0% 14.9%
31%-50% of AMI 8.5% 16.0% 11.2%
51%-80% of AMI 12.6% 17.6% 14.4%
81%-100% of AMI 8.4% 10.0% 8.9%
Greater than 100% of AMI 61.8% 30.4% 50.5%
Total 67,295 37,550 104,845
1. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas and uses San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties) for Marin County. Sources: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021; HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
13 Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) receives custom tabulations of American
Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-39
Figure D-16: Regional Concentrations of LMI Households by Tract
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-40
Local Trends
Nearly 69 percent of households in Tiburon earn more than 100 percent of the area median income (AMI).
However, a significantly larger proportion of owner-occupied households earn 100 percent of the AMI or
more compared to renter-occupied households. Owners tend to have higher incomes than renters.
Households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI are considered lower income households. Only 21.3
percent of households in the Town are lower income households. Less than 15 percent of owner-occupied
households are considered lower income compared to 36 percent of renters. While renters are more likely
to earn less than 80 percent of the AMI and be considered lower income, there is a significantly lower
proportion of lower income owners and renters in Tiburon compared to the County. According to 2015-
2019 ACS estimates, the median household income in Tiburon is $154,915, higher than the County
($115,246) and neighboring cities of Corte Madera ($149,439), Larkspur ($109,426), and Sausalito
($111,906), but lower than Belvedere ($245,208) and Mill Valley ($163,614).
Table D-13: Tiburon Households by Income Category and Tenure (2017)
Income Category Owner Renter Total
0%-30% of AMI 3.2% 15.7% 7.1%
31%-50% of AMI 4.5% 5.9% 5.0%
51%-80% of AMI 7.0% 14.4% 9.3%
81%-100% of AMI 8.5% 13.6% 10.1%
Greater than 100% of AMI 76.7% 50.4% 68.6%
Total 2,645 1,180 3,825
Sources: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021; HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Dissimilarity indices from the ABAG AFFH Segregation Report are presented in Table D-14. Household
dissimilarity indices for Tiburon reveal that the Town is generally a mixed-income community compared
to the Bay Area. However, segregation between lower and higher income households has increased since
2010 in the Town. Income dissimilarity indices for the Town are significantly lower than the region lower
and higher income households in the Town have become increasingly segregated between 2010 and
2015.
Table D-14: Tiburon and Bay Area Income Dissimilarity Indices (2010-2015)
Tiburon Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.5 10.5 19.8
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 7.9 14.2 25.3
Source: ABAG/MTC AFFH Segregation Report, 2022.
Figure D-17 shows the LMI populations in Tiburon by block group. A block group is considered an LMI
area if more than 50 percent of households are low or moderate income. There is one block group in the
Town located in the northwestern section of the Town along Tiburon Boulevard that is considered an LMI
area. It is important to note that this block group encompasses Greenwood Cove which is not part of the
incorporated Town. Approximately 68 percent of the population residing in this block group is low or
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-41
moderate income. This block group spans from the Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary to South Knoll Park. The
ACS does not have data for number of households in this block group. This, as well as the plethora of
parks and open space within this block group, indicates there are few households residing in this area of
the Town. The block group containing the Quarry Point area of Angel Island is also an LMI area but is not
part of incorporated Tiburon. The remaining block groups in Tiburon have LMI populations below 50
percent. Block groups with larger proportions of LMI households are not concentrated in a single area of
the Town. The LMI area does not overlap with any other fair housing issues discussed above, including
concentrations of racial/ethnic minority populations, populations of persons with disabilities, or children
living in single-parent female-headed households (see Figure D-6, Figure D-10, and Figure D-15).
There are three subsidized housing projects in Tiburon: Cecilia Place (15 affordable units) located in the
northwestern area of the Town, The Hilarita (91 affordable units) located in the southern section of the
Town near Neds Way and Tiburon Boulevard, and Bradley House (12 affordable units) located in the
southeastern area of the Town. None of the subsidized housing projects in the Town are located in LMI
areas.
Sites Inventory
As shown above, there is one block group in the Town that is considered an LMI area with a population
of low and moderate income households exceeding 50 percent. There are no RHNA units located in the
block group. Table D-15 and Figure D-17 show the distribution of RHNA units by LMI population.
Nearly 62 percent of RHNA units, including 63.6 percent of lower income units, 68.1 percent of moderate
income units, and 57 percent of above moderate income units, are in block groups where less than 25
percent of households are low or moderate income. The location of RHNA units generally follows trend
town-wide and does not disproportionately place lower or moderate income units in block groups where
LMI populations are high.
Table D-15: Distribution of RHNA Units by LMI Household Concentration
LMI Households (Block Group)
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units All RHNA Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
<25% 213 63.6% 77 68.1% 146 57.0% 436 61.8%
25-50% 122 36.4% 36 31.9% 110 43.0% 269 38.2%
Total 335 100.0% 113 100.0% 256 100.0% 705 100.0%
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-42
Figure D-17: Sites Inventory and LMI Population by Block Group
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-43
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV)
An analysis of the trends in Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) concentration can be useful in examining the
success of the program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders. The HCV
program aims to encourage participants to avoid high-poverty neighborhoods and promote the
recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low poverty neighborhoods. HCV programs are
managed by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure (SEMAPS)
includes an “expanding housing opportunities” indicator that shows whether the PHA has adopted and
implemented a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units located outside areas of
poverty or minority concentration14. In Marin County, the Landlord Partnership Program aims to expand
rental opportunities for families holding housing choice vouchers by making landlord participation in the
program more attractive and feasible, and by making the entire program more streamlined.
A study prepared by HUD’s Development Office of Policy Development and Research found a positive
association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration and a
negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty15. This means that HCV use was
concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents tend to be lower. In areas where these patterns occur,
the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty.
Regional Trends
As of December 2020, 2,100 Marin households received HCV assistance from the Housing Authority of
the County of Marin (MHA). The map in Figure D-18 shows that HCV use is concentrated in tracts in
North Marin (Hamilton and the intersection of Novato Boulevard and Indian Valley Road). In these tracts,
between 15 and 30 percent of the renter households are HCV holders. In most Central Marin tracts and
some Southern Marin tract (which are more densely populated), between five and 15 percent of renters
are HCV recipients. The correlation between low rents and a high concentration of HCV holders holds
true in North Marin tracts where HVC use is the highest (Figure D-19). Overall, patterns throughout most
Marin County communities also show that where rents are lower, HCV use is higher.
14 For more information of Marin County’s SEMAP indicators, see: the County’s Administrative Plan for the HCV Program.
https://irp.cdn-website.com/4e4dab0f/files/uploaded/Admin%20Plan%20Approved%20December%202021.pdf
15 Devine, D.J., Gray, R.W., Rubin, L., & Taghavi, L.B. (2003). Housing choice voucher location patterns: Implications for participant
and neighborhood welfare. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development
and Research, Division of Program Monitoring and Research.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-44
Figure D-18: Regional HCV Concentration by Tract
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-45
Figure D-19: Regional Median Gross Rent/Affordability Index by Tract
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-46
Local Trends
There is no data for renters receiving HCVs in the southeastern tract (1242) and only 1.8 percent of renters
in the northwestern tract (1241) received HCVs. To restrict access to tenant information HCV locations
are identified in public records by the owner, and not the tenant. Public data pertaining to the locations
of HCV program participants are only available as U.S. Census Tract aggregations. Moreover, to protect
the confidentiality of those receiving HCV Program assistance, tracts containing 10 or fewer voucher
holders have been omitted from this service. As presented in Figure D-21, rental prices are less affordable
in Tiburon. Consistent with rental prices and HCV recipient rates, the Town is predominantly made up of
high income households and lower concentrations of LMI households (see previous section on Income
Level). Tiburon is a predominantly owner-occupied household community. Only 39.3 percent of
households in tract 1241 (northwestern tract) and 33.1 percent of households in tract 1242 (southeastern
tract) are renter-occupied. Cost burden and overpayment are further analyzed in Section 5,
Disproportionate Housing Needs, of this Assessment of Fair Housing.
Figure D-20: HCV Concentration by Tract
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-47
Figure D-21: Median Gross Rent/Affordability Index by Tract
3. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP)
In an effort to identify racially/ethnically-concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has identified
census tracts with a majority non-White population (greater than 50 percent) and a poverty rate that
exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever
threshold is lower.
Regional Trends
There is one R/ECAP in Southern Marin located in Marin City west of State Highway 101 (Figure D-22).
As shown in Figure D-4, previously, the Marin City CDP tract is characterized by a concentration of
African American residents. Approximately 22 percent of Marin City’s residents are African American-
significantly higher than the County’s and unincorporated County’s African American population (two
percent and three percent, respectively). Marin City residents also earn lower median incomes (less than
$55,000, Figure D-26), especially compared to neighboring jurisdictions where median incomes are
higher than $125,000. Marin City, where Marin County’s only family public housing is located, also has
the highest share of extremely low-income households in the County; about 40 percent of households
earn less than 30 percent the Area Median Income, whereas only 14 percent of unincorporated County
households are considered extremely low income.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-48
Figure D-22: Regional Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-49
Figure D-23: Regional R/ECAP Detail
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-50
Local Trends
One tract containing the Quarry Point area of Angel Island State Park has been identified as a R/ECAP.
This area is also considered a TCAC area of high segregation and poverty. However, as discussed
previously, this area is not considered part of the Town of Tiburon.
As presented in Table D-16, Tiburon has a smaller population below the poverty level compared to the
County (2.6 percent and 7.2 percent, respectively). In Tiburon, there are no Black/African American,
American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, some other race, or two or more races’ populations below the
poverty level. The non-Hispanic White and Hispanic/Latino populations have comparable poverty rates
of 2.9 percent and three percent, respectively. Figure D-24 shows poverty status by tract in Tiburon.
Fewer than 10 percent of the population in both tracts are below the poverty line. The tract containing
the Quarry Point area of Angel Island State Park, where there is a higher concentration of persons below
the poverty level, is not part of the Town.
Table D-16: Population Below Poverty Level by Race/Ethnicity (2019)
Income Category Tiburon Marin County
Total Population Percent Below Poverty Level Total Population Percent Below Poverty Level
Black or African American alone 92 0.0% 4,746 16.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 15 0.0% 823 22.1%
Asian alone 251 0.0% 14,859 8.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 -- 507 65.1%
Some other race alone 321 0.0% 20,879 23.2%
Two or more races 681 0.0% 12,199 6.5%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 695 3.0% 39,574 16.9%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 7,428 2.9% 182,823 4.8%
Total 9,113 2.6% 253,869 7.2%
Sources: ABAG/MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-51
Figure D-24: Poverty Status by Tract
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
While racially concentrated areas of poverty and segregation (R/ECAPs) have long been the focus of fair
housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure
housing is integrated, a key to fair housing choice. According to a policy paper published by HUD, RCAAs
are defined as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents.
According to HUD's policy paper, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the
United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and
high concentrations of people of color, conversely, distinct advantages are associated with residence in
affluent, White communities.
While HCD has created its own metric for RCAAs, as of February 2022, RCAA maps are not available on
HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer tool. Thus, this analysis relies on the definition curated by the scholars at the
University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs cited in HCD’s memo: “RCAAs are defined as
census tracts where 1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household
income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
Regional Trends
Figure D-3 and Figure D-4 shows the concentration of minority/non-White population and majority
populations across the region. In Figure D-3, census tracts in yellow have less than 20 percent non-white
population, indicating over 80 percent of the population is white. There are a few tracts with over 80
percent non-Hispanic White population located throughout the County, especially in Southern Marin,
parts of Central Marin, coastal North Marin, and central West Marin. The cities of Belvedere, Mill Valley,
Fairfax, Ross, and some areas of San Rafael and Novato are also predominantly white. However, of all
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-52
these predominantly white areas (incorporated jurisdictions and unincorporated communities), only
Belvedere, the Valley, Tam Valley, Black Point- Green Point and the eastern tracts of Novato are census
tracts with a median income over $125,000 (Figure D-25). Although not all census tracts have the exact
relationship of over 80 percent White and median income over $125,000 to qualify as “RCAAs,”
throughout the County tracts with higher White population tend to have greater median incomes.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-53
Figure D-25: Regional Median Income by Block Group (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-54
Local Trends
As presented previously, non-White populations represent less than 20 percent of the population in most
Tiburon block groups (see Figure D-6). Four block groups have a non-White population exceeding 20
percent, including the block group encompassing Angel Island State Park. Figure D-26 shows median
income and non-White population by block group in the Town. Most block groups have median incomes
exceeding $125,000. There is one block group in the southern section of the Town along Tiburon
Boulevard that has a median income of $99,867. The block group encompassing the Quarry Point area
of Angel Island has a lower median income but is not part of the incorporated Town. Two block groups in
the northwestern section of the Town and one block group in the southeastern section of the Town are
considered RCAAs, where less than 20 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority
group and the median income exceeds $125,000.
Median household income by race/ethnicity in Tiburon and Marin County is shown in Table D-17. Most
non-White populations in the Town, other than the Asian population, are too small to accurately estimate
median income. In the County, White, non-Hispanic households have the highest median income of
$126,501. Countywide, the median income among Hispanic or Latino households is $67,125, significantly
lower than non-Hispanic White households. Median incomes for the non-Hispanic White and Asian
populations in the Town are higher than the overall median of $154,915. This indicates that other non-
White groups other than the Asian population have lower median incomes. As discussed above, the
Hispanic/Latino population has the highest poverty rate in Tiburon. The median income in Tiburon as
well as the tract-level median incomes indicate the Town is generally affluent with higher income
earners. As mentioned in Section 2, Integration and Segregation, more than half of households in the
Town earn 100 percent or more of the AMI.
Table D-17: Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2019)
Income Category Tiburon Marin County
Percent Distribution Median HH Income Percent Distribution Median HH Income
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 88.2% $155,846 80.3% $126,501
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 4.4% -- 9.7% $67,125
Black or African American 1.4% -- 1.6% $48,602
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.4% -- 0.3% --
Asian 4.2% $224,531 5.6% $107,849
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.0% -- 0.1% $18,221
Some other race 1.6% -- 4.5% $59,604
Two or more races 2.4% -- 3.2% $104,679
Total 100.0% $154,915 100.0% $115,246
-- = Insufficient data. Sources: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-55
Figure D-26: Median Income and non-White population by Block Group (2019, 2018)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-56
4. Access to Opportunities
Significant disparities in access to opportunity are defined by the AFFH Final Rule as “substantial and
measurable differences in access to educational, transportation, economic, and other opportunities in a
community based on protected class related to housing.”
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC) convened the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-
based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state
agencies/ departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force has created
Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at
increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with nine
percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite
scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table D-18 shows the full list of
indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial
segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure
of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line; and
• Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians,
or all people of color in comparison to the County
Table D-18: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps
Domain Indicator
Economic
Poverty Adult education Employment Job proximity Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values
Education
Math proficiency Reading proficiency High School graduation rates Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020.
TCAC/HCD assigns “scores” for each of the domain by census tracts as well as computing “composite”
scores that are a combination of the three domains (Table D-18). Scores from each individual domain
range from 0-1, where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.”
Composite scores do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources
(low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation).
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps offer a tool to visualize areas of highest resource, high resource,
moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource, and high segregation and
poverty. The opportunity maps can help to identify areas within the community that provide good access
to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. They can also help to
highlight areas where there are high levels of segregation and poverty.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-57
The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element
policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas and areas of high
segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for low and moderate income and black,
indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas.
Regional Trends
As explained earlier, TCAC composite scores categorize the level of resources in each census tract.
Categorization is based on percentile rankings for census tracts within the region. Counties in the region
all have a mix of resource levels. The highest concentrations of highest resource areas are located in the
counties of Sonoma and Contra Costa (Figure D-27). Marin and San Francisco counties also have a
concentration of high resource tracts. All counties along the San Pablo and San Francisco Bay area have
at least one census tract considered an area of high segregation and poverty, though these tracts are
most prevalent in the cities of San Francisco and Oakland.
There is only one census tract in Marin County considered areas of “high segregation and poverty”
(Figure D-28). This census tract is located in Central Marin within the Canal neighborhood of the City of
San Rafael. In the County, low resource areas (green) are concentrated in West Marin, from Dillon Beach
to Nicasio. This area encompasses the communities of Tomales, Marshall, Inverness, and Point Reyes
Station. In Central Marin, low resource areas are concentrated in San Rafael. As shown in Figure D-28,
all of Southern Marin is considered a highest resource area, with the exception of Marin City which is
classified as moderate resource.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-58
Figure D-27: Regional TCAC Composite Scores by Tract (2021)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-59
Figure D-28: Local TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty Areas (2021)
Note: The area in outlined in red encompasses the Quarry Point area of Angel Island State Park (no residential).
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-60
While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and
mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still
be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as
disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on
nationally available data sources to assess County residents’ access to key opportunity assets. HUD
opportunity indices are provided for entitlement jurisdictions only. Opportunity indicators are not
available for the Town of Tiburon. Table D-19 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to
100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
• School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses school-level data on the
performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-
performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing elementary schools.
The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary
description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a
neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and
educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force
participation and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets
the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the
median income for renters for the region (i.e., the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher
the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a
family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50
percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the
lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
• Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential
neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger
employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to
employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
• Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure
to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins
harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental
quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.
Table D-19: Opportunity Indices by Race/Ethnicity – Marin County
School Prof. Labor Market Transit Trip
Low Transp. Cost
Jobs Prox. Env. Health
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 78.73 86.48 61.00 86.45 64.50 81.33
Black, Non-Hispanic 75.59 48.89 68.54 89.57 74.96 76.55
Hispanic 55.96 68.11 68.08 89.65 69.72 83.84
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 74.41 82.57 64.24 87.81 66.89 81.01
Native American, Non-Hispanic 77.09 67.25 62.28 87.19 69.32 80.55
Population below federal poverty line
White, Non-Hispanic 74.28 84.68 61.13 87.02 64.01 82.93
Black, Non-Hispanic 66.79 55.04 74.1 91.52 66.84 76.07
Hispanic 38.54 56.82 75.83 91.68 76.48 83.81
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-61
Asian or Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic 68.97 82.89 67.01 89.11 71.69 78.95
Native American, Non-Hispanic 56.77 66.49 71.22 88.33 67.14 85.29
Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. See page XX for index
score meanings. Table is comparing the total Marin County, by race/ethnicity, to the County and Town population living below the federal poverty line, also by race/ethnicity. Source: AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA
Local Trends
Table D-20 shows the Opportunity Map scores for the census tracts in the Town. Categorization is based
on percentile rankings for census tracts within the Marin County region. High composite scores mean
higher resources. Both Tiburon tracts are highest resource areas. The tract containing Quarry Point area
of Angel Island State Park is an area of high segregation and poverty but is not part of the Town. Tiburon
TCAC scores are generally comparable to the surrounding areas. The Opportunity Map is shown in Figure
D-29. Tiburon is generally an affluent Town with high access to opportunities.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-62
Table D-20: Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization (2021)
Tract Economic Domain Score Environmental Domain Score Education Domain Score Composite Index Final Category
6041124100 0.883 0.842 0.959 0.842 Highest Resource
6041124200 0.899 0.64 0.885 0.718 Highest Resource
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, 2021.
Figure D-29: TCAC Composite Scores by Tract (2021)
Sites Inventory
All areas of the Town are considered highest resource tracts. Therefore, all RHNA sites are located in
highest resource areas.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-63
Education
Regional Trends
The school proficiency index is an indicator of school system quality, with higher index scores indicating
access to higher school quality. In Marin County, Hispanic residents have access to lower quality schools
(lowest index value of 56) compared all other residents (for all other races, index values ranged from 74
to 78). For residents living below the federal poverty line, index values are lower for all races but are still
lowest for Hispanic and Native American residents. White residents have the highest index values,
indicating a greater access to high quality schools, regardless of poverty status.
The HCD/TCAC education scores for the region show the distribution of education quality based on
education outcomes (Figure D-30). As explained in Table D-18, the Education domain score is based on
a variety of indicators including math proficiency, reading proficiency, high School graduation rates, and
student poverty rates. The education scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating more positive
education outcomes. In the Region, lower education scores are found in census tracts in all counties along
the San Pablo Bay. In counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay, there are concentrations of both low
and high education scores. For example, in San Francisco County, the western coast has a concentration
of high education scores while the eastern coast has a concentration of low education scores. In Marin
County, low education scores are concentrated in Novato and San Rafael along the San Pablo Bay and
along the western coast.
According to Marin County’s 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice [2020 AI], while the
County’s overall high school graduation rates are among the highest in the nation, Marin County, “has
the greatest educational achievement gap in California.” According to data from Marin Promise, a
nonprofit of education and nonprofit leaders, from 2017 – 2018:
• 78 percent of White students in Marin met or exceeded common core standards for 3rd Grade
Literacy, while only 42 percent of students of color met or exceeded those standards;
• 71 percent of White students met or exceeded common core standards for 8th grade math, while
only 37 percent of students of color met or exceeded those standards; and
• 64 percent of White students met or exceeded the college readiness standards, defined as
completing course requirements for California public universities, while only 40 percent of
students of color met or exceeded those requirements.
Of special note in Marin County is the California State Justice Department’s finding in 2019 that the
Sausalito Marin City School District had “knowingly and intentionally maintained and exacerbated”
existing racial segregation and deliberately established a segregated school and diverted County staff
and resources to Willow Creek while depriving the students at Bayside MLK an equal educational
opportunity. More details on this finding are found under local knowledge for Marin’s vulnerable
communities
Lower education scores are found in most of the unincorporated County areas in West Marin (Figure D-
30). Higher education scores are prominent in Southern Marin and eastern Central Marin jurisdictions
including the unincorporated and incorporated communities of Lucas Valley, Fairfax, Larkspur, Kentfield,
Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Tiburon, and Strawberry. However, lower education scores are found in parts
of North and Central Main, specifically in the cities of Novato and San Rafael. The pattern of higher
education scores in the south and lower education scores in the north correlate with the location of
schools throughout the County. Figure D-31 shows that most schools are concentrated in North, Central,
and Southern Marin along major highways (Highway 101 and Shoreline Highway), with few schools in
West Marin. Despite a high concentration of schools in the San Rafael/Novato area, these census tracts
have lower education outcomes.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-64
Figure D-30: TCAC Education Scores- Region
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-65
Figure D-31: Schools in Marin County
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-66
Local Trends
Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States. The Great Schools
Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: the Student Progress Rating or Academic Progress
Rating, College Readiness Rating, Equity Rating, and Test Score Rating. Ratings at the lower end of the
scale (1-4) signal that the school is “below average”, 5-6 indicate “average”, and 7-10 are “above average.”
Figure D-32 shows that Tiburon is comprised of several private schools (gray). Reed Union School District
(RUSD) serves the Town of Tiburon. There are three public schools in RUSD, Bel Aire Elementary and Del
Mar Middle are both shown below. Both Bel Aire Elementary and Del Mar Middle School scored in the
above average range according to GreatSchools. Reed Elementary is also part of RUSD and serves K-2
students in Tiburon. GreatSchools ratings correspond with the TCAC’s Education Score map for the Town
presented in Figure D-33. All of Tiburon scored in the highest quartile for education opportunities. The
Quarry Point area of Angel Island is not part of the Town.
Figure D-32: GreatSchools Ratings
Source: Greatschools.org, GreatSchools Rating – Tiburon, Accessed 2022.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-67
Figure D-33: TCAC Education Scores by Tract (2021)
The Healthy Places Index (HPI) analyzes community conditions and variables related to economic,
education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare access to
estimate healthy community conditions. The HPI is expanded upon in Healthy Places subsection of this
Chapter, Access to Opportunities. Figure D-34 and Figure D-35 show that in all areas of Tiburon, more
than 75 percent of persons aged 25 and older have a Bachelor’s Degree or higher and 100 percent of
persons aged 15 to 17 are enrolled in high school. These trends are consistent with the TCAC education
scores town-wide. Figure D-36 shows the percentage of children aged 3 to 4 enrolled in preschool. In
both Tiburon tracts, 100 percent of preschool-aged children are enrolled in preschool.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-68
Figure D-34: HPI – Percent of Population with Bachelor’s Education or Higher by Tract
Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), HPI Indicators Mapping Tool, Accessed 2022.
Figure D-35: HPI – High School Enrollment by Tract
Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), HPI Indicators Mapping Tool, Accessed 2022.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-69
Figure D-36: HPI – Preschool Enrollment by Tract
Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), HPI Indicators Mapping Tool, Accessed 2022.
Transportation
Regional Trends
According to ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040, regional mismatch between employment growth relative to
the housing supply has resulted in a disconnect between where people live and work. Overall, the Bay
Area has added nearly two jobs for every housing unit built since 1990. The deficit in housing production
has been particularly severe in terms of housing affordable to lower- and middle wage workers, especially
in many of the jobs-rich, high-income communities along the Peninsula and in Silicon Valley. As a result,
there have been record levels of freeway congestion and historic crowding on transit systems like Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain and San Francisco’s Municipal Railway (Muni).
HUD’s opportunity indicators can provide a picture of transit use and access in Marin County through the
transit index 16 and low transportation cost.17 Index values can range from zero to 100 and are reported
per race so that differences in access to transportation can be evaluated based on race. In the County,
transit index values range from 61 to 69, with White residents scoring lower and Black and Hispanic
residents scoring highest. Given that higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents utilize public
transit, Black and Hispanics are more likely to use public transit. For residents living below the poverty
line, the index values have a larger range from 61 for White residents to 75 for Hispanic residents.
Regardless of income, White residents have lower index values- and thus a lower likelihood of using
transit.
16 Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of transit trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a
3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region (i.e. the Core-Based
Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
17 Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following
description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA.
The higher the index, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-70
Low transportation cost index values have a larger range than transit index values from 65 to 75 across
all races and were similar for residents living below the poverty line. Black and Hispanic residents have
the highest low transportation cost index values, regardless of poverty status. Considering a higher “low
transportation cost” index value indicates a lower cost of transportation; public transit is less costly for
Black and Hispanics than other groups in the County.
Transit patterns in Figure D-37 show that transit is concentrated throughout North, Central, and
Southern Marin along the City Centered Corridor from Novato to Marin City/Sausalito. In addition, there
are connections eastbound; San Rafael connects 101 North/South and 580 Richmond Bridge going East
(Contra Costa County) and Novato connects 101 North/South and 37 going East towards Vallejo (Solano
County). Internally, public transit along Sir Francis Drake Blvd connects from Olema to Greenbrae.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-71
Figure D-37: Public Transit
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-72
In West Marin, the West Marin Stagecoach provides two regularly operating bus routes between central
and West Marin. Route 61 goes to Marin City, Mill Valley, and Stinson Beach. Route 68 goes to San Rafael,
San Anselmo, Pt. Reyes and Inverness (Figure D-38). The Stagecoach also connects with Marin Transit
and Golden Gate Transit bus routes. However, the northern West Marin area does not have any public
transit connection to the south. Bus transit (orange dots in Figure D-37 and route 61 and 86 of
Stagecoach Figure D-38) only connect as far north as Inverness. This lack of transit connection affects
the minority populations and the persons with disabilities concentrated in the west part of the County
(Figure D-3 and Figure D-9).
Figure D-38: West Marin Stagecoach Routes
Marin Transit Authority (MTA) operates all bus routes that begin and end in the County. In 2017, MTA
conducted an onboard survey of their ridership and identified the Canal District of San Rafael as having
a high rating of a “typical” transit rider”. That typical rider was described as, “42 percent of households
have annual income of less than $25,000, 90 percent of individuals identify as Hispanic or Latino, 19
percent of households have no vehicle, 17 percent have three or more workers in their homes, 30 percent
have five or more workers living with them, and Spanish is spoken in 84 percent of households.” 18
According to the survey, residents in the Canal area had the highest percentage of trips that began or
ended in routes provided by Marin Transit.
In addition to its fixed routes, MTA offers several other transportation options and some that are
available for specific populations:
• Novato Dial-A-Ride - designed to fill gaps in Novato's local transit service and connects service
with Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit bus routes.
18 From the 2020 County of Marin Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-73
• ADA Paratransit Service – provides transportation for people unable to ride regular bus and trains
due to a disability. It serves and operates in the same areas, same days and hours as public
transit.
• Discount Taxi Program – called Marin-Catch-A-Ride, it offers discount rides by taxi and other
licensed vehicles if you are at least 80 years old; or are 60 and unable to drive; or you are eligible
for ADA Paratransit Service.
Local Trends
All Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at
connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the most recent data posted (2019),
Tiburon has an AllTransit Performance Score of 4.3 (out of 10). The map in Figure D-39 shows that the
southern areas of the Town near Belvedere have higher transit scores compared to the northern side.
According to AllTransit, in the Town, 72.8 percent of jobs are located within ½ mile of transit and 72
percent workers live within ½ mile of transit.
Figure D-39: All Transit Performance Score – Tiburon (2022)
Source: All Transit Metrics – Tiburon, Accessed 2022.
The HPI includes household automobile access by tract (Figure D-40). Lack of a vehicle can limit access
to necessary resources if sufficient alternative transportation is not available. Both tracts scored in the
highest quartile for automobile access (more than 99 percent of population with access to an
automobile). As presented in Figure D-41, all Tiburon tracts also scored in the highest quartile for active
commuting, indicating the Town has a healthy population of people traveling to work by transit, walking,
or cycling.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-74
Figure D-40: HPI – Automobile Access by Tract
Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), HPI Indicators Mapping Tool, Accessed 2022.
Figure D-41: HPI – Active Commuting (Transit, Walking, or Cycling) by Tract
Source: California Healthy Places Index (HPI), HPI Indicators Mapping Tool, Accessed 2022.
Economic Development
Regional Trends
The Bay Area has a regi0nal economy that has grown to be the fourth largest metropolitan region in the
United States today, with over 7.7 million people residing in the nine-county, 7,000 square-mile area. In
recent years, the Bay Area economy has experienced record employment levels during a tech expansion
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-75
surpassing the “dot-com” era of the late 1990s. The latest boom has extended not only to the South Bay
and Peninsula — the traditional hubs of Silicon Valley — but also to neighborhoods in San Francisco and
cities in the East Bay, most notably Oakland. The rapidly growing and changing economy has also
created significant housing and transportation challenges due to job-housing imbalances.
HUD’s opportunity indicators provide values for labor market index19 and jobs proximity index20 that can
be measures for economic development in Marin County. Like the other HUD opportunity indicators,
scores range from 0 to 100 and are published by race and poverty level to identify differences in the
relevant “opportunity” (in this case economic opportunity). The labor market index value is based on the
level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract- a higher
score means higher labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. Marin County’s labor
market index values have a significant range from 49 to 86, with Black residents scoring lowest and White
residents scoring highest. Scores for Marin County residents living below the poverty line drop notably
for Hispanic residents (from 68 to 57), increase for Black residents (from 49 to 55) and remain the same
for all other races. These values indicate that Black and Hispanic residents living in poverty have the
lowest labor force participation and human capital in the County.
HUD’s jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region. Index
values can range from 0 to 100 and a higher index value indicate better the access to employment
opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. County jobs proximity index values range from 65 to 75
and are highest for Hispanic and Black residents. The jobs proximity value map in Figure D-42 shows the
distribution of scores in the region. Regionally, tracts along the northern San Pablo Bay shore and
northern San Francisco Bay shore (Oakland and San Francisco) have the highest job proximity scores
In Marin County, the highest values are in Central Marin at the intersection of Highway 101 and Highway
580 from south San Rafael to Corte Madera. Some census tracts in North and Southern Marin along
Highway 101 also have high jobs proximity values, specifically in south Novato and Sausalito. The Town
of Tiburon in Southern Marin also has the highest scoring census tracts. Western North and Central Marin
and some West Marin tracts, including the unincorporated Valley community (west of Highway 101) have
the lowest jobs proximity scores.
19 Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative
intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor
force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation
and human capital in a neighborhood.
20 Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of
its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the
index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-76
Figure D-42: Regional Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group (2017)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-77
The TCAC Economic Scores are a composite of jobs proximity index values as well as poverty, adult
education, employment, and median home value characteristics.21 TCAC economic scores range from 0
to 1, where higher values indicate more positive economic outcomes. The map in Figure D-43 shows that
the lowest economic scores are located in the northern San Pablo shores as well as many census tracts in
North and West Marin, southern Sonoma County, Solano, and Contra Costa County. In Marin County,
the lowest economic scores are located in northern West Marin and North Marin, as well as some census
tracts in Central Marin and at the southern tip of the County (Marin Headlands). The highest TCAC
economic scores are located along coastal West Marin communities, Southern Marin, and parts of
Central Marin including the cites of Larkspur, Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Sausalito, and Tiburon.
21 See TCAC Opportunity Maps at the beginning of section for more information on TCAC maps and scores.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-78
Figure D-43: Regional TCAC Economic Score by Tract (2021)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-79
Local Trends
HUD’s jobs proximity scores, discussed above, are shown by block group in Figure D-44. Block groups in
the southern section of the Town, including the area of Angel Island State Park that is part of the Town,
have the highest jobs proximity scores indicating employment opportunities are highly accessible to
persons residing in these block groups. The northwestern section of the Town, generally north of
Gilmartin Drive, has slightly lower jobs proximity scores. There are no block groups in the Town where
jobs proximity index scores are below 60. Jobs proximity scores in Tiburon are consistent with
surrounding areas and access to employment opportunities are fair to high town-wide.
Figure D-44: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group (2017)
The TCAC Economic Scores are a composite of jobs proximity as well as poverty, adult education,
employment, and median home value characteristics. The map in Figure D-45 shows that both Tiburon
tracts scored in the highest quartile for economic opportunity.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-80
Figure D-45: TCAC Economic Scores by Tract (2021)
Environment
Regional Trends
Environmental conditions residents live in can be affected by past and current land uses like landfills or
proximity to freeways. The TCAC Environmental Score shown in Figure D-46 is based on CalEnviroscreen
3.0 scores. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these
scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of
pollution. In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and
hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low
birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also takes into consideration socioeconomic factors. These factors
include educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment. TCAC Environmental
Scores range from 0 to 1, where higher scores indicate a more positive environmental outcome (better
environmental quality)
Regionally, TCAC environmental scores are lowest in the tracts along to the San Pablo and San Francisco
Bay shores, except for the coastal communities of San Rafael and Mill Valley in Marin County. Inland
tracts in Contra Costa and Solano County also have low environmental scores. In Marin County, TCAC
Environmental scores are lowest in the West Marin areas of the unincorporated County from Dillon Beach
in the north to Muir Beach in the South, east of Tomales Bay and Shoreline Highway. In addition, census
tracts in Black Point-Green Point, Novato, and south San Rafael have “less positive environmental
outcomes.” More positive environmental outcomes are located in tracts in the City-Centered Corridor
along Highway 101, from North Novato to Sausalito (Figure D-46).
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-81
Figure D-46 shows the TCAC Environmental Score based on CalEnviroscreen 3.0. However, the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released updated scored in February 2020
(CalEnviroscreen 4.0). The CalEnviroscreen 4.o scores in Figure D-47 are based on percentiles and show
that Southern San Rafael and Marin City have the highest percentile and are disproportionately burdened
by multiple sources of pollution.
HUD’s opportunity index for “environmental health” summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at
a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure
to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality
of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. In Marin County, environmental
health index values range from 77 for Blacks to 83 for Hispanics. The range is similar for the population
living below the federal poverty line, with Black residents living in poverty still scoring lowest (76) but
Native American residents living in poverty scoring highest among all races (85) and higher than the
entire County Native American population (86 and 81, respectively).
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-82
Figure D-46: Regional TCAC Environmental Score by Tract (2021)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-83
Figure D-47: Regional CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores by Tract (2021)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-84
Local Trends
As presented in Figure D-48, tract 1241 on the northwestern end of the Town, has a TCAC environmental
score in the highest quartile. Tract 1242 on the southeastern end of the Town has a slightly lower TCAC
environmental score of 72. According to TCAC environmental scores, environmental conditions in the
Town are adequate.
Figure D-48: TCAC Environmental Scores by Tract (2021)
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released updated scored in February 2020
(CalEnviroscreen 4.0). The CalEnviroscreen 4.o scores in Figure D-49 are based on percentiles; the lower
the score the better the environmental conditions. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores are consistent with TCAC
environmental opportunity scores outlined above. Both tracts have CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores within
the 10th percentile, denoting these tracts have the best environmental conditions.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-85
Figure D-49: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores by Tract (2020)
Sites Inventory
All tracts in the Town scored within the 10th percentile in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores, indicating all of
Tiburon has the best environmental conditions. Therefore, all RHNA sites will be in areas with excellent
environmental conditions.
Healthy Places
Regional Trends
Residents should have the opportunity to live a healthy life and live in healthy communities. The Healthy
Places Index (HPI) is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions
that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public
Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state and
combined 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a
single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions. Figure D-50
shows the HPI percentile score distributions in the Region tend to be above 60 percent except in some
concentrated areas in the cities of Vallejo, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco- each county
along the bays have at least one cluster of tracts with an HPI below 60 (blue). In Marin County, most tracts
are also above 80 percent except in Southern San Rafael and Marin City. All of Marin City and the census
tract in the Canal area of San Rafael both scored in the lower 40th percentile. These communities have
also both been identified as having low access to healthy foods in the 2020 AI and have a concentration
of minorities and lower access to resources.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-86
Figure D-50: Regional Healthy Places Index by Tract (2021)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-87
Local Trends
Figure D-51 shows that both Tiburon tracts have the highest healthy places index (HPI) scores, indicating
that community conditions, including housing, education, economic, and social factors, are favorable.
HPI scores for these tracts are consistent with scores in surrounding jurisdictions. The Quarry Point area
of Angel Island has a significantly lower HPI score of only 20.1. As discussed previously, this area of Angel
Island is not part of the incorporated Town.
Figure D-51: Healthy Places Index by Tract (2021)
Open Space and Recreation
Regional Trends
According to the Plan Bay Area 2040, a strong regional movement emerged during the latter half of the
20th century to protect farmland and open space. Local governments adopted urban growth boundaries
and helped lead a “focused growth” strategy with support from environmental groups and regional
agencies to limit sprawl, expand recreational opportunities, and preserve scenic and natural resources.
However, this protection has strained the region’s ability to build the housing needed for a growing
population. In addition, maintaining the existing open space does not ensure equal access to it.
In Marin County, the Marin County Parks and Open Space Department includes regional and community
parks, neighborhood parks, and 34 open space preserves that encompass 19,300 acres and 190 miles of
unpaved public trails. In 2007, 500 Marin County residents participated in a telephone survey, and more
than 60 percent of interviewees perceived parks and open space agencies favorably, regardless of
geographic area, age, ethnicity, or income. However, the 2020 AI found that residents in Marin City, a
community with a concentration of minorities and low income residents, has limited access to open
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-88
spaces for recreation. From 1990 to 2015, Marin City, which had the highest African American population
in the County and according to the Marin Food Policy Council, one of the highest obesity rates, did not
have an outdoor recreational space. In 2015, the Trust for Public Land, in collaboration with the Marin
City Community Services District, designed and opened Rocky Graham Park in Marin City. According to
the 2020 AI, while the park contains “a tree-house-themed play structure, drought-resistant turf lawn,
adult fitness areas, and a mural showcasing scenes from Marin City's history”, Marin City continues to
have limited access to surrounding open spaces and hiking trails.
In 2019, the Parks Department conducted a Community Survey and identified the cost of entrance and
fees to be obstacles for access to County parks. As a result, in July of 2019, entry fees were reduced from
$10 to $5 for three popular parks in the County, and admission to McNears Beach Park pool, located in
San Rafael, was free beginning on August 1, 2019.
Local Trends
City-owned parks span over 70 acres and include: Old Rail Trail, Blackie’s Pasture, South Knoll Park,
McKegney Green, Shoreline Park, Downtown Plaza Area, Belveron Mini Park, Cypress Hollow Park,
Zelinksky Park, Elephant Rock Pier, and miscellaneous islands, medians, and more. Additional parks
include Tiburon Uplands, a 24-acre nature preserve managed by the County, and Angel Island State Park.
The HPI, discussed above, uses various indicators to measure community health including access to open
space and parks. Figure D-52 shows the percent of the population living within a half-mile of a park,
beach, or open space in Tiburon by tract. In tract 1241 in the northwestern end of the Town, 100 percent
of residents live within half a mile of a park, beach, or open space. A slightly smaller percent of persons
residing in tract 1242 on the southwestern side of the Town (99.3 percent) live within a half-mile of a park,
beach, or open space. Tiburon residents throughout the Town generally have ample access to parks and
open space.
Figure D-52: Heathy Places Index – Park Access
Source: The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) – Corte Madera, Park Access, Accessed 2022.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-89
Home Loans
A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home,
particularly in light of the continued impacts of the lending/credit crisis. In the past, credit market
distortions and other activities such as “redlining” were prevalent and prevented some groups from
having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and the subsequent Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) were designed to improve access to credit for all members of the
community and hold the lender industry responsible for community lending. Under HMDA, lenders are
required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan applications and on the race or national
origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants.
Regional Trends
The 2020 Marin County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice examined lending practices
across Marin County. According to HMDA, in 2017, there were a total of 11,688 loans originated for Marin
properties. Of the 11,688 original loan applications, 6,534 loans were approved, representing 56 percent
of all applications, 1,320 loans denied, representing 11 percent of the total applications, and there were
1,555 applicants who withdrew their applications, which represents 13 percent of all applications (Table
D-21). Hispanic and Black/African American residents were approved at lower rates and denied at higher
rates than all applicants in the County.
Table D-21: Loan Approval, Denial, and Withdrawal by Race
All Applicants White Asian Hispanic/ Latinx
Black/African American
Loans approved 55.9% 60.0% 59.0% 50.0% 48.0%
Loans denied 11.3% 12.0% 16.0% 18.0% 19.0%
Loans withdrawn by applicant 13.3% 14.0% 13.0% 19.0% 14.0%
Source: 2017 HMDA, as presented in 2020 Marin County AI.
According to the 2020 AI, there were several categories for reasons loans were denied. Under the
category, “Loan Denial Reason: insufficient cash - down payment and closing costs,” African Americans
were denied 0.7 percent more than White applicants. Denial of loans due to credit history significantly
affected Asian applicants more than others; and under the category of “Loan Denial Reason: Other”, the
numbers are starkly higher for African American applicants.
The AI also identified many residents who lived in Marin City during the Marinship years22 were not
allowed to move from Marin City to other parts of the County because of discriminatory housing and
lending policies and practices. For those residents, Marin City has been the only place where they have
felt welcomed and safe in the County.
Based on the identified disparities of lending patterns for residents of color and a history of
discriminatory lending practices, the AI recommended further fair lending investigations/testing into the
disparities identified through the HMDA data analysis. More generally, it recommended that HMDA data
for Marin County should be monitored on an ongoing basis to analyze overall lending patterns in the
County. In addition (and what has not been studied for this AI), lending patterns of individual lenders
22 Marinship is a community of workers created by the Bechtel Company which during World War II built nearly 100 liberty ships
and tankers. Since Marinship faced a shortfall in local, available workers, Bechtel overlooked the workplace exclusions that were
standard at the time and recruited African Americans from southern states such as Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma.
A thorough history if Marin City and Marinship is found in the local knowledge section.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-90
should be analyzed, to gauge how effective the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) programs of
individual lenders are in reaching all communities to ensure that people of all races and ethnicities have
equal access to loans.
Local Trends
Loan applications by race/ethnicity in Tiburon from 2018 to 2019 are presented in Figure D-53. Most
home loan applications were submitted by White, non-Hispanic residents, a reflection of the overall
racial/ethnic composition of the Town. Of the 638 home loan applications submitted by Tiburon residents
during this period, 67.4 percent were submitted by White residents, 21 percent were submitted by
residents of an unknown race or ethnicity, 7.2 percent were submitted by Asian or Pacific Islander
residents, 4.1 percent were submitted by Hispanic or Latinx residents, and 0.3 percent were submitted
by Black or African American residents. All racial/ethnic groups, except for the Asian/API population, are
underrepresented in the home loan market based on the overall racial/ethnic composition of the Town
(see Table D-5). Due to the large number of applications submitted by residents of an unknown race (21
percent of applications), it is difficult to estimate which racial/ethnic groups are most underrepresented
in the home loan application pool.
During this period, two applications were submitted by Black or African American residents; one
application was denied, and one was originated. The Asian/API population had the second highest denial
rate (22 percent), followed by the population of an unknown race or ethnicity (16 percent), and White
population (14 percent). The Hispanic/Latinx population had the lowest mortgage application denial rate
of 12 percent. As discussed previously, the County AI recommended HMDA data be monitored due to
disparities in lending patterns on the basis of race or ethnicity.
Figure D-53: Loan Applications – Tiburon (2018-2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-91
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Package, HMDA Data (2018-2019).
5. Disproportionate Housing Needs
The AFFH Rule Guidebook defines disproportionate housing needs as a condition in which there are
significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of
housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total
population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area (24 C.F.R. §
5.152). The analysis is completed by assessing cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing.
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides
detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Marin County.
Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income;
• Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income;
• Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and
• Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom).
According to CHAS data based on the 2013-2017 ACS, approximately 40 percent of Marin County
households experience housing problems, compared to only 33.1 percent of households in Tiburon. In
both the County and Town, renters are more likely to be affected by housing problems than owners.
However, the disparity between the rate of housing problems for owners versus renters is much more
prominent in the County than in Tiburon. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, Tiburon is an owner-dominant
Town, where 67.1 percent of occupied households are owners, slightly higher than 63.7 percent
countywide.
Cost Burden
Regional Trends
As presented in Table D-22, in Marin County, approximately 38 percent of households experience cost
burdens. Renters experience cost burdens at higher rates than owners (48 percent compared to 32
percent), regardless of race. Among renters, American Indian and Pacific Islander households experience
the highest rates of cost burdens (63 percent and 86 percent, respectively). Geographically, cost
burdened renter households are concentrated in census tracts in North and Central Marin in Novato and
San Rafael (Figure D-54). In these tracts, between 60 and 80 percent of renter households experience
cost burdens. Throughout the incorporated County census tracts, between 40 and 60 percent of renter
households are experiencing cost burdens. Cost-burdened owner households are concentrated in West
Marin census tract surrounding Bolinas Bay and Southern Marin within Sausalito.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-92
Table D-22: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Marin County (2017)
White Black Asian Am. Ind. Pac Isl. Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 31.8% 41.1% 30.7% 37.5% 0.0% 52.7% 32.9%
Renter-Occupied 47.9% 59.5% 51.2% 62.5% 85.7% 73.7% 53.2%
All Households 36.6% 54.5% 38.7% 43.8% 54.5% 67.5% 40.2%
With Cost Burden
Owner-Occupied 31.2% 41.1% 29.0% 37.5% 0.0% 49.4% 32.2%
Renter-Occupied 45.1% 57.5% 41.5% 62.5% 85.7% 58.9% 47.7%
All Households 35.4% 53.1% 33.9% 43.8% 54.5% 56.1% 37.7%
Note: Used CHAS data based on 2013-2017 ACS despite more recent available data being available as this dataset is included in the ABAG Housing Data Needs Package. Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-93
Figure D-54: Regional Cost Burdened Renter Households by Tract (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-94
Figure D-55: Regional Cost Burdened Owner Households by Tract (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-95
Housing problems and cost burdens can also affect special needs populations disproportionately. Table
D-23 shows that renter elderly and large households experience housing problems and cost burdens at
higher rates than all renters, all households, and their owner counterparts.
Table D-23: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households – Marin County (2017)
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All HH Elderly Large HH All Owner Elderly Large HH All Renters
Any Housing Problem 34.0% 30.2% 32.9% 59.3% 74.0% 53.2% 34.0%
Cost Burden > 30% 33.6% 26.7% 32.2% 55.9% 50.0% 47.7% 33.6%
Source: HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Local Trends
Cost burden is less common among Tiburon households compared to the County; 31.1 percent of
households in the Town are cost burdened compared to 37.7 percent countywide (Table D-24). Tiburon
has a significantly smaller proportion of cost burdened renters (33.5 percent) than Marin County (47.7
percent). Cost burden is also slightly less common for owner-occupied households in Tiburon than to
owners countywide (30.1 percent versus 32.2 percent). In comparison with County, cost burden is less
prevalent in Tiburon, especially for renter-occupied households.
As mentioned above, Tiburon has a smaller proportion of renters (32.9 percent) than the County (36.3
percent) and the Bay Area (44 percent). Typically, renters are more likely than owners to be cost
burdened; however, the rate of cost burden for renter households and owner households in the Town is
comparable (33.5 percent versus 30.1 percent, respectively). According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, 36
percent of households in tract 1241 on the northwestern end of the Town and 30.3 percent of households
in tract 1242 on the southeastern end of the Town are renter-occupied.
Asian owner-occupied households are the most likely to experience housing problems and cost burden
compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Conversely, Asian renters are the least likely to experience
housing problems and cost burden. Hispanic owner- and renter-occupied households and White renter-
occupied households also experience housing problems at a rate exceeding the town-wide averages.
Contrary to typical trends, a significantly larger proportion of Asian and Hispanic owner-occupied
households are cost burdened than renters of the same racial/ethnic group.
Table D-24: Housing Problems and Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity – Tiburon (2017)
White Black Asian Am. Ind. Pac Isl. Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
Owner-Occupied 31.5% -- 55.6% 0.0% -- 46.4% 32.3%
Renter-Occupied 36.6% -- 21.1% -- -- 36.7% 34.7%
All Households 32.9% -- 32.1% 0.0% -- 41.4% 33.1%
With Cost Burden
Owner-Occupied 29.1% -- 55.6% 0.0% -- 46.4% 30.1%
Renter-Occupied 37.2% -- 21.1% -- -- 23.3% 33.5%
All Households 31.3% -- 32.1% 0.0% -- 34.5% 31.1%
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
As discussed previously, housing problems and cost burden often affect special needs populations
disproportionately. Rates of housing problems and cost burden for elderly and large households in the
Town are presented in Table D-25. Among owner-occupied households, elderly households are slightly
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-96
more likely to experience housing problems including cost burden compared to owners town-wide.
Elderly renters and large renter households are significantly more likely to be cost burdened. There are
ten renter-occupied large households in Tiburon, all of which are cost burdened. Similarly, 42.9 percent
of elderly renters are cost burdened, significantly higher than 33.5 percent of renters town-wide.
Rates of cost burden among elderly owners and elderly renters in the Town are lower than in the County.
Cost burden is also less prevalent among larger owner-occupied households in the Town compared to
Marin County. However, 100 percent of large renter households in Tiburon are cost burdened whereas
only 50 percent of large renter households countywide are cost burdened.
Table D-25: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households – Tiburon (2017)
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied All HH Elderly Large HH All Owner Elderly Large HH All Renters
Any Housing Problem 33.3% 20.8% 32.3% 42.9% 100.0% 34.7% 33.1%
Cost Burden > 30% 33.2% 20.8% 30.1% 42.9% 100.0% 33.5% 31.1%
Source: HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Figure D-56 and Figure D-57 show cost burden in the Town by tract and tenure. According to the HCD
AFFH Data Viewer, 34.5 percent of renters in tract 1241 on the northwestern end of the Town and 36.6
percent of renters in tract 1242 on the southeastern end of the Town are cost burdened. The rate of cost
burdened owners and renters residing in Tiburon tracts is consistent with trends in adjacent jurisdictions.
As shown in Table D-26, since the 2010-2014 ACS, cost burden among owners and renters has decreased
in all but one tract. The proportion of cost burdened owners in tract 1242 has increased from 45.5 percent
in 2014 to 47 percent in 2019.
Table D-26: Change in Cost Burden by Tract (2010-2019)
Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied*
2014 2019 2014 2019
Tract 1241 51.7% 34.5% 52.6% 37.9%
Tract 1242 45.0% 36.6% 45.5% 47.0%
* Owner-occupied households with a mortgage -- No households Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer (2010-2014 and 2015-2019 ACS), 2022.
Sites Inventory
As shown above, all tracts in Tiburon have concentrations of cost burdened renters ranging from 20 to
40 percent. Therefore, all RHNA units are located in tracts where 20 to 40 percent of renter households
are cost burdened. The Town’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower or moderate
income units in tracts with higher concentrations of overpaying renters.
Table D-27 and Figure D-57 show the distribution of units selected to meet the RHNA by percent of
overpaying owner households. Between 20 and 40 percent of owners in the tract on the northwestern
side of the Town and in the tract that encompasses mostly Belvedere spend more than 30 percent of their
income on housing, compared to 47 percent of owners in the tract on the southeastern side of the Town.
Most RHNA units (80.3 percent) are in the tract where 40 to 60 of owners are cost burdened. Over 91
percent of moderate income units are located in this tract compared to 80.1 percent of above moderate
income units and 76.7 percent of lower income units. It is important to note that this tract encompasses
the largest proportion of the Town.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-97
Table D-27: Distribution of RHNA Units by Cost Burdened Owners
Percent Cost Burdened Owners (Tract)
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units All RHNA Units
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
20-40% 78 23.3% 10 8.8% 51 19.9% 139 19.7%
40-60% 257 76.7% 103 91.2% 205 80.1% 566 80.3%
Total 335 100.0% 113 100.0% 256 100.0% 705 100.0%
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-98
Figure D-56: Sites Inventory and Cost Burdened Renters by Tract (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-99
Figure D-57: Sites Inventory and Cost Burdened Owners by Tract (2019)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-100
Overcrowded Households
Regional Trends
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and
living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen). According to the 2017 five-year ACS estimates,
about 6.5 percent of households in the Bay Area region are living in overcrowded conditions (Table D-
28). About 11 percent of renter households are living in overcrowded conditions in the region, compared
to three percent of owner households. Overcrowding rates in Marin County are lower than the Bay Area
(four percent and 6.5 percent, respectively) and like regional trends, Marin County a higher proportion of
renters experience overcrowded conditions compared to owners. Overcrowded households in the region
are concentrated in Richmond, Oakland, and San Francisco (Figure D-58). At the County level,
overcrowded households are concentrated North and Central Marin, specifically in downtown Novato
and the southeastern tracts of San Rafael (Canal).
While the ACS data shows that overcrowding is not a significant problem, it is likely that this data is an
undercount, especially with families who may have undocumented members. It is also likely that
agriculture worker housing is overcrowded and undercounted.
Table D-28: Overcrowded Households – Bay Area and Marin County
Bay Area Marin County
Owner-Occupied 3.0% 0.8%
Renter Occupied 10.9% 9.4%
All HH 6.5% 3.9%
Note: Overcrowding means more than one person per household. Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package, HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-101
Figure D-58: Regional Overcrowded Households by Tract
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-102
Local Trends
Overcrowding is generally a less prevalent issue in the Town compared to the Bay Area and Marin County.
As shown in Table D-29, there are no overcrowded owner-occupied households in the Town.
Overcrowding is more common among renters; 8.6 percent of renter-occupied households are
overcrowded included 4.2 percent that are severely overcrowded. Only 2.8 percent of all Tiburon
households experience overcrowding compared to 6.5 percent of households in the Bay Area and 3.9
percent of households in Marin County. The rate of overcrowding in all Tiburon tracts is below the
statewide average of 8.2 percent.
Table D-29: Overcrowded Households – Tiburon (2017)
Overcrowded (>1 person per room) Severely Overcrowded (>1.5 persons per room)
Owner-Occupied 0.0% 0.0%
Renter Occupied 8.6% 4.2%
All HH 2.8% 1.4%
Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package, HUD CHAS (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Figure D-59: Overcrowded Households by Tract (2017)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-103
Sites Inventory
There are no areas in the Town where the proportion of overcrowded households exceeds the Statewide
average of 8.2 percent. Therefore, no RHNA units will be exposed to adverse conditions related to
overcrowding.
Substandard Conditions
Regional Trends
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.
Incomplete facilities and housing age are estimated using the 2015-2019 ACS. In general, residential
structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over
50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system
repairs.
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, shown in Table D-30,only about one percent of households in
the Bay Area and Marin County lack complete kitchen and plumbing facilities. Incomplete kitchen
facilities are more common in both the Bay area and Marin County and affect renter households more
than owner households. In Marin County. one percent of households lack complete kitchen facilities and
0.4 percent lack complete plumbing facilities. More than 2 percent of renters lack complete kitchen
facilities compared to less than one percent of owner households lacking plumbing facilities.
Table D-30: Substandard Housing Conditions –Bay Area and Marin County (2019)
Bay Area Marin County
Lacking complete kitchen facilities Lacking complete plumbing facilities Lacking complete kitchen facilities Lacking complete plumbing facilities
Owner 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%
Renter 2.6% 1.1% 2.4% 0.6%
All Households 1.3% 0.6% 1.0% 0.4%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates).
Like overcrowding, ACS data may not reflect the reality of substandard housing conditions in the County.
Staff has heard comments on substandard conditions relating to lack of landlord upkeep/care like moldy
carpets, delay in getting hot water back, especially from the Hispanic/Latino community.
Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs. As stated
above, structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while
units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation. In the County, 86 percent of the
housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 58 percent built prior to 1970 (Table D-32). Figure D-60
shows median housing age for Marin County cities and Census-designated places (CDPs). Central and
Southern Marin, specifically the cities of Ross, Fairfax, and San Anselmo have the oldest housing while
Novato, Black Point-Green Point CDP, Nicasio CDP, Muir Beach CDP, and Marin City CDP have the most
recently built housing.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-104
Figure D-60: Median Housing Age by Marin County Cities and Census-Designated Places (CDPs)
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Local Trends
There are no owner-occupied households in Tiburon lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities
(Table D-31). A slightly higher concentration of renter-occupied households in Tiburon lacks complete
plumbing facilities (1.5 percent) compared to Marin County (0.6 percent), but a smaller proportion lacks
complete kitchen facilities (1.5 percent versus 2.4 percent). Lack of complete kitchen and plumbing
facilities is generally not a predominant issue among Tiburon households.
Table D-31: Substandard Housing Conditions – Tiburon (2019)
Lacking complete kitchen facilities Lacking complete plumbing facilities
Owner-Occupied Households 0.0% 0.0%
Renter-Occupied Households 1.5% 1.5%
All Households 0.5% 0.5%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates).
Table D-32 shows housing stock age in the County, Town, and block group. Approximately 54 percent of
housing units in the Town were built in 1969 or earlier compared to 58 percent countywide. Tiburon has
a slightly higher concentration of newer housing units built in 1990 or later compared to the County. As
discussed previously, units aged 50 and older are likely to require major rehabilitation. As shown in Figure
D-61, older housing units are most concentrated in block groups in the northeastern corner of the Town.
Between 68 and 69 percent of housing units in tract 1241 block groups 3 and 4 and tract 1242 block group
4 were built prior to 1970. The highest concentration of new housing units is in tract 1241 block group 2
in the northernmost area of the Town, and tract 1242 block groups 2 and 5 in the southeastern area of
the Town.
As discussed in Section 2.5 of the Housing Element, the condition of Tiburon’s housing stock is generally
excellent. Due to the high real estate value in Tiburon, properties, especially single family houses, are
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-105
generally well-maintained. According to Town Planning & Building staff, EAH is currently rehabilitating
the Hilarita, a 91-unit affordable housing development. Approximately 120-150 apartments are in in need
of rehabilitation, and no housing units are in need of replacement.
Table D-32: Housing Stock Age (2019)
Block Group/Jurisdiction 1969 or Earlier (50+ Years) 1970-1989 (30-50 Years) 1990 or Later (<30 Years) Total Housing Units
Block Group 1, Census Tract 1241 50.2% 32.8% 17.0% 652
Block Group 2, Census Tract 1241 40.5% 25.8% 33.7% 489
Block Group 3, Census Tract 1241 68.0% 18.0% 13.9% 266
Block Group 4, Census Tract 1241 68.5% 20.4% 11.1% 961
Block Group 2, Census Tract 1242 38.4% 52.0% 9.6% 521
Block Group 3, Census Tract 1242 54.0% 24.0% 22.0% 808
Block Group 4, Census Tract 1242 68.9% 31.1% 0.0% 614
Block Group 5, Census Tract 1242 40.8% 40.7% 18.6% 920
Tiburon 54.2% 31.2% 14.6% 4,189
Marin County 58.0% 28.2% 13.9% 113,084
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates).
Figure D-61: Median Housing Age by Block Group (2019)
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-106
Displacement Risk
Regional Trends
UC Berkley’s Urban Displacement project defines residential displacement as “the process by which a
household is forced to move from its residence - or is prevented from moving into a neighborhood that
was previously accessible to them because of conditions beyond their control.” As part of this project,
the research has identified populations vulnerable to displacement (named “sensitive communities”) in
the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. They defined vulnerability based
on the share of low income residents per tract and other criteria including: share of renters is above 40
percent, share of people of color is more than 50 percent, share of low income households severely rent
burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on
median rent increases and rent gaps. Using this methodology, sensitive communities in the Bay Area
region were identified in the coastal census tracts of Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco County,
specifically in the cities of Vallejo, Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco (Figure D-62). In
Marin County, sensitive communities were identified in the cites of Novato and San Rafael, and the
unincorporated areas of Marin City, Strawberry, Northern and Central Coastal West Marin and Nicasio in
the Valley.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-107
Figure D-62: Regional Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement by Tract (2021)
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-108
Local Trends
There are no areas in the Town that have been identified as sensitive communities at risk of
displacement. The closest sensitive communities are located west of Tiburon in unincorporated Marin
County communities including Marin City (Figure D-63).
Figure D-63: Sensitive Communities At Risk of Displacement by Tract (2021)
As discussed previously, vulnerability is measured based on several variables including: share of renters
exceeding 40 percent, share of people of color exceeding 50 percent, share of low income households
severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined
based on median rent increases and rent gaps. Tiburon is a predominately owner-occupied household
community (67.1 percent) with a relatively small non-White population (18.4 percent). However, both the
renter population and non-White population has increased over the past decade. As presented in Figure
D-64, all Black/African American households, 71 percent of other/multiple race households, 60.7 percent
of Hispanic/Latinx households, and 53 percent of Asian/API households are renters. Conversely, only 29.3
percent of non-Hispanic White households are renters.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-109
Figure D-64: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder (2019)
Source: ABAG Data Needs Package, 2015-2019 ACS.
Figure D-65 shows the median contract rent in Tiburon, Marin County, and the Bay Area from 2009 to
2019. Tiburon has the highest median contract rent prices compared to the County and Bay Area. Over
the past ten years, median contract rent has increased 21.1 percent in Tiburon, significantly lower than
the increase in the Bay Area (+54.6 percent) and Marin County (+37.9 percent). As presented above,
increasing rental prices in the Town are more likely to disproportionately affect people of color. However,
rental prices have increased moderately in the Town compared to the region.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-110
Figure D-65: Median Contract Rent (2009-2019)
Source: ABAG Data Needs Package, 2005-2009 through 2015-2019 ACS.
Homelessness
Regional Trends
As presented in Table D-33, according to the County’s Point-in-Time (PIT) Homeless Count and Survey,
there were 1,034 persons experiencing homelessness in Marin County in 2019. Most (68.5 percent)
persons experiencing homelessness in the County were unsheltered. Another 16.6 percent were living in
emergency shelters and 14.9 percent were living in transitional housing. Since 2015, the County’s
homeless population has decreased by 21 percent (1,309 persons in 2015). However, in 2015, only 64
percent of the homeless population was unsheltered compared to 68 percent in 2019.
Table D-33: Homelessness by Shelter Status – Marin County (2019)
Persons Percent
Sheltered – Emergency Shelter 172 16.6%
Sheltered – Transitional Housing 154 14.9%
Unsheltered 708 68.5%
Total 1,034 100.0%
Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package, HUD Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports, 2019.
Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations are all
overrepresented in the County’s homeless population. Conversely, Asian, White, and Other populations
are underrepresented. Black or African American persons are the most overrepresented in the homeless
population, accounting for 16.7 percent of the homeless population but only 2.2 percent of the
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-111
population Countywide. Table D-34 shows the share of homeless and total populations by race and
ethnicity.
Table D-34: Racial/Ethnic Share of General and Homeless Populations – Marin County (2019)
Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population
American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 3.5% 0.4%
Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 3.1% 6.1%
Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 16.7% 2.2%
White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 66.2% 77.8%
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 10.5% 13.5%
Hispanic/Latinx 18.8% 15.9%
Non-Hispanic/Latinx 81.2% 84.1%
Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package – HUD Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports, 2019; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
The number of students in local public schools experiencing homelessness in the County has also
increased in recent years. Since the 2016-17 school year, the number of students experiencing
homelessness in Marin County has increased from 976 to 1,268 during the 2019-20 school year, a nearly
30 percent increase. Conversely, the Bay Area as a whole has seen a decrease in students experiencing
homelessness during the same time period (Figure D-66).
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-112
Figure D-66: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness
Source: ABAG Housing Data Needs Package – California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil
Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data.
The County’s 2019 Homeless PIT Count and Survey found that nearly half (49 percent) of respondents
reported that economic issues, such as rent increases or a lost job, were the primary cause of their
homelessness. Other causes include personal relationship issues (36 percent), mental health issues (16
percent), substance use issues (14 percent), and physical health issues (11 percent). The 2019 PIT Count
and Survey also showed that 73 percent of homeless respondents reported needing rental assistance
(Figure D-67). Additional assistance needed includes more affordable housing (69 percent), money for
moving costs (55 percent), help finding an apartment (37 percent), transportation (31 percent), and case
management (29 percent). The need for rental assistance reflects the high cost of housing in the County.
As discussed previously, nearly half (47.7 percent) of renter-occupied households in the Town are cost
burdened.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-113
Figure D-67: Assistance Needed to Obtain Permanent Housing
Source: 2019 Marin County Point-in-Time (PIT) Count and Survey Report.
Local Trends
According to the County’s 2019 PIT Count and Survey, there were no individuals experiencing
homelessness in Tiburon. There are no emergency shelters in the Town. No homeless individuals were
identified in Tiburon during the 2015, 2017, or 2019 PIT count.
6. Local Knowledge
Like many Bay Area towns and cities, Tiburon’s current housing crisis can be traced, in part, to historical
land use patterns. Most of the residential area in Tiburon was zoned for single family homes when the
Town was incorporated in 1964 and this land use pattern continued as it grew. According to the Town’s
2009 General Plan, 93% of land designated for residential use (single family, single family attached, and
multifamily) is zoned for detached single family housing. Most of the Town’s single family homes were
developed between 1950 and 1980 when vacant land was more plentiful and single family ownership was
more attainable for middle class households. The first subdivisions were developed in the 1950s in the
flatter areas of Town, including the Bel Aire Gardens, Belveron Gardens, Hawthorne, Del Mar, and Reed
subdivisions. Development continued into the hills in the 1960s, and then extended further into the hills
from 1970 through 1999 as lots with steeper topography were developed. Several multifamily
developments were also developed at this time. By the beginning of the 2000s, the majority of
developable land had been developed.
As the housing crisis unfolded in recent decades, State and local efforts have been made to diversify the
housing stock and introduce more housing in single family zones. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are
one way to achieve this objective. The Town has approved 49 ADUs since 2007, with 80% of these
developed since 2018 when new State laws significantly increased the potential for ADUs by prescribing
certain development standards and a ministerial approval process. The Town encourages ADU
development and has worked with other Marin jurisdictions to create a website that provides information
on designing, permitting, building, and renting an ADU. The Housing Element contains programs to
further promote ADUs in Tiburon.
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which went into effect on January 1, 2022, also provides potential to densify single
family zones by allowing certain lot splits and the development of two housing units on each lot. The
Town expects ADU and SB 9 development to increase housing opportunities in single family
neighborhoods in years to come, aiding in diversification of established, and predominately white,
neighborhoods.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-114
Exclusionary lending and zoning practices, including redlining and exclusionary covenants, were once
common across the U.S. These practices have resulted in segregated living patterns and racially disparate
housing outcomes. Although the Town is not aware of the existence of historical redlining maps for
Tiburon, there are several subdivisions in Tiburon where restrictive covenants are known to have been
used, including Hawthorne Terrace, Tiburon Terrace, Belveron Gardens, Hacienda Terrace, Ring Point,
and Bay View Terrace.
Restrictive covenants were an effective way to segregate neighborhoods and stabilize the property
values of white families. Beginning in 1934, the Federal Housing Authority recommended the inclusion
of restrictive covenants in the deeds of homes it insured. Racially restrictive covenants prohibited the
purchase, lease, or occupation of a piece of property to a particular group of people, primarily Black and
African Americans. Through this practice, government-guaranteed lower-interest loans were then
available only to white families, as well as no down payment loans for white veterans. In a landmark 1948
ruling, the Supreme Court deemed all racial restrictive covenants unenforceable, although other forms
of housing discrimination continued in the Bay Area and other parts of the US long afterward.23 In 1968,
the Fair Housing Act prohibited discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing in housing-related
transactions based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, and familial
status.
Even though the restrictions are now illegal and unenforceable, many continue to remain in property
deeds throughout Marin. Any person who has an ownership interest in real property that is subject to
racially or otherwise unlawfully restrictive covenants has the right to record a Restrictive Covenant
Modification, as outlined in Government Code Section 12956.2. The County of Marin’s Restrictive
Covenant Project provides Marin residents with a process to identify any illegal or unlawful restrictive
covenant and have the language acknowledged in their property deeds. The Project also encourages
residents and former residents to share personal stories about the impact of racial covenants in Marin.
The Tiburon subdivisions with restrictive covenants cited above were identified through the Project.
Many people of color have not benefited from the generational transfer of home equity and homes, as
some white people have, and rapidly escalating housing costs in recent decades have made it extremely
difficult for people of color to get a foothold in the housing market. Anti-development sentiment
throughout Marin County has restricted new housing development, helping maintain patterns of
segregation. As a result, Marin is one of the most segregated counties in the Bay Area, with five of the
ten most segregated Census tracts in the region.24 Providing more housing and a variety of housing types
at different affordability levels will help to diversify the Tiburon community and result in more balanced
and integrated living patterns throughout the Bay Area.
The Town’s 6th cycle RHNA strategy continues this trend by expanding the housing stock and variety of
housing options. The Housing Element sites inventory (Table 10) identifies capacity for nearly 780
housing units. The majority of these units are multifamily units (68%). ADUs are projected to make up at
least 9% of the total of new units. The remaining 23% of residential capacity is on land zoned for single
family use, although many of the new homes could result from SB 9 lot splits.
Housing Element policies and programs continue to support the development of affordable units and
units designed to meet the needs of seniors, the disabled, families (both large families and female-
23 Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, (Liveright,
2017).
24 “Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 1,” Othering & Belonging Institute, University of
California, Berkeley, https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-1
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-115
headed households with children), and the homeless. In addition, Housing Element programs are
designed to achieve more diversity through such means as inclusionary zoning, affirmative marketing
plans, and implementation of fair housing requirements during sale and resale of affordable housing
units. Population trends indicate that the Town is becoming more diverse. Between 200o and 2020, the
white, non-Hispanic population in Town dropped from 90.4% to 81.6%. The Town expects this trend to
continue and Housing Element policies and programs to accelerate the transformation of Tiburon into a
more diverse community.
As discussed earlier in this document, most of the fair housing complaints in Tiburon are related to
reasonable accommodation. The Town has adopted a Reasonable Accommodate Ordinance which
establishes a procedure for making requests for reasonable accommodation in zoning and other land
use regulations, policies, practices, and procedures of the Town. The Town also has policies and
procedures in place for receiving and referring fair housing complaints. As noted above, the Town could
do more to provide information to residents, landlords, and prospective tenants on all fair housing laws.
The Housing Element contains programs to provide this information through the Town’s communication
channels, including the newsletter, website, social media, counter handouts, and tabling at community
events.
D. Sites Inventory
AB 686 requires a jurisdiction’s site inventory “…shall be used to identify sites throughout the
community, consistent with…” its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. The number of units, location
and assumed affordability of identified sites throughout the community (i.e., lower, moderate, and
above moderate income RHNA) relative to all components of the assessment of fair housing was
integrated throughout the discussion in the fair housing assessment section. The Town’s sites inventory
is presented in Figure D-68 and shown by neighborhood and AFFH variable in Table D-35.
1. Neighborhood 1 (Northwest)
All RHNA units located in the Northwest neighborhood are allocated towards the above moderate
income RHNA and are single-family home (SFH) sites. Neighborhood 1 is shown in Figure D-68 in blue.
Block groups in this area tend to have slightly larger populations of people of color and LMI households
compared to the remainder of the Town. Tiburon as a whole, including Neighborhood 1, is affluent with
low levels of fair housing issues. Above moderate income units in this area of the Town will not
exacerbate existing fair housing conditions.
2. Neighborhood 2 (Central East)
Neighborhood 2 is in tract 1242 which encompasses the largest proportion of the Town compared to
other tracts. Sites 8 and 9, as well as SFH sites, are located in Neighborhood 2 (shown in green). There is
a total of 122 units allocated in Neighborhood 2, including 83 lower income units and 30 above moderate
income units. This neighborhood is also a highest resource area with non-White and LMI household
populations consistent with the remainder of the Town. This tract has a higher concentration of persons
with disabilities and cost burdened owners compared to other tracts in Tiburon. As discussed previously,
the population of persons with disabilities is likely affected by the senior population residing in this tract.
Bradley House (12 affordable units) and The Hilarita (91 affordable units) are both located in this tract
and cater to seniors and persons with disabilities, and families and older adults, respectively.
Housing units in this area of the Town promote mixed-income communities and place future households
in an area where opportunities (economic, educational, transportation, and environmental) are highly
accessible. Further, the variety of housing units allocated in this area (lower and above moderate income)
may provide additional housing opportunities for existing cost burdened residents.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-116
3. Neighborhood 3 (Central West)
Neighborhood 3 is shown in red in Figure D-68. All RHNA sites in this this neighborhood are SFH sites
totaling 83 above moderate income units. Like all tracts in the Town, this neighborhood is a highest
resource area with proportions of non-White populations and LMI households consistent with the trends
throughout Tiburon. Additional above moderate income units in Neighborhood 3 will not exacerbate
existing conditions related to fair housing.
4. Neighborhood 4 (Southeast)
The highest concentration of RHNA units have been allocated in Neighborhood 4 compared to other
neighborhoods in the Town. Neighborhood 4 is located in tract 1242, which encompasses the largest
proportion of the town-wide area, and tract 1230. Tract 1230 is a small fragment of Tiburon located along
the boundary between the cities of Tiburon and Belvedere. Tract 1230 largely encompasses the City of
Belvedere. For clarity, the small portion of Tiburon that is contained in this tract is shown in Figure D-69.
Though this is a very small section of Tiburon, Site 5 is located in this tract and contains 88 RHNA units,
including 78 lower income units and 10 moderate income units. Like Tiburon as a whole, this section of
the Town is a highest resource area with a small non-White population (9.6 percent) and low
concentration of LMI households (17 percent). This tract has a concentration of cost burdened renters
comparable to other tracts in the Town. Lower and moderate income units allocated in this area will not
be exposed to adverse conditions related to fair housing. New housing units in this area will have
sufficient access to opportunities and will not exacerbate existing fair housing conditions.
The remainder of Town’s RHNA sites in this neighborhood are located in tract 1242 and include sites 1, 2,
3, 4, 6, 7, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and other SFH sites. A total of 361 additional units are allocated in this
neighborhood within tract 1242 (174 lower income, 94 moderate income, and 92 above moderate
income). As discussed previously, tract 1242 is a highest resource area with racial/ethnic minority
populations and LMI populations consistent with the trend throughout the Town.
RHNA units are distributed throughout Neighborhood 4 to the greatest extent possible, but lower
income units are most concentrated in block groups 2 and 3 in the southernmost corner of the Town
surrounding the major commercial center of Tiburon. While lower income units are most concentrated
in this area, RHNA units allocated in these block groups are not exclusively lower income. It is important
to note that the units allocated in these block groups area directly adjacent to the lower and moderate
income units allocated in the Tiburon Boulevard neighborhood, furthering the concentration of units in
this section of the Town.
Housing sites were selected in this area due to the proximity of schools, the library, a grocery store, parks,
recreation facilities, transit, and other services as described in detail in Section 3.4, which will facilitate
walking and bicycling to these destinations, reduce dependence on automobiles, and minimize traffic
impacts to Tiburon Boulevard. Primary consideration was given to sites within ½ mile of the Tiburon
Ferry Terminal since this was a major factor in the RHNA allocation methodology, which allocated
significantly more units to Transit Rich Areas within a High Resource Area such as Tiburon. Lower income
units in this area will also provide housing opportunities for local workers, as most of the jobs in Tiburon
are located in the downtown.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-117
Table D-35: Distribution of RHNA Sites by AFFH Variables
Tract # of HHs in Tract
Total Capacity (Units)
Income Distribution TCAC Opp. Category % Non-White % LMI Pop. % Persons w/ Disability Renter Cost Burden Owner Cost Burden Lower Moderate Above Moderate
Neighborhood 1 – Northwest (SFHs)
1241 2,287 51 0 0 51 Highest 16.3% - 23.5% 31.2% 6.5% 34.5% 37.9%
Neighborhood 2 – Central East (Sites 8, 9, and SFHs)
1242 2,520 122 83 9 30 Highest 16.4% - 20.7% 23.1% - 28.9% 12.2% 36.6% 47.0%
Neighborhood 3 – Central West (SFHs)
1242 2,520 83 0 0 83 Highest 16.4% - 20.7% 23.1% - 28.9% 12.2% 36.6% 47.0%
Neighborhood 4 – Southeast (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, SFHs)
1230 890 88 78 10 0 Highest 9.6% 17.0% 8.9% 37.7% 30.1%
1242 2,520 361 174 94 92 Highest 16.4% - 20.7% 23.1% - 28.9% 12.2% 36.6% 47.0%
SFH = Single Family Home site/s.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-118
Figure D-68: Sites Inventory and Neighborhoods
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-119
Figure D-69: Tract 1230 and Tiburon Boundaries
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
E. Contributing Factors
1. Lack of Fair Housing Testing, Education, and Outreach
The Town lacks information on fair housing law and discrimination complaint filing procedures on the
Town website. Current outreach practices may not provide sufficient information related to fair housing,
including federal and state fair housing law, and affordable housing opportunities. Cost burdened renters
throughout the Town and cost burdened owners concentrated in tract 1242 may be unaware of
affordable housing opportunities. Approximately 69 percent of discrimination complaints filed though
FHANC by Tiburon residents between 2016 and 2021 were related to disability status. The Town lacks
sufficient education and outreach related to reasonable accommodations and ADA laws based on the
proportion of complaints related to disability status. Further, while fair housing testing was conducted in
the County, fair housing tests in Tiburon may be insufficient for monitoring housing discrimination.
Contributing Factors
• Lack of fair housing testing
• Lack of monitoring
• Lack of targeted outreach
The Housing Element contains programs to provide information to residents, landlords, and prospective
tenants on fair housing laws, including source of income laws, through the Town’s communication
channels, including the newsletter, website, social media, counter handouts, and tabling at community
events. Programs include H-b Improve Community Awareness of Housing Needs, Issues; H-p Housing
Discrimination Complaints; H-q Reasonable Accommodation; H-w Rental Assistance Programs; and H-gg
Outreach and Education for Accessory Dwelling Units. Program H-p also directs the Town to encourage
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California to conduct fair housing testing in Tiburon.
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-120
2. Substandard Housing Conditions
While the Town does not have a large proportion of households lacking complete kitchen or plumbing
facilities, approximately 85 percent of housing units are aged 30 years or older, including 54.2 percent
aged 50 years or older, and may require minor or major rehabilitation. Aging housing units are most
concentrated in the northwestern corner of the Town.
Although the Town’s housing stock is older, it is generally in excellent condition. Due to the high real
estate value in Tiburon, properties, especially single family houses, are generally well-maintained.
According to Town Planning & Building staff approximately 120-150 apartments are in in need of
rehabilitation, and no housing units are in need of replacement. The Housing Element contains programs
to promote available rehabilitation loans to lower income households. Programs include H-u
Rehabilitation Loan Programs and H-aa Link Code Enforcement with Public Information Programs on Town
Standards and Rehabilitation and Energy Loan Programs.
Contributing Factors
• Age of housing stock
• Cost of repairs or rehabilitation
3. Disparities in Homeownership Rates and Potential Discrimination in Home Sales Market
The Hispanic/Latino, two or more races, and Asian populations make up the second, third, and fourth
largest racial/ethnic populations in the Town following the White population. A majority of Asian/API,
Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, and other/multiple race households are renter households,
compared to only 29.3 percent of non-Hispanic White households. Asian and Hispanic owner-occupied
households are also cost burdened at the highest rates. Asian, Black, and Hispanic residents appear to be
slightly underrepresented in the home loan application pool; however, the race or ethnicity of 21 percent
of loan applicants is unknown. The Black/African American population was denied home loans at the
highest rate (50 percent, one out of two total applications denied), followed by the Asian/API population
(22 percent), higher than the White population (14 percent).
Contributing Factors
• Lack of fair housing testing/monitoring
• Availability of affordable housing
Program H-p Housing Discrimination Complaints directs the Town to encourage Fair Housing Advocates
of Northern California to conduct fair housing testing in Tiburon. The Housing Element contains several
programs to increase the availability of affordable housing in Tiburon, including programs H-a Focus
Town Resources on Housing Opportunity Sites; H-l Redevelopment Funding; Program H-m Work with Non-
Profits on Housing; Program H-r Provisions of Affordable Housing for Special Needs Households; Program
H-ee Bonuses for Affordable Housing Projects Consistent with State Density Bonus Law; H-cc Work with
Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites; H-dd Implement Affordable Housing
Overlay Zone and Inclusionary Housing Ordinances; and H-gg Outreach and Education for Accessory
Dwelling Unit Development.
4. Community Opposition to Affordable Housing
According to the 2020 County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, community opposition
to housing development remains the number one barrier to housing development in the County. The AI
cites the following reasons for community resistance to development: concerns about traffic congestion,
a desire for the preservation of open spaces, loss of local control, and the impact on schools. According
to the 2020 AI, opposition to new housing developments can arise in all neighborhoods of the County,
Draft Town of Tiburon Housing Element | D-121
but it is especially the case in majority White neighborhoods. As discussed previously, Tiburon is
characterized by a non-Hispanic White population of 81.6 percent, higher than the 71.2 percent
countywide.
Contributing Factors
• Availability of affordable housing in all areas of the Town
• Community concern about housing densities, traffic impacts on Tiburon Boulevard, water
availability, and school capacity
The Housing Element contains several programs to increase the availability of affordable housing in
Tiburon, including programs H-a Focus Town Resources on Housing Opportunity Sites; H-l Redevelopment
Funding; Program H-m Work with Non-Profits on Housing; Program H-r Provisions of Affordable Housing for
Special Needs Households; Program H-ee Bonuses for Affordable Housing Projects Consistent with State
Density Bonus Law; H-cc Work with Non-Profits and Property Owners on Housing Opportunity Sites; H-dd
Implement Affordable Housing Overlay Zone and Inclusionary Housing Ordinances; and H-gg Outreach and
Education for Accessory Dwelling Unit Development.
As described in Section 1.6 of the Housing Element, the proposed housing opportunity sites were
extensively vetted with the community as they required either allowing housing where none was
previously permitted or increasing the existing residential densities from a maximum of 20.7 units per
acre to maximums of 25-45 units per acre depending upon the site. Twenty parcels were ultimately
identified as appropriate for multifamily housing. Surveys showed majority support for the housing sites.
attachment 2
Tiburon Town Council
August 31, 2022
AI-1: Draft Housing Element
Late Mail
Requests for Copies:
Lea Stefani, lstefani@townoftiburon.org
From:Julie Jacobs
To:Dina Tasini; Town; Lea Dilena
Subject:Fwd: Housing Element thoughts
Date:Sunday, August 21, 2022 7:55:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Julie Jacobs <jsj13@aol.com>Date: August 21, 2022 at 1:01:45 PM PDTTo: Sara Aminzadeh for Assembly <info@saraforassembly.com>Subject: Re: Housing Element thoughts
Hi Sara,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful message on our real need for well-
planned additional housing, taking into consideration fire, earthquake, andflooding risks, emergency evacuation, emergency services access, traffic, water
resources, and other safety and quality of life concerns. Our family agrees thatTiburon, Belvedere, Southern Marin, and all of California are in need of
additional housing options, especially affordable housing. We also believe that itshould be possible to create additional housing without putting existing and new
residents in danger, and without destroying what makes it so magical to live inthis beautiful place. Strong leadership in the Assembly should enable this process
to go forward in a reasonable manner which will create a brighter future for allCalifornians.
There are a few important points we would like to bring to your attention:
1)We believe that the current allocation of 639 units for all of Tiburon, with the
town’s draft housing element plan for 526 high density units downtown, is unsafeand destructive of quality of life in the community. That huge increase in
numbers assigned to our small community is too high, and should be significantlylowered. As you wisely point out, there are already times when it is very difficult
to get in or out of Tiburon because of traffic congestion. Adding the allocationfor Belvedere to the 526 units currently planned for downtown Tiburon would
create very serious health and safety issues due to traffic congestion on TiburonBlvd. where the road consists of just one lane in and out of town.
2) Designating downtown Tiburon as a “transportation hub” because of the small
ferry dock is a mistake, and must be re-evaluated. The number of new andcurrent residents working in the financial district downtown who would be able to
commute by ferry is very limited. There is also limited parking for thosecommuters, which would be further reduced by the current draft housing element,
which includes building high density housing in current downtown parking lots. The ferry will not help residents get to work in other parts of San Francisco or to
highway 101 to commute to areas of Marin, Napa, Sonoma, or East bay counties. The ferry will not get residents to schools, the grocery and other shopping (and
our downtown grocery may be eliminated in the current draft housing elementplan), recreational and athletic activities, social gatherings, medical appointments,
places of worship, and business and personal errands.
3) Ignoring the fire danger in Tiburon, with the many areas of Urban-Wildland-Interface, and loading the greatly increased mandated additional housing in the
hard to access downtown, is reckless and will put lives at risk. We cannot erasefrom our memories the horrible scenes of lives lost in the town of Paradise CA as
residents died in their cars and homes, unable to escape the wildfire because ofclogged roads out of town. No rational and caring government official could wish
to be responsible for a similar tragedy in Tiburon due to the very greatly increasednumber of additional housing units for which rezoning is required by the current
state mandate. How could a legislator wish to have that as his or her legacy?
4) No current or future resident, or visitor to our community, wishes to be told,“sorry, we can’t get to you right now, please call back in a few hours when there’s
less traffic,” when calling 911 for a fire, medical, or police emergency. Thoseresources are located downtown and at Reed School, where Tiburon Blvd. is only
one lane in each direction.
5) We are already facing a drought emergency, requiring significant cutbacks inusage of our water resources. It is hard to understand how we can accommodate
additional residents‘ needs under these circumstances, before additional sourcesof water have been planned for and provided.
6) Despite these challenges, we believe that Tiburon needs more affordable
housing, and that through wise and careful planning, it should be possible toprovide a significantly smaller number of units than those allocated in the current
mandate safely, without diminishing quality of life in our community. We’veloved witnessing residents from around the Bay Area coming for relief from the
stresses of the pandemic for a day by the Bay in Tiburon. We believe that everyresident would benefit from adding diversity to our community. We believe that
our teachers, essential and emergency services providers, librarians, townemployees, and others need affordable housing. We hope to partner with you to
accomplish this important goal.
Thank you so much for your kind consideration.
With best wishes,
Julie and Seth Jacobs
On Aug 21, 2022, at 8:05 AM, Sara Aminzadeh for Assembly<info@saraforassembly.com> wrote:
Hi all,
I did follow the discussion at the Town Council earlier this
month. I think that the concerns about impacts to the town's
character, flooding risks, traffic and other resources are valid. I
myself have been caught in the long line of traffic entering or
leaving Tiburon even with existing housing and numbers of
cars. As a Coastal Commissioner for five years, I have been a
strong voice for preservation of community character and open
spaces amidst proposals for developments or short-term rental
approaches that would ultimately destroy the aspects of
communities that make them so special.
At the same time, I do think we need to find ways to provide
additional housing in our County and across the District. We
are all finding that there isn't enough housing to have our
essential workers live where they work, which causes 65,000
cars to go in and out of the District every day, sometimes with
commute times of 90 minutes-2 hours. This is a very heavy
greenhouse gas footprint, I don't think is sustainable. I also
want my son Henry (and others' kids and grandkids) to be able
to live in Marin in the future.
I support the creation of additional housing, but only with
dedicated planning and resources to mitigate traffic and
address flooding risks and other resource impacts.
All the best,
Sara Aminzadeh
Tiburon Housing Element Draft Plan Comments and Questions August 3, 2022
Page 1 of 7 From: Kathleen K. Silverfield
When I walk the dog at 6:30 in the morning, I cross the street at the roundabout where Tiburon
Boulevard ends and Paradise Drive begins. As I cross the street I look down Tiburon Boulevard
and see the building where the Petite Left Bank will be and then a line of trees. All the one-
story and two-story buildings are hidden. It is beautiful, quiet, peaceful, and utterly charming.
It makes me a little sick and angry to think that anyone would want to change that look and
replace it with blocks of 3 to 5 story buildings. Trees will not be able to hide them.
There are two major issues here and they should be considered together but the primary
responsibility should be separated. The issues are:
1. The Allocation Numbers. The allocation numbers come from the region (ABAG –
Association of Bay Area Governments) and the State of California; therefore, we should
address the Region and the State with our concerns about the allocation of 639 new
units and the breakdown between the income levels. The Region and State should be
aware of the intended and unintended consequences and should listen to local voices
before their decisions destroy the charm and individuality of communities.
2. The Site Locations. The site locations come from the Town of Tiburon. Tiburon may have
been given the numbers from the Region and the State but the decisions regarding
locating most of the high density units in virtually two blocks of Downtown Tiburon is
clearly from the Town of Tiburon; therefore, we should address the Town of Tiburon with
our concerns about the site locations. The Region and State should also be made aware
of our concerns but we should let them know that we understand site locations to be a
local issue.
I have heard many others express concerns over traffic, emergency evacuation, public service
capability, schools. I share all those concerns and more.
The following questions ask for specific answers because I want to know that there has been
sufficient care and thought about the impacts and consequences of the Housing Plan.
General Comments and Questions:
1. COMMENT: Instead of spreading 639 new units throughout Tiburon, the Housing Plan
concentrates most of the new units in Downtown Tiburon with the result of generating a
drastic transformation of Downtown Tiburon. Today, Downtown Tiburon is quiet, with
unobtrusive one or two story (with the rare three story) buildings many of which are set
back a good distance from the street, and with a character and charm developed over
many years of its unique history.
QUESTION: Since the change proposed by the Housing Plan will replace much of
Downtown Tiburon and affect every resident of Tiburon, especially those who live near
Downtown Tiburon, should this go to a vote of the residents of Tiburon?
2. COMMENT: Amongst the 360 pages of the “Town of Tiburon 2023-2031 Housing Element
Public Review Draft”, I could not find who prepared and wrote the document and who made the
decisions that transform Tiburon so drastically.
Tiburon Housing Element Draft Plan Comments and Questions August 3, 2022
Page 2 of 7 From: Kathleen K. Silverfield
QUESTION: By name, title, and organization, who specifically made the decisions and
prepared and wrote the Draft Housing Element Plan?
QUESTION: Do those who were involved in making the decisions and preparing and
writing the document have a vested interest in Tiburon and how specifically do they
have a vested interest?
QUESTION: Outside of the Tiburon Town Council, have any of those who were involved
in preparing, writing and making the decisions in the Housing Element Plan live in
Tiburon, volunteered at the Tiburon Art Festival which no longer occurs but was a vital
part of Tiburon annual activities, volunteered at the Tiburon Film Festival, volunteered
at the Tiburon Wine Festival, volunteered at the Tiburon Car Show, are members of the
Tiburon Landmark Society, volunteered at the biannual Tiburon/Belvedere walk
sponsored by the Tiburon Landmark Society, volunteered at the Thrift Shop?
QUESTION: Have the members of the Town Council carefully read all 360 pages of the
document and do they agree with everything in the document?
QUESTION: Who specifically composes the “Staff” that the Town Council mentions and
often seems to make the decisions?
3. COMMENT: The multi-use buildings shown in graphics will be 3 to 5 stories. Table 14 on
page 91 shows MUH as 4 stories but that is still under discussion.
QUESTION: With Downtown Tiburon mainly 1 and 2 story buildings, why can there not
be a limit of any new buildings being 1 and 2 stories with the exceptional 3 stories?
QUESTION: Is there a guarantee with no exceptions that buildings designated as MUH
in Table 10 on page 68 will be no more than 4 or 5 stories?
QUESTION: Is there a guarantee with no exceptions that buildings designated as MUL
in Table 10 on page 68 will be no more than 3 stories?
QUESTION: Is there a guarantee that any other sites not listed in Table 10 on page 68
but within Downtown Tiburon will be no more than 3 stories?
QUESTION: When most, including the Town Council agree that 639 new housing units is
much too high and cannot be accommodated without drastically transforming Tiburon,
why is the total number of new housing units 777 listed in Table 10 on page 68? (Doesn’t
138 units over allocation just say to everyone give us more, we can handle it?)
4. QUESTION: Did any officials responsible for allocating 639 units to Tiburon visit Tiburon
before making their decision?
QUESTION: Did they visit when traffic on the two lane section is the heaviest?
5. COMMENT: The ferry has been given as one reason for designating Tiburon a
transportation hub but that works only if someone is going to and from San Francisco,
mainly at work commute time – ferry service is very limited at non-commute times.
QUESTION: Who designated Tiburon as a transportation hub and what were the specific
reasons for designating Tiburon a transportation hub?
6. QUESTION: With California's population declining, do the housing needs projections
need to be revisited at the State and Regional levels?
Tiburon Housing Element Draft Plan Comments and Questions August 3, 2022
Page 3 of 7 From: Kathleen K. Silverfield
QUESTION: If the housing needs projections are revisited and the numbers decrease,
will the Housing Plan be revisited and can zoning be changed if there is a decrease in the
required number of new housing units?
7. COMMENT: 53% of the allocation of housing needs is for moderate or above moderate
income. 38% of the allocation of housing needs is for above moderate income which is
categorized as 120% above the median income of the area.
QUESTION: Why do we need to provide housing for those who earn more than most of
the current residents of Tiburon?
8. QUESTION: What are the specific objective and subjective reasons for not including the
Cove Shopping Center and surrounding areas in the Site Inventory?
9. QUESTION: What other areas in Tiburon were considered for the Site Inventory and
what are the specific objective and subjective reasons for not including them? Please list
and provide an explanation for each.
10. COMMENT: Current commercial space will be replaced by housing. Many of the existing
commercial entities stayed in Tiburon even through the hardships of the COVID
experience and are due some show of appreciation for their loyalty.
QUESTION: What compensation will be offered to commercial entities that will be
replaced, need to move, or shut down because of the development process?
11. COMMENT: The properties with Woodlands Market (owner has expressed a desire to
keep it but I will believe it when I see it), CVS, the remaining Banks and ATMs, the Post
Office, and other conveniences are being replaced by multi-use buildings.
QUESTION: If any or all of these conveniences do not stay, what will be the increase in
traffic with the current population just to, for example, get cash at an ATM or a sundry or
a half pound of green beans?
12. QUESTION: Will individual property taxes increase because of the need to improve the
Town’s infrastructure – public services, transportation, roads to accommodate increased
traffic, water service, schools, police, fire, etc.? (the economic plan to support the
increase in population should be made public)
13. COMMENT: California population is declining. Tiburon might build 639 housing units
and cannot fill them because of the heavy traffic, the lack of local conveniences, public
transportation only by ferry or a bus that goes only to Strawberry and requires transfers
to go anywhere else, no good emergency evacuation plan, etc.
3.0 HOUSING SITES
Page 68, Table 10
1. COMMENT: Site 8 is near the Reed Elementary School. It is outside the compact 2 blocks of
Downtown Tiburon. It is 2.9 acres with an allowable density of 20-25 units per acre.
QUESTION: What does the GP Designation VH-25 mean?
QUESTION: What does the Zoning District R-4 mean?
Tiburon Housing Element Draft Plan Comments and Questions August 3, 2022
Page 4 of 7 From: Kathleen K. Silverfield
QUESTION: Why, specifically, was Site 8 not designated with a higher density of units per acre,
such as 40-45 units per acre?
2. COMMENT: Site 9 is outside the compact 2 blocks of Downtown Tiburon where most of the
new units will be developed. It is across the street from the Library.
QUESTION: Why, specifically, was Site 9 designated MUL (density of 30-35 units per acre)?
QUESTION: Why, specifically, was Site 9 not designated MUH (density of 40-45 units per acre?
3. COMMENT: The RHNA Total is 639 and the grand total is 777. Sites 1-9 and A-G total 526
units. QUESTION:
Where, specifically are the other 113 RHNA units?
Page 65
1. COMMENT: Using the 526 units listed in Table 10 Sites inventory for Sites 1-9 minus the
Reed School and Mar West Sites and the 2.45 persons/unit estimate on this page, the
population increase is over 1048 people. If you include the Reed School and Mar West
Sites the increase is an estimated 1289 people.
QUESTION: What percentages of the current population of only Downtown Tiburon is
1048?
QUESTION: What are the boundaries of Downtown Tiburon for determining this
number?
Page 71
1. COMMENT: The Draft Plan mentions the commercial building at 1694-1696 Tiburon as an
example of a project “responding to market demand for housing over commercial space”. A one
story building was replaced by a 3 story building. This building is very prominent even though
the 3rd story occupies only a little corner of the building. It is an example of how the whole
block from Beach to Juanita Lane may look. The imagination should go further and think of this
building with one or two more stories added on top to visualize what the Boardwalk, Bank of
America, Chase Bank, CVS, Post Office Buildings and adjacent parking lots would look like.
Page 72
1. QUESTION: With an estimated increase in people over 1048 in Downtown only and
1289 with the addition of the Reed School and Mar West Sites, why does the Plan
assume that the commercial space needs in Downtown Tiburon will not grow or even
may decline?
Pages 73-80 3.4 SITE AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
1. COMMENT: According to the Sites Inventory and Analysis, some Sites have already
been rezoned. In 3.4 Sites and Capacity Analysis, descriptions for these Sites indicate
rezoning has already been done – Site 1 (page 74), Site 2 (Page 74) Site 3 (Page 75), Site
Tiburon Housing Element Draft Plan Comments and Questions August 3, 2022
Page 5 of 7 From: Kathleen K. Silverfield
4 (Page 76), Site 5 (Page 76), Site 6 (Page 77), Site 7 (Page 77), Site 8 (Page 78), Site 9
(Page 79). A footnote on Page 69, which is NOT part of “3.4 SITE AND CAPACITY
ANALYSIS”, implies that rezoning has not been done yet but that it is stated so in the
body because this document is a draft. So, for the purposes of this list, the following
questions regarding rezoning that is stated to have been done already in each Site
description apply to the future rezoning.
QUESTION: What specific areas of Downtown Tiburon have already been rezoned?
QUESTION: What specific studies for impacts were done – e.g., on traffic, public
services, schools, emergency evacuations and more?
QUESTION: Was the rezoning of each area done only because of the property owners’
expressed desire?
QUESTION: What are the specific requirements for each rezoning?
2. QUESTION: Why are there no individual analysis for Sites A, B, C, D, E, F, or G? There is
just one short paragraph on page 73.
3. COMMENT: CVS Pharmacy is currently located on Site B (Page 73).
QUESTION: What are the specific plans for retaining CVS in Downtown Tiburon?
4. QUESTION: What are the specific steps for the “expedited permit review and approval
process” mentioned in each Site description?
5. COMMENT: A number of commercial enterprises are currently located on Site 5 (Page
76-77).
QUESTION: Is there a specific guarantee that Woodland’s Market will be retained and
not just an “expressed desire” by the property owner?
QUESTION: Will any guarantee to keep Woodland’s Market pass to a new owner?
QUESTION: What are the specific plans for retaining the other commercial entities?
6. COMMENT: The Post office is currently on Site 7 (Page 77-78)
QUESTION: Will Downtown Tiburon lose it’s local post office?
QUESTION: If Downtown Tiburon retains it’s local post office, where is it guaranteed to
be located?
4.0 HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Page 87-88. Table 12
1. COMMENT: 3.0 Housing Sites lists the Sites selected for the Housing Element. It is
surprising to find in “Table 12 General Plan Land Use Designations that Allow Residential
Development” that the twelfth designation is Main Street (MS) with a residential
development density of up to 25 units per acre. Main Street has a historical look and
feel. It should be off-limits!
QUESTION: Why is Main Street listed in Table 12?
QUESTION: What specifically does it mean to have Main Street listed in Table 12 – all
the specifics, please?
Tiburon Housing Element Draft Plan Comments and Questions August 3, 2022
Page 6 of 7 From: Kathleen K. Silverfield
QUESTION: Does it mean that most of Main Street may not be a bastion of old Tiburon
amongst the 3 to 5 story buildings planned for Tiburon Boulevard and 26 Main Street?
APENDIX A – PUBLIC OUTREACH
1. COMMENT: The Town of Tiburon Public Outreach includes: a Housing Workshop on
November 9, 2021; a Housing Workshop II on February 22, 2022; a Housing II Survey; 3
Housing and Diversity & Inclusion Elements Focus Group for EAH residents.
Unfortunately, I was not aware or did not realize that these events discuss the drastic
change to Tiburon that are in this Plan. Attempts at Public Outreach needs to be
improved.
QUESTION: Were there other attempts at Public Outreach?
QUESTION: If there were other attempts at Public Outreach, what were they and what
was the attendance.
2. COMMENT: The Housing Workshop on November 9, 2021 had 95 attendees.
3. COMMENT: The Housing Workshop II on February 22, 2022 had 30 attendees.
QUESTION: How many of the 30 attendees who attended Workshop II, are among the
95 attendees of Workshop I?
QUESTION: In what geographic area of Tiburon does each of the attendees reside?
QUESTION: What specific decisions in this plan were influenced by the live poll and
housing unit capacity question in Workshop 2 with its 30 attendees?
4. COMMENT: The Housing II Survey had 238 responses.
QUESTION: In what geographic area of Tiburon does each respondent reside?
QUESTION: What specific decisions in this plan were influenced by the results of this
survey with its 238 responses?
5. COMMENT: The Housing and Diversity & Inclusion Elements Focus Group for EAH
residents at Cecilia Place had 4 attendees.
6. COMMENT: The Housing and Diversity & Inclusion Elements Focus Group for EAH
residents at Bradley House had 1 attendee.
7. COMMENT: The Housing and Diversity & Inclusion Elements Focus Group for EAH
residents at Hilarita had 4 attendees.
8. COMMENT: If participants in the Workshops, Survey, and Focus Groups were counted
individually, the total would be 372 participants. However, a more realistic approach
would be to assume that many attended both workshops and/or participated in the
survey. If you use the data in “Table D-9: Populations of Persons with Disabilities –
Tiburon (2019)”, the population of Tiburon that is 18 or older in age is 7172. So, if you
take the best case where all 372 participants participated in only 1 event, then Public
Outreach reached only 5.2% of adult Tiburon. Of course, the percentage would dcrease
if any one person participated in more than one event.
9. COMMENT: “Town of Tiburon 2023-2031 Housing Element Public Review Draft” was
released for public comment on July 5th, 2022 with comments due by August 5th 2022.
Tiburon Housing Element Draft Plan Comments and Questions August 3, 2022
Page 7 of 7 From: Kathleen K. Silverfield
QUESTION: If Public Outreach is so important, why did Tiburon cancel the July Town
Council public meeting where public discussion could occur.
QUESTION: Why are there no meetings to inform the public on the contents of the 360
page document or discuss the Housing Element Draft?
QUESTION: Why is the only public meeting where the Housing Element Draft can be
discussed scheduled for August 3rd which is only two days before the last day comments
can be submitted?
From:Carolyn Shadan
To:Town
Subject:Housing Element Special Meeting 8-31-2022
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 2:00:13 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from carolyn.shadan@gmail.com.Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Mayor Welner and Town Council Members,
I am writing to ask that the Town Council rescind their recommendation to add the CoveShopping Center (Site 9 in original draft)back as a potential housing site, including the
reduced version, , for the following reasons:
As required by the Key Comments of the mandate, item 1 Community Engagement, the
Town conducted a survey which the respondents indicated the Cove as last on the list ofdesirable sites,.The other proposed sites downtown were tops on the list. The draft
housing element plan with the two additional sites of 1120 Mar West and increaseddensity due to property owner request (site 7) reflect the results of the survey.
The Town Planning Department has done a good job researching potential sites, andtheir recommendation is that the Cove site is not a viable location.The property owner has indicated they would only be interested in current noncommercial and none parking areas. The property owner has indicated the southeast
corner that fronts Tiburon Blvd would be okay. Yet there are problems with that site thatseem insurmountable:
The newly renovated Cove PP and Backup Generator handle over 70% of thewater in the Cove Watershed. As an engineer and Flood Control District Advisory
Board Member, it is inconceivable to me how a project to redirect the storm drainsystem from this location to some yet unidentified location would be
implemented, This is storm water that drains from the hills surrounding the CoveShopping Center and from Tiburon Blvd.
The back parking lot that the property owner has indicated is not an option, is aheavily used parking lot.
The creek is part of the Cove Watershed discharge and cannot be built on, as wellas having a 50 foot setback. Planning has noted this.
The steep hill to the east of the creek cannot be accessed directly from TiburonBlvd on the southwest side due to the presence of a large PG&E underground
transmission gas line and above ground surge structure. Which means some typeof bridge over the creek through the parking lot would have to be constructed.
The traffic on Blackfield already backs up to an extent that this very busyshopping center users have started to speed around the back and out the service
delivery exit.The soil in the watershed, and that area in particular is bay sediment. Which
would require deep piles, increasing the cost of construction. A single story onHarriet currently under construction, approximately 50 feet to the north east has to
drive very deep piles as though it were a multi story home
Adding Cove back to the potential list only adds a 1% buffer.
One potential site owner (Site 7) asked that the density for their site be increased, which
increased the buffer.1120 Mar West asked to be rezoned for housing and added to the list., which also
increased the buffer.
There has been a lot of discussion about our small town atmosphere and how much we allenjoy it, yet It is interesting that our downtown is not a busy place, which spurs a lot of
discussions on how to increase use and enjoyment of the downtown. It seems to me that if wehad a larger residential aspect to our downtown it would be more lively. Similar to Mill Valley
which has a very vibrant downtown with a residential aspect. The Cove Shopping Center is avery busy and vibrant shopping center due to its surrounding density, that even residents of
the peninsula frequent, so it is understandable that the property owner would be resistant toeliminating that business for even a short period. The town should be considering their tax
base in any considerations.
There has been an idea promoted by one council member that we can fix the flood problem inthe Cove Watershed with redevelopment of the Cove Shopping Center or the construction of
housing on the steep hill or replacing the parking lot with housing. As an engineer, a memberof the FCD Zone 4 Advisory Board, and having studied the existing infrastructure ,this is not
the solution. Development that reduces ground water retention by paving and structures willadd to the amount of water needed to be pumped out of the zone, The flooding problem has to
do with an antiquated design of delivery and pumping out of storm water, that did not considerSea Level Rise, stronger storms due to climate change, and the surrounding development in
the watershed that increased surface water runoff in place of ground absorption. Adding anydevelopment to the Cove watershed seems foolish. There are proposed mitigation measures
being considered and they are quite expensive. The town has had a hands off attituderegarding flooding in the Cove Watershed, so funds from the Town probably won’t occur. It is
inconceivable that any developer would undertake the cost of mitigating flooding ( orrelocating the new PP and generator as well as storm pipes) into their cost of development.
And if these are below market units, how would a profit be realized.
The Elephant in the room is why haven’t we considered the Martha Parcel? And now we havethis unavoidable mandate to increase our housing stock but want to eliminate a large parcel of
land to increase Open Space? Couldn’t some type of combination development with preservedopen space be implemented? I believe that is what the property owner had on the table with
his last proposal. Couldn’t that be modified to have denser housing?
Lastly traffic: Any new housing in any location will impact traffic to some degree. Our trafficproblems are no different than other towns like Mill Valley, Fairfax, etc. and we can try to find
solutions beyond the yellow school bus:
Ours though, seem to be exacerbated by the elimination of neighborhood schools for
grade specific schools years ago, due to low enrollment. There was not an educationalreason. All of the private schools with long waiting lists have k-8 campuses. Think
MCD Yes, we have the yellow school bus, but that is a hefty price for a family.Especially if there is a stay at home parent who has the time to do the driving. I see one
parent and typically one child driving back and forth to Bel Aire every day, so whyaren’t they using the school bus? Why haven’t we explored neighborhood schools?
That would certainly eliminate a lot of traffic.A free shuttle bus from the freeway to downtown on the hour would eliminate a lot of
traffic. It would allow town hall, police, and business employees that don’t live in thedowntown to use 101 transit to connect to our downtown. It would allow residents to
frequent the shopping centers at both ends of town, and the recreation clubs in between.They have this in Oakland from Jack London Square along Broadway and it brings a lot
of business to Jack London Square, the farmer’s market, and other businesses along theway. Saint Hillary students already ride GGTransit for free to the Cove to be dropped
off or picked up.We are forgetting that telecommuting is on the rise, which will eliminate some and
maybe a lot of traffic. So the school and employee traffic to/from downtown will be themain traffic in the future. Housing will not really have the impact is would have had
prior to the advent of telecommuting.
Carolyn Shadan
From:Jason Washing
To:Town
Subject:URG: Cove Housing..
Date:Monday, August 29, 2022 9:06:18 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from jwash99@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Tiburon Town Council,
I am writing to inform you of my vehement opposition to the notion of four-story affordablehousing placed in the Cove shopping center as is being contemplated.
With broad based support, you all shepherded an affordable housing plan that was
thoughtfully and thoroughly surveyed with input from all Tiburon residents. It resulted in aconclusive set of outcomes relative to the various objectives that must be satisfied to make
Tiburon a more inclusive and equitable community, which I support.
Seems plans have changed on how to do that. You previously rejected what some of you arenow supporting, a plan which got the least support of any proposal in the process you all
sponsored and helped design.
There are substantive considerations to address in moving to build the proposed housing unitsin the Cove Shopping center relative to rising sea levels, traffic, human density, and
neighborhood character and quality of life, that only scratch the surface of implications shouldthis idea move forward on any level. Furthermore, I can't help but question the credibility of
the town council's ability to fairly and equitably manage this issue on behalf of ALL citizensof Tiburon.
I look forward to joining the discussion at the meeting this Wednesday but want this note to
serve as a firm point of opposition to the proposed (revised) plan itself, your handling of thismatter, and the implications of it for the neighborhood I reside in.
Jason Washing
290 Cecilia Way, Tiburon, Ca 94920415-596-6583
jwash99@gmail.com
From:David Irmer
To:Town; Lea Dilena
Cc:Kevin Hessel
Subject:Notice of Housing Elements - Tiburon
Date:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:45:38 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email fromdcirmer@innisfreecompanies.com. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Tiburon Town Concil and Mayor
Every concern being voiced regarding the Housing Update for downtown focuses on the quality oflife we Tiburon Peninsula residents were first attracted to when we arrived and have embellishedover the years. We are proud of our unique village, and to diminish that special character withunreasonable, poorly thought-through densities, height allowances, setbacks, parking, architecturaluncertainties, and basically a change of our treasured character.
Tiburon has evolved throughout the many years, but slowly and with a great deal of thought, publicaddress, and always with sensitivity for the overall community, their needs, concerns, and wishes.
Please consider this huge step of adding 693 new homes to this sensitive part of our downtown.
We have an opportunity to step back and reconsider these out-of-step densities. Let’s look at all theeligible land possibilities and create the next phase of our growth with thoughtful consideration forthose who call Tiburon-Belvedere their home and for those yet to call Tiburon their home
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted
David C Irmer
From:Kathy and Gerry Silverfield
To:Lea Dilena; Dina Tasini; Jon Welner; Jack Ryan; Alice Fredericks; Noah Griffin; Holli Thier
Subject:Comments for the August 31st Special Town Council Meeting
Date:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 9:39:58 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the Town Council, Dina Tasini, Consultants, and Unnamed Staff:
I already resubmitted my comments and questions regarding the July 5th version ofthe Draft Housing Element Plan. The following, are comments and questions I haveregarding the process going forward and the 2022-08-31 STAFF REPORT Draft Housing
Element.
1. Are the review comments submitted for the July 5th version of the Draft HousingElement Plan going to be incorporated into the revised version?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->If we submit comments and questions on the
revised version or the Staff Report, will those comments and questions beincorporated into the revised version?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->Will we get responses to the comments
submitted for the July 5th version?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->4. <!--[endif]-->Will we get responses to the commentssubmitted for the Staff report?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->5. <!--[endif]-->Will we be able to review and comment on therevised version before it is submitted to the State
<!--[if !supportLists]-->6. <!--[endif]-->Be sure to remove all references to the
rezoning being done. As discussed in the August 3rd Town Council meeting,there is no need to have the zoning being done until at least a year or 3 yearsafter the HCD has approved the Tiburon Housing Element Plan.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->7. <!--[endif]-->With a plan that has such adverse impact tothe safety of Tiburon, the traffic situation, and the character of Tiburon, shouldn’tthere be a public discussion of the plan with a question and answer session – not justcomments and questions that may not be answered even to the individual asking thequestions.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->8. <!--[endif]-->Staff Report, Pages 2 and 3: In the appeal toABAG, why wasn’t there a question of Tiburon being designated a transit hubbecause of the private ferry dock without considering the uselessness of the ferry ifsomeone works in Tiburon, Marin County, other Northern Counties, or the East Bay. Even working in San Francisco, the ferry is not convenient except for a short walkingdistance from the ferry building.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->9. <!--[endif]-->Staff Report, Page 8: Some of the community
feedback concerns will be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report that is beingprepared for the General Plan Update. How can analysis have any impact onsolutions when it is done after the plan has been approved by HCD?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->10. <!--[endif]-->Staff Report, Pages 9 and 10: For 4576Paradise Drive, have any architectural or engineering experts looked at the site toconclude whether or not it is feasible to build on it. What is meant by a robustcommunity outreach as one reason not to consider this property? There was norobust public outreach to consider the major impact to Downtown Tiburon – even ifyou include the two workshops, two surveys, and 3 forums. Why can this property beconsidered in the future but not now?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->11. <!--[endif]-->Staff Report, Pages 8 and 9: It is stated that
unit capacity in Downtown Tiburon is 376 units at minimum densities. Table 3 listsproperties in the Downtown area and totals 434-516 units. What is the basis for the376 units?
<!--[if !supportLists]-->12. <!--[endif]-->Staff Report, Pages 8 and 9: What is theprobability that developers will build to the minimum densities when they will beallowed to build more? It was stated in the Draft Housing Element Plan thatdevelopers wanted increased densities to make it worthwhile to build.
13. <!--[endif]-->Staff Report, Pages 9 and 10: Error in Tables 4 and 5, considering
Single and two-family units.
Kathy SilverfieldTiburon resident
From:Julie Jacobs
To:Dorene Curtis
Cc:Lea Dilena; Dina Tasini; Jon Welner; Jack Ryan; Alice Fredericks USA.net; Noah Griffin; Holli Thier
Subject:Re: Comments for Aug 31 Town Council Meeting re Housing Element
Date:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:56:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We agree wholeheartedly with everything in Dorene Curtis’s comments for the August 31stTown Council meeting. We hope very much that we will have the opportunity to review the
revised draft housing element plan, and have a Town Hall meeting with Town Council, staff,the Design Review Board, and the Planning Commission, with the opportunity to ask
questions, receive answers, and give more feedback following the meeting, before Tiburon’sDraft Housing Element is submitted to the state for review. This is too important to safety and
quality of life in our town to proceed otherwise.
Thank you very much for listening, and for your hard work to create a happy, healthy, and safefuture for Tiburon and its residents.
Julie and Seth Jacobs
On Aug 30, 2022, at 2:24 PM, Dorene Curtis <dcurtisemail@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ms. Tasini and Town Council Members,
I was pleased to see that several changes have been proposed to the Housing Element. Although the revised
plan will still present all of the concerns previously raised, these revisions are all a good step in the right
direction. I support each one and thank you all for “hearing us”.
I have the following COMMENTS/QUESTIONS, the key points which can be summarized as follows:
What is the plan going forward? Will Residents have a chance to review the fully revised Plan before
submittal?
Regarding the legal analysis for when the ‘Builder’s Remedy” applies, won’t it apply in any event,
with timing simply dependent on when the Plan is adopted? I just don’t want us to feel rushed to get
the Plan approved to try and avoid inevitable consequences.
It is CRITICAL that the language throughout the existing draft Plan be modified to DELETE ALL
THE REFERENCES TO RE-ZONING OCCURRING BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN.
Why not include the 9 acres of land annexed earlier this Year in the Plan NOW?
Here are more detailed comments on the above bullet points and some others:
1. PATH FORWARD - COMMENT/QUESTION: WHAT WILL BE THE PROCESS GOING
FORWARD? WILL RESIDENTS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE
OF THE REVISED PLAN BEFORE IT IS SUBMITTED?
2. “BUILDER’S REMEDY - The Staff Report states on pp 3-4, “Housing Element Update Deadlines”:
“An updated Housing Element is required to be adopted by the Town Council by January 31, 2023. There is
what has been referred to as a “grace period” of 120 days from January 31, 2023, that is until May 31, 2023
to have the housing element adopted and found to be in substantial compliance by HCD (“certification”).
However, if the Town does not have a legally adequate housing element by January 31, 2023, the “builder’s
remedy” in the Housing Accountability Act applies, and a project that includes 20% affordable housing for
lower income households cannot not be denied on any site designated in any element of the general plan for
a) residential use, or b) commercial use if residential uses are permitted or conditionally permitted within
commercial designations; regardless of compliance with density or other development standards.
(Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)(B).)”
QUESTION/COMMENT - WON’T THE “BUILDER’S REMEDY’ APPLY IN ANY EVENT, BUTJUST NOT FOR 3 YEARS VS 1 YEAR IF THE PLAN IS APPROVED BY MAY 31, 2023? That is
how I read the statute. I do not read the referenced section as saying it ONLY applies if the Plan is not
approved by the statutory deadline? CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE MORE CITATIONS IF MY
INTERPRETATION IS NOT CORRECT?
3. RE-ZONING - The same section further state: “If HCD certification is not received by May 31, 2023
(120 days after January 31, 2023), the Town must complete any re-zonings called for in the Housing Element
within 1 year of the due date, rather than the standard 3-year timeframe. (Government Code Section
65588(e)(4)(C)(i).) In other words, the Town would have to up-zone its Housing Element inventory sites by
January 31, 2024 rather than 2026. In addition, if the housing element is adopted more than one year after
the due date, it cannot be found in “substantial compliance” with housing element law until the up-zoning is
adopted. (Government Code Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii).)”
QUESTION/COMMENT: It seems clear we need to modify the entire document to delete all thereferences to zoning being accomplished before date of adoption of final plan. Based on the above,
Tiburon has at least one year if not three years before they need to adopt and put into effect the
rezoning. We need to take advantage of the entire time permitted by law before rezoning. This time
could be critical in allowing Tiburon to at least partially address the horrific traffic issues, furtherdevelop appropriate objective design standards and allow as long as possible for appeals of the
dramatically increased allocation to be pursued, and a more reasonable allocation to be determined.
With a greatly reduced allocation, it might be possible to rezone only small portions of downtown andkeep building heights down to 2 or at the most 3 stories. This would have a far less dramatic impact on
safety and quality of life than the current draft housing element plan. TheTown of Tiburon’s focus
should be on the impacts of the draft plan on safety and quality of life for all residents, and not just the
compliance part of the analysis.
Delaying re-zoning would also give our planners adequate time to pursue other locations for rezoning
west of Trestle Glen, to spread out the new housing and make the following statement on p. 3 of the
draft Plan actually true:
“The Town’s RHNA strategy ensures that new housing units affordable to all income levels are integrated
throughout the Town.”
It does not appear that the Staff and Consultant have attempted to do that since the last meeting.
Eight units near The Cove don’t “ensure that new housing units affordable to all income levels are
integrated throughout the town”.
Additionally, delaying rezoning would provide time to engage experts and complete studies on the
impacts on safety and quality of life resulting from the proposed rezoning plans. Wildfire evacuations,
tsunamis, earthquakes, flooding, emergency service access, traffic, sanitation services, available water
resources, schools, and demands on police, fire and EMS resources should all be studied.
The current draft contains the following Footnote and then expressly states in the sections on discussion of
most of the numbered sites that they have already been rezoned before final submittal of the plan. References
are also contained in other parts so the entire document t needs a scrubbing.
fn on p69 says (emphasis added)…..”Note: This draft Housing Element presumes adoption of GP
redesignations and Zoning Code amendments for housing opportunity Sites 1-8 and A-G. This
construction is meant only to simplify the editing process associated with the final document, not to
presume an outcome before it happens. The document and analysis contained herein will be revised,
as necessary, to reflect the adopted rezonings. It is the Town’s intent to adopt permitted uses and
development standards that support and facilitate the site and capacity analysis described in this
section. All rezoning of housing opportunity sites will occur before the Housing Element is
adopted.”
PLEASE HAVE SOMEONE CHECK THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT FOR THESE STATEMENTS.
(I’m happy to help:-)) If we submit a plan that erroneously states we have already Re-Zoned by the
date of adoption of the Plan and the government then finds out that we have not, that would clearly not
be in our best interest :-)
4. DISCUSSION OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS - QUESTION/COMMENT: Will a section be added
prominently and early in the Plan to Diplomatically but clearly state that there are some serious
negative impacts associated with complying with this state mandate? Didn’t the TC agree to this in thelast meeting?
CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE COMMENT, PLEASE DELETE THE LAST PARAGRAPH
BELOW:
P.66-67 on AFFH provides as follows (EMPHASIS ADDED): PLEASE DELETE ENTIRE LAST
PARAGRAPH
“AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) SITE ANALYSIS
Assembly Bill 686 passed in 2017 requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers that
restrict access to opportunity and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair
housing AB 686 mandates that local governments identify meaningful goals to address the impacts of
systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal educational or
employment opportunities to the extent these issues create and/or perpetuate discrimination against protected
classes.
In addition, it:
-Requires the state, cities, towns, counties, and public housing authorities to administer their programs and
activities related to housing and community development in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing and
prohibits them from taking actions materially inconsistent with their AFFH obligation.
-Adds an AFFH analysis to the Housing Element for plans that are due beginning in 2021.
-Includes in the Housing Element’s AFFH analysis a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the
Town’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities
in access to opportunities; an assessment of contributing factors; and an identification of fair housing goals
and actions.
AFFH analysis is contained in Appendix D. In summary, the analysis finds:
-The Town should do more outreach on fair housing laws and available services. The Housing Element
contains several programs to address this need.
-Tiburon’s population is mostly White (81.6%), but the population is becoming more diverse and the Town is
becoming less segregated.
-The Town’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower or moderate income units in lower
opportunity areas or in areas with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minority populations, people with
disabilities, single-parent households, low or moderate income households, or cost-burdened renters.
-RHNA sites in Tiburon do not exacerbate existing fair housing conditions and ensure future households have
adequate access to a variety of opportunities.
-The Town’s RHNA strategy ensures that new housing units affordable to all income levels are integrated
throughout the Town.
ABAG’s regional housing allocation methodology for the 6th housing element cycle was specifically
designed to direct more housing growth to high resource areas with higher rates of segregation, like
Tiburon, in an effort to achieve more balanced and integrated communities across the Bay Area region.
As a result, the RHNA allocation is, in itself, a tool to address housing disparities, and Tiburon’s
exceptionally high RHNA (8 times the previous cycle vs. 2.4 for the regional allocation) is a primary
means for providing more housing opportunities for all and achieving a more diverse population.”
Question: Why would we feel the need to gratuitously add the above last paragraph, ANDPARTICULARLY THE LAST LINE? The previous sections sufficiently address what HDC says needs
to be addressed in the plan regarding AFFH. Adding the last paragraph serves no purpose other than
to erroneously imply that Tiburon fully deserves to have a hugely disproportionate share of housing
units allocated to it and that we are happily planning for all this new housing which will all be greatand result in no problems. Saying this will clearly not help our position with any legal challenges or
support for revisions to the legislation.
5. ANNEXED PROPERTY - QUESTION/COMMENT: For the 4576 Paradise Drive property that was
annexed earlier this year, have any architectural or engineering experts looked at the site to conclude whether
or not it is feasible to build on it? What is meant by a robust community outreach as one reason not to
consider this property? There was no robust public outreach to consider the major impact to Downtown
Tiburon – even if you include the two workshops, two surveys, and 3 forums. Why can this property be
considered in the future but not now (and why wasn’t it considered sooner?)? This could reduce pressure on
downtown for high density. There are issues with all the other locations, including flooding, fire risk, road
congestion and parking. Steep hillsides can be addressed through engineering in construction (look at
housing on Belvedere and Corinthian Islands).
6. QUESTION/COMMENT:..Please remove the statement on page 128 of the plan which says “The plan is
supported by the majority of residents”. Clearly this is not true.
7. QUESTION/COMMENT: WHEN WILL YOU FINALLY HOLD A TOWN HALL MEETING
WHEN WE CAN HAVE AN ACTUAL BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION? This issue is too critical
not to allow for real communication.
8. FERRY DOCK. - QUESTION/COMMENT:
Regarding theIn the appeal to ABAG, why wasn’t there a question of Tiburon being designated a
“transit hub” because of the private ferry dock? It is not a PUBLIC ferry dock like the others, and the
owner will not even allow tickets to be sold on the dock, making it difficult to take the ferry now that
we only have GGFerry and it doesn’t sell tickets onboard. It also serves no purpose if someone works
in Tiburon, Marin County, other Northern Counties, or the East Bay. Even working in San
Francisco, the ferry is not convenient except for work locations a short walking distance from the
ferry building.
IT IS ALSO ILLOGICAL TO CONSIDER THIS A MAJOR FACTOR IN DECIDING TO
LOCATE THE BULK OF THE HOUSING DOWNTOWN.
Lastly, I think that all references to the “ferry terminal” in the draft housing element plan should be
changed to “ferry dock”. To call it a terminal is dishonest, and supports the false analysis by ABAG
in the allocation, designating downtown as a “transportation hub.”
Thank-you for considering my questions and comments.
Dorene Curtis
Tiburon resident since 1987
Sent from my iPad
August 30, 2022
To the Tiburon Town Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft housing element.
I believe Tiburon can greatly improve the housing element.
• Recognize that Tiburon is tightly connected to the wider Bay Area housing market. Trying to
identify Tiburon specific housing needs is an exercise in futility.
• Housing in the Bay Area is constrained by open space and single-family zoning. We don’t want
to give up any open space so we must look at rezoning some single-family land. Too much land
is currently zoned single family – the result is single family land price per sq foot is lower than it
otherwise would be.
• Converting some commercial land to housing should be done especially since some commercial
property in Tiburon is underutilized. But there is not enough such land. Relying solely on
commercial property for new housing will result in very high densities and change the character
of Tiburon.
• Furthermore, we can’t convert it all – no one would want to live here if there was no convenient
retail and other commercial space.
• Need to look at single family zoned land. Areas that make most sense abut commercial zones,
multi-family zones, schools, churches, and Tiburon Blvd. Homeowners would see increase in
property values if rezoned, so many would favor such rezoning.
• Concerns about traffic are justified. The Town needs to think more broadly about how to
mitigate traffic problems.
• Require housing developers to provide buyers with free ferry tickets for first year. Require them
to market proximity of their housing to the ferry. Goal is to focus developers on attracting
buyers who will not add to peak time traffic.
• Make school buses free to ride.
• Consider peak traffic time tolls on Tiburon Blvd. Other times would be free. Tolls could be in
one direction only depending on time of day. Tolls could be designed to exempt certain
residents. Tolls would incentivize contractors and others to reduce trips, car pool, shift trips to
off peak times, ride school buses, and otherwise change driving behavior to reduce traffic.
• Revenue from tolls could be used to subsidize bus service (including school buses) and ferry
service. Tolls would be easy to administer with electronic license plate readers.
My overall point is to think more creatively about options for providing additional housing while
mitigating concerns about traffic impact. Jamming all the housing onto a few commercial lots will result
in very high density that will change the character of the Town.
Thank you.
James White, Tiburon
From:Dorene Curtis
To:Lea Dilena; Dina Tasini; Jon Welner; Jack Ryan; Alice Fredericks USA.net; Noah Griffin; Holli Thier
Subject:Comments for Aug 31 Town Council Meeting re Housing Element
Date:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:24:47 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Ms. Tasini and Town Council Members,
I was pleased to see that several changes have been proposed to the Housing Element. Although the revised plan will still
present all of the concerns previously raised, these revisions are all a good step in the right direction. I support each one and
thank you all for “hearing us”.
I have the following COMMENTS/QUESTIONS, the key points which can be summarized as follows:
What is the plan going forward? Will Residents have a chance to review the fully revised Plan before submittal?
Regarding the legal analysis for when the ‘Builder’s Remedy” applies, won’t it apply in any event, with timing
simply dependent on when the Plan is adopted? I just don’t want us to feel rushed to get the Plan approved to try and
avoid inevitable consequences.
It is CRITICAL that the language throughout the existing draft Plan be modified to DELETE ALL THE
REFERENCES TO RE-ZONING OCCURRING BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN.
Why not include the 9 acres of land annexed earlier this Year in the Plan NOW?
Here are more detailed comments on the above bullet points and some others:
1. PATH FORWARD - COMMENT/QUESTION: WHAT WILL BE THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD? WILL
RESIDENTS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE REVISED PLAN BEFORE
IT IS SUBMITTED?
2. “BUILDER’S REMEDY - The Staff Report states on pp 3-4, “Housing Element Update Deadlines”:
“An updated Housing Element is required to be adopted by the Town Council by January 31, 2023. There is what has been
referred to as a “grace period” of 120 days from January 31, 2023, that is until May 31, 2023 to have the housing element
adopted and found to be in substantial compliance by HCD (“certification”). However, if the Town does not have a legally
adequate housing element by January 31, 2023, the “builder’s remedy” in the Housing Accountability Act applies, and a
project that includes 20% affordable housing for lower income households cannot not be denied on any site designated in any
element of the general plan for a) residential use, or b) commercial use if residential uses are permitted or conditionally
permitted within commercial designations; regardless of compliance with density or other development standards.
(Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)(B).)”
QUESTION/COMMENT - WON’T THE “BUILDER’S REMEDY’ APPLY IN ANY EVENT, BUT JUST NOT FOR3 YEARS VS 1 YEAR IF THE PLAN IS APPROVED BY MAY 31, 2023? That is how I read the statute. I do not
read the referenced section as saying it ONLY applies if the Plan is not approved by the statutory deadline? CAN
YOU PLEASE PROVIDE MORE CITATIONS IF MY INTERPRETATION IS NOT CORRECT?
3. RE-ZONING - The same section further state: “If HCD certification is not received by May 31, 2023 (120 days after
January 31, 2023), the Town must complete any re-zonings called for in the Housing Element within 1 year of the due date,
rather than the standard 3-year timeframe. (Government Code Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(i).) In other words, the Town would
have to up-zone its Housing Element inventory sites by January 31, 2024 rather than 2026. In addition, if the housing element
is adopted more than one year after the due date, it cannot be found in “substantial compliance” with housing element law
until the up-zoning is adopted. (Government Code Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii).)”
QUESTION/COMMENT: It seems clear we need to modify the entire document to delete all the references to zoning
being accomplished before date of adoption of final plan. Based on the above, Tiburon has at least one year if not three
years before they need to adopt and put into effect the rezoning. We need to take advantage of the entire timepermitted by law before rezoning. This time could be critical in allowing Tiburon to at least partially address the
horrific traffic issues, further develop appropriate objective design standards and allow as long as possible for appeals of
the dramatically increased allocation to be pursued, and a more reasonable allocation to be determined.
With a greatly reduced allocation, it might be possible to rezone only small portions of downtown and keep building
heights down to 2 or at the most 3 stories. This would have a far less dramatic impact on safety and quality of life than
the current draft housing element plan. TheTown of Tiburon’s focus should be on the impacts of the draft plan on
safety and quality of life for all residents, and not just the compliance part of the analysis.
Delaying re-zoning would also give our planners adequate time to pursue other locations for rezoning west of Trestle
Glen, to spread out the new housing and make the following statement on p. 3 of the draft Plan actually true:
“The Town’s RHNA strategy ensures that new housing units affordable to all income levels are integrated throughout the
Town.”
It does not appear that the Staff and Consultant have attempted to do that since the last meeting. Eight units near TheCove don’t “ensure that new housing units affordable to all income levels are integrated throughout the town”.
Additionally, delaying rezoning would provide time to engage experts and complete studies on the impacts on safety
and quality of life resulting from the proposed rezoning plans. Wildfire evacuations, tsunamis, earthquakes, flooding,emergency service access, traffic, sanitation services, available water resources, schools, and demands on police, fire
and EMS resources should all be studied.
The current draft contains the following Footnote and then expressly states in the sections on discussion of most of the
numbered sites that they have already been rezoned before final submittal of the plan. References are also contained in other
parts so the entire document t needs a scrubbing.
fn on p69 says (emphasis added)…..”Note: This draft Housing Element presumes adoption of GP redesignations and
Zoning Code amendments for housing opportunity Sites 1-8 and A-G. This construction is meant only to simplify the
editing process associated with the final document, not to presume an outcome before it happens. The document and
analysis contained herein will be revised, as necessary, to reflect the adopted rezonings. It is the Town’s intent to
adopt permitted uses and development standards that support and facilitate the site and capacity analysis described
in this section. All rezoning of housing opportunity sites will occur before the Housing Element is adopted.”
PLEASE HAVE SOMEONE CHECK THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT FOR THESE STATEMENTS. (I’m happy tohelp:-)) If we submit a plan that erroneously states we have already Re-Zoned by the date of adoption of the Plan and
the government then finds out that we have not, that would clearly not be in our best interest :-)
4. DISCUSSION OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS - QUESTION/COMMENT: Will a section be added prominently andearly in the Plan to Diplomatically but clearly state that there are some serious negative impacts associated with
complying with this state mandate? Didn’t the TC agree to this in the last meeting?
CONSISTENT WITH THE ABOVE COMMENT, PLEASE DELETE THE LAST PARAGRAPH BELOW:
P.66-67 on AFFH provides as follows (EMPHASIS ADDED): PLEASE DELETE ENTIRE LAST PARAGRAPH
“AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) SITE ANALYSIS
Assembly Bill 686 passed in 2017 requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers that restrict access to
opportunity and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing AB 686 mandates that local
governments identify meaningful goals to address the impacts of systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost
burden, and unequal educational or employment opportunities to the extent these issues create and/or perpetuate
discrimination against protected classes.
In addition, it:
-Requires the state, cities, towns, counties, and public housing authorities to administer their programs and activities related
to housing and community development in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing and prohibits them from taking
actions materially inconsistent with their AFFH obligation.
-Adds an AFFH analysis to the Housing Element for plans that are due beginning in 2021.
-Includes in the Housing Element’s AFFH analysis a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the Town’s fair
housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities; an
assessment of contributing factors; and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.
AFFH analysis is contained in Appendix D. In summary, the analysis finds:
-The Town should do more outreach on fair housing laws and available services. The Housing Element contains several
programs to address this need.
-Tiburon’s population is mostly White (81.6%), but the population is becoming more diverse and the Town is becoming less
segregated.
-The Town’s RHNA strategy does not disproportionately place lower or moderate income units in lower opportunity areas or
in areas with higher concentrations of racial/ethnic minority populations, people with disabilities, single-parent households,
low or moderate income households, or cost-burdened renters.
-RHNA sites in Tiburon do not exacerbate existing fair housing conditions and ensure future households have adequate
access to a variety of opportunities.
-The Town’s RHNA strategy ensures that new housing units affordable to all income levels are integrated throughout the
Town.
ABAG’s regional housing allocation methodology for the 6th housing element cycle was specifically designed to direct
more housing growth to high resource areas with higher rates of segregation, like Tiburon, in an effort to achieve more
balanced and integrated communities across the Bay Area region. As a result, the RHNA allocation is, in itself, a tool to
address housing disparities, and Tiburon’s exceptionally high RHNA (8 times the previous cycle vs. 2.4 for the regional
allocation) is a primary means for providing more housing opportunities for all and achieving a more diverse population.”
Question: Why would we feel the need to gratuitously add the above last paragraph, AND PARTICULARLY THE
LAST LINE? The previous sections sufficiently address what HDC says needs to be addressed in the plan regarding
AFFH. Adding the last paragraph serves no purpose other than to erroneously imply that Tiburon fully deserves to
have a hugely disproportionate share of housing units allocated to it and that we are happily planning for all this newhousing which will all be great and result in no problems. Saying this will clearly not help our position with any legal
challenges or support for revisions to the legislation.
5. ANNEXED PROPERTY - QUESTION/COMMENT: For the 4576 Paradise Drive property that was annexed earlier
this year, have any architectural or engineering experts looked at the site to conclude whether or not it is feasible to build on
it? What is meant by a robust community outreach as one reason not to consider this property? There was no robust public
outreach to consider the major impact to Downtown Tiburon – even if you include the two workshops, two surveys, and 3
forums. Why can this property be considered in the future but not now (and why wasn’t it considered sooner?)? This could
reduce pressure on downtown for high density. There are issues with all the other locations, including flooding, fire risk, road
congestion and parking. Steep hillsides can be addressed through engineering in construction (look at housing on Belvedere
and Corinthian Islands).
6. QUESTION/COMMENT:..Please remove the statement on page 128 of the plan which says “The plan is supported by the
majority of residents”. Clearly this is not true.
7. QUESTION/COMMENT: WHEN WILL YOU FINALLY HOLD A TOWN HALL MEETING WHEN WE CAN
HAVE AN ACTUAL BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION? This issue is too critical not to allow for real
communication.
8. FERRY DOCK. - QUESTION/COMMENT:
Regarding theIn the appeal to ABAG, why wasn’t there a question of Tiburon being designated a “transit hub”
because of the private ferry dock? It is not a PUBLIC ferry dock like the others, and the owner will not even allow
tickets to be sold on the dock, making it difficult to take the ferry now that we only have GGFerry and it doesn’t sell
tickets onboard. It also serves no purpose if someone works in Tiburon, Marin County, other Northern Counties, or
the East Bay. Even working in San Francisco, the ferry is not convenient except for work locations a short walking
distance from the ferry building.
IT IS ALSO ILLOGICAL TO CONSIDER THIS A MAJOR FACTOR IN DECIDING TO LOCATE THE BULK
OF THE HOUSING DOWNTOWN.
Lastly, I think that all references to the “ferry terminal” in the draft housing element plan should be changed to “ferry
dock”. To call it a terminal is dishonest, and supports the false analysis by ABAG in the allocation, designating
downtown as a “transportation hub.”
Thank-you for considering my questions and comments.
Dorene Curtis
Tiburon resident since 1987
Sent from my iPad
From:Vasco Morais
To:Lea Dilena
Subject:FW: Late Mail Re: August 31 Special Meeting Agenda Item AI-1 Draft Housing Element
Date:Tuesday, August 30, 2022 11:14:28 PM
You don't often get email from vasco@kaimor.com. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We woud have attended the emergency meeting this Wednesday, August 31, 04:30 PM: Town
Council Special Meeting (granicus.com) but will not be able to.
We virtually attended the Town Council meeting in April 20 to consider the high-density housing. At
the time, the Town Council largely disfavored the Cove Shopping Center from the outset. The
development plans showed no retail space other than a corner convenience store at the Cove.
During public comment, there were just two other speakers who spoke up, both to register disfavor
with the Cove site. They Town Council already had a lot of negative comments for the Cove as a site,
including the survey responses. The survey showed that the Cove had the lowest rating of all as a
site for the high-density housing - with only 38% citing Cove as a preferred site, vs. 70% to 80%
favoring the sites downtown.
At the meeting the use of the Cove for high-density housing was averted in favor of increased
density downtown Tiburon where the “transit” hub exists – the ferry. After the April 20 meeting with
had understood that the Cove was no longer in consideration as a development site.
However, we now understand that subsequent to that decision, there was a further review meeting
where 60 persons from downtown all showed up and objected to the emphasis on downtown and
asserted that the high-density should be shared by “west” Tiburon, i.e., the Cove.
We strongly oppose the consideration of the Cove Shopping Center for development due to issues
with the Cove site including traffic, density and flooding issues, as well as other issues noted
previously and below.
Clearly, the site does not seem to have much development value per the Staff’s own report.
Per the latest Staff Report: Staff Report (granicus.com)
“On April 20 and 27, 2022, the Town Council reviewed the housing sites selected by the
Planning Commission and directed staff to remove the Cove Shopping Center (Site 9 in Table
2) from consideration.”
“Council Direction On August 3, 2022, the Town Council held a public hearing and in
response to public comment and desire to further analyze the site inventory directed staff to
look for additional sites west of Trestle Glen, reduce the number of units in downtown and
thereby reduce the buffer and to consider the Cove Shopping center southeast corner.
Staff has found the following:
Additional Sites West of Trestle Glen: Staff looked at sites fronting Trestle Glen . . . . 1. The
Cove Shopping Center. Based on the letter provided by the property owner’s attorney on
August 2, 2022, the property owner will support development in areas that are not currently
used for commercial buildings or parking, i.e., the southeast corner of the property fronting
Tiburon Boulevard, the pump station area, and the creek area. This area is approximately 1.1
acres and is currently in the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) district. This site has some
physical constraints due to the required 50’ creek setback and the steep slope of the hill
located in the southeast corner of the property. At most, the site could realistically yield 8-12
units. Due to higher construction costs to develop on this site, and the small number of
potential units, staff does not believe this site is a viable candidate for an affordable housing
development. The site could potentially be developed with market rate housing, yielding
one or two units affordable to lower and moderate-income households under the Town’s
Inclusionary Housing ordinance.
This report does not address parking and additional vehicle density.
Nor does it consider the major gas line running underground through a portion of the site,
large underground concrete piping newly installed 2019-2020 under the parking lot, leading into the
also newly refurbished "wet well", from which the newly refurbished pump station that
pulls collected rainwater, discharging it under Tiburon Blvd. to the bay.
Thank you,
Vasco Morais
Holly Kaiser
321 Karen Way
info@kaimor.com
The undersigned residents urge the Town Council to stick with the existing draft housing
plan. That plan was well-thought out and well-researched, based on an extensive
survey in which broad swaths of the Town were able to participate. We are opposed to
recent attempts to alter the housing plan, and, in particular, to attempts to move housing
that was allocated for downtown areas to a new site at The Cove Shopping Center.
Development of The Cove Shopping Center would be a bad idea for all the reasons that
led the Town Council to reject that proposal in the first place, and for the reasons
broadly expressed in the preceding Town survey, where that proposal got less support
than every other proposed site. Those concerns include but are not limited to: lack of
parking, traffic problems, flooding problems, lack of public transportation (especially with
Route 8 being indefinitely cancelled and ferry now being the main source of public
transportation), and character of the neighborhood (Bel Aire is limited by the Town
almost entirely to one-story houses).
Liz Feibusch
Carl Feibusch
Danielle Mendoza
Miguel Mendoza
Sara Rumrill
Sean Rumrill
Nicole Haris
Debra Carney
Tom Knauer
Erik Larson
Matan Shacham
Emily Chiswick-Patterson
Fred Marion Starr
Landon Gellert
Candice Fuhrman
Gary Fiedel
Glennis Fitzgerald
Dominic Daher
Stacy Daher
Ted Schroeder
Emese Toth
Jana Heimann
Candice Meier
Julia Gellert
Mallique Perera
Jennifer Perera
Amy Spieth
John Spieth
Lynn Marcotte
Edward McAuley
Sandeep Sahai
Linda Knauer
Rich Cellini
Christie Cellini
Pru Starr
Marion Fitzgerald
Carolyn Shadan
Lara Conte
Hedieh Doffo
Luis Doffo
Shannan Runner
Patrick Cunneen
Mitch Perkins
Bruce Sievers
Judith Hewson
John Leszczynski
Meagan Ryan Stasz
Mackenzie Stasz
Greg Ryan
Tamara Sweger
Natalya Davick
Dave Davick
Holly Kaiser
Vasco Morais
Jason Washing
Samantha Walravens
Pat Walravens
Joe Cioffari
Linsey Cioffari
Nicolas Haris
Laura Schaffer
Spencer Homich
Ryan Hoverman
Emily Hoverman
Gerard Fassig
Kathryn Oliver
Matt Lincoln
Minnie Carroll
Alan Le
George Rosenfield