In The Committee for Tiburon LLC v. Town of Tiburon (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 2, 2026, No. A171983) 2026 WL 266411, the First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision setting aside the Town of Tiburon’s general plan update and housing element. The court held that a program EIR for a general plan need not include site-specific environmental analysis for housing element sites where no development project has been proposed.
Key Takeaway
- Identifying housing sites to meet RHNA obligations when no specific housing project has been proposed does not trigger a duty to analyze site-specific impacts in a program EIR.
Background
The Town adopted a general plan update that incorporated its 2023–2031 Housing Element, which identified the Town’s RHNA as 639 units and identified 17 sites for rezoning to accommodate 916 total units.
The Town prepared a program EIR that modeled a full buildout of the 17 sites. Rather than analyzing site-specific impacts, the EIR evaluated the townwide environmental effects of adding 916 housing units. The Town certified the EIR, adopted the general plan update, and later implemented rezonings through amendments to the municipal code.
The Committee for Tiburon LLC (“Committee”) challenged the EIR, asserting the Town violated CEQA by failing to analyze the site-specific impacts of rezoning Site H for very high-density residential use. The trial court granted the petition. The Town appealed.
Appellate Decision
The appellate court reversed, holding that the Town properly used a program EIR to analyze the broad environmental effects of increased housing under the general plan update, and that CEQA did not require site-specific analysis of Site H in the absence of a proposed development project.
The court rejected the Committee’s reliance on Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 (Vineyard), distinguishing Vineyard as involving a concrete, multi-phase development project with foreseeable long-term impacts requiring project-specific analysis. The court observed that the Town’s identified housing sites were not phases of a single project but rather components of a planning document adopted to satisfy RHNA obligations, and there was no certainty that any particular site would be developed. The court emphasized that CEQA’s core purposes cannot be fulfilled without a concrete project, making deferral appropriate when no site-specific proposal exists.
The court also disagreed with the Committee’s argument that reports submitted to HCD during housing element review demonstrated the feasibility of a site-specific CEQA analysis of Site H. The court explained that while the reports described existing conditions, they did not analyze environmental impacts or mitigation measures associated with any proposed project and therefore did not support a requirement for a site-specific CEQA review.
Moreover, the court was not persuaded that deferring site-specific environmental review does not eliminate future CEQA review. Rather, the court explained that if development on Site H would result in impacts not addressed in the program EIR, CEQA would require additional project-level review tiered from that EIR.
Finally, the court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine whether rezoning of Site H is exempt under SB 131 for rezonings that implement actions contained in an approved housing element, and, if not, whether substantial evidence supports the Town’s determination that the EIR adequately analyzed the zoning amendments and that no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required.