HomeMy WebLinkAboutCED Response to the Grand Jury Report on Housing____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: 09/02/2025
Disposition: Resolution 15454
Agenda Item No: 7.c
Meeting Date: September 2, 2025
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community & Economic Development
Prepared by: Greg Minor, Assistant Director City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT ON HOUSING
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
RESPONSE TO THE MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT TITLED “THE
WORRISOME FUTURE OF MARIN HOUSING: NIMBY RESISTANCE TAKES A
BACKSEAT TO ECONOMIC REALITY
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to
execute the City of San Rafael’s response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report titled, “The
Worrisome Future of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic Reality.”
BACKGROUND:
The City is required to respond to a Grand Jury Report. Penal Code Section 933(c) states in part:
“No later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report…the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings
and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body.”
To comply with this statute, the City’s response to this Grand Jury report must be approved by resolution
of the City Council and submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and the
Foreperson of the Grand Jury on or before September 24, 2025. Staff have attached such a resolution
as Attachment 1.
On June 24, 2025, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled “The Worrisome Future
of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic Reality” (Attachment 2). The Grand
Jury report addresses the challenges confronting the development of housing in Marin County,
particularly changes in state housing laws and economic factors outside of the control of local
government.
This Grand Jury report can also be accessed at the following link:
https://www.marincounty.gov/node/23136?language=en.
The Grand Jury Report presents the following findings:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
•F1. Because the California Department of Housing and Community Development provided the
County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns with unrealistic housing goals for the 2023-
2030 cycle, the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns will not achieve their current
cycle Housing Element goals.
•F2. The ability of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns to comply with the current
cycle California Regional Housing Needs Allocation housing goals is significantly impacted by the
lack of economic returns associated with that development and, therefore, inhibits the
construction of new housing in Marin County.
•F3. Under current state law, the failure of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns
to make adequate progress in achieving their California Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals
could expose these jurisdictions to the potential of litigation, loss of permitting authority, financial
penalties, court receivership, and streamlined ministerial approval processes which could
substantially impact the ability of local housing jurisdictions to control the development of housing.
•F4. The cost of housing in Marin County is unaffordable for most current and potential Marin
County public-sector workers, which reduces the ability of the public-sector employers to attract
and retain employees.
•F5. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns do not consistently inform the public
on how applicable state law is limiting or eliminating the discretion of the local decision makers to
modify or decline housing projects, and therefore, the public often does not understand the range
of options available to local housing decision makers.
•F6. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently providing
developers and the public with detailed reconciliation of project level public accounting of the
planning fees, expenses, and time expectations, and therefore, housing developers are not clear
if their housing applications are billed on a cost-neutral basis as required by state law.
•F7. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently and proactively
engaging the housing development community on the opportunities available in their communities
to build new housing, and, therefore, housing developers may not be aware of the opportunities
available to contribute to local housing development.
•F8. Accessory Dwelling Units are an element to the success of each jurisdiction's Housing
Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some jurisdictions fail to
provide a ministerial path to Accessory Dwelling Unit construction.
•F9. Multifamily housing is the most important element to fulfilling each jurisdiction’s Housing
Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some jurisdictions fail to
provide a ministerial path to multifamily construction.
The Grand Jury Report also presents the following list of recommendations:
•R1. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to provide detailed
quarterly updates to the community on the progress in executing their own specific Housing
Element.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
•R2. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to engage with the
public on a quarterly basis on how State housing laws constrain the jurisdiction's ability to approve
or modify a housing project.
•R3. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to proactively
engage with potential developers to inform them of opportunities in their housing elements to
support addressing the housing needs within Marin County.
•R4. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to publish and
regularly update a public accounting of the fees charged and expenses associated with each
development project submitted to the jurisdiction’s planning and building activities.
•R5. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure their
housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of Accessory Dwelling Units.
•R6. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure that local
housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of multifamily housing in compliance with
State housing law.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the Grand Jury’s report and drafted the following responses to the report’s findings
and recommendations.
Responses to Findings:
The Marin Civil Grand Jury has asked the City to respond to findings F1 through F9.
F1. Because the California Department of Housing and Community Development provided the
County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns with unrealistic housing goals for the 2023 -
2030 cycle, the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns will not achieve their current
cycle Housing Element goals.
Response: Disagree
The City disagrees with this finding. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65580, the purpose
of a Housing Element is for local governments to plan for and facilitate the development of housing
through appropriate land use policies and zoning. The Housing Element is a planning document, not a
mandate to build housing.
Furthermore, the City of San Rafael does not opine on whether the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) provided unrealistic housing goals in the last Housing Element
cycle. Rather, the City is focused on implementing its 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element and
streamlining the processing of housing permit applications.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
F2. The ability of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns to comply with the current
cycle California Regional Housing Needs Allocation housing goals is significantly impacted by
the lack of economic returns associated with that development and, therefore, inhibits the
construction of new housing in Marin County.
Response: Disagree
The City disagrees with this finding. As noted in response to Finding One, the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) is a planning requirement, not a production mandate. The state determines
compliance not by the number of housing units built, but whether a local jurisdiction identifies housing
needs, provides adequate zoning capacity, and implements policies and programs that facilitate housing
development in alignment with California Government Code Sections 65580–65589.11. The Housing
Element is intended to remove barriers and create opportunities for development through land use policy,
not to guarantee economic returns or control market dynamics.
What’s more, whether developers are “significantly impacted by the lack of economic returns” is a
question best answered directly by developers. That said, City staff keep an open line of communication
with developers to understand any barriers they face. For example, in addition to regular interactions with
developers, the Community and Economic Development Department staff participated in the Infill
Builders Association forum with Marin County in the spring of 2025.
F3. Under current state law, the failure of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns
to make adequate progress in achieving their California Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals
could expose these jurisdictions to the potential of litigation, l oss of permitting authority,
financial penalties, court receivership, and streamlined ministerial approval processes which
could substantially impact the ability of local housing jurisdictions to control the development of
housing.
Response: Partially Disagree
The City partially disagrees with this finding. State law authorizes HCD to enforce various state housing
requirements. The City, however, cannot speak to whether the County of Marin and 11 Marin cities and
towns will fail to comply with state housing requirements. Furthermore, it is important to clarify that such
enforcement actions are primarily triggered by failure to adopt and implement a compliant Housing
Element, not by the pace of actual housing production, which is largely driven by private market forces
beyond local government control.
F4. The cost of housing in Marin County is unaffordable for most current and potential Marin
County public-sector workers, which reduces the ability of the public-sector employers to attract
and retain employees.
Response: Agree
The City agrees with this finding. The recent Rooted in Marin report includes a variety of data around the
high cost of housing in Marin County, which has resulted in 64 percent of Marin County workers living
outside of the county. Similarly, 67 percent of San Rafael’s regular full-time employees live outside of
Marin County. The City of San Rafael notes that housing affordability challenges are not limited to public
sector employees and employers, as housing affordability impacts the private sector as well.
F5. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns do not consistently inform the public
on how applicable state law is limiting or eliminating the discretion of the local decision makers
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
to modify or decline housing projects, and therefore, the public often does not understand the
range of options available to local housing decision makers.
Response: Partially Disagree
The City partially disagrees with this finding, as the City cannot speak to whether the County of Marin
and the 11 Marin cities and towns consistently inform the public on how applicable state law is limiting or
eliminating the discretion of the local decision makers to modify or decline housing projects.
With respect to San Rafael, on March 17, 2025, the City Council held a Special Meeting on Recent
Housing Legislation, and the City regularly updates its Major Planning Projects website with information
on housing projects under review. Additionally, when development applications are presented at public
meetings, City staff explain to the public how state laws apply to the project.
F6. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently providing
developers and the public with detailed reconciliation of project level public accounting of the
planning fees, expenses, and time expectations, and therefore, housing developers are not clear
if their housing applications are billed on a cost-neutral basis as required by state law.
Response: Disagree
The City disagrees with this finding because it cannot speak for developers as to whether they are clear
on whether they are billed as required by state law. Likewise, the City is unable to verify whether the
County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are consistently providing developers and the public
with a detailed reconciliation of project-level public accounting of the planning fees, expenses, and time
expectations. That said, San Rafael supports government transparency with the public and ensuring City
fees comply with state and federal law. At its June 2, 2025, meeting, the San Rafael City Council
approved the most recent update to the citywide Master Fee Schedule.
F7. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently and proactively
engaging the housing development community on the opportunities available in their
communities to build new housing, and, therefore, housing developers may not be awa re of the
opportunities available to contribute to local housing development.
Response: Partially Disagree
The City partially disagrees with this finding, as the City cannot verify whether the County of Marin and
the 11 Marin cities and towns are consistently and proactively engaging the housing development
community on the opportunities available in their communities to build new housing.
In terms of San Rafael, the City identified specific sites for housing development in its 6th Cycle 2023-
2031 Housing Element. In accordance with the State’s Surplus Land Act, in 2023, the City released a
Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop affordable housing on a City-owned property at 519 4th Street,
and the City provides site selection assistance on an ongoing basis to developers via the San Rafael GO
program.
F8. Accessory Dwelling Units are an element to the success of each jurisdiction's Housing
Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some jurisdictions fail to
provide a ministerial path to Accessory Dwelling Unit construction.
Response: Partially Disagree
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
The City partially disagrees with this finding. The City agrees that ADUs are an element of the success
of San Rafael’s 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element, which recognized ADUs as an essential part of
the City’s housing stock and a sustainable housing option for older adults, students, multi-generational
families, caregivers, and small households (Policy H-4.13: Efficiently Using the City’s Housing Stock). In
2024, in partnership with other Marin County jurisdictions, San Rafael supported expansion of the ADU
Center to provide services to owners in Marin: https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/the-adu-center-expands-
to-marin-county/ Moreover, San Rafael approves ADUs ministerially and provides the public with
extensive information on its ADU website.
However, San Rafael cannot speak to whether ADUs are an element of the success for all 11 Marin cities
and towns’ Housing Elements, and whether some jurisdictions fail to provide a ministerial path to
Accessory Dwelling Unit construction.
F9. Multifamily housing is the most important element to fulfilling each jurisdiction’s Housing
Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some jurisdictions fail to
provide a ministerial path to multifamily construction.
Response: Partially Disagree
The City partially disagrees with this finding. Multifamily housing is one of many elements needed to fulfill
San Rafael’s Housing Element. San Rafael supports a range of housing product types, including
multifamily housing, to reflect San Rafael’s diverse community needs. San Rafael provides a ministerial
permitting process for multifamily projects in alignment with state laws. Whether a project is approved
ministerially depends upon the type of application that is submitted.
Finally, San Rafael cannot speak to whether multifamily housing is the most important element to fulfill
all 11 Marin cities and towns’ Housing Elements.
Responses to Recommendations:
The Marin Civil Grand Jury has asked the City to respond to recommendations R1 through R6.
R1. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to provide detailed
quarterly updates to the community on the progress in executing their own specific Housing
Element.
This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The City already
provides the public with annual Housing Element progress reports, and requiring City staff to provide the
same information quarterly will not further the City’s housing goals. Rather, adding additional reporting
requirements will divert the City’s limited staff resources away from implementing Housing programs that
increase housing options for San Rafael residents. Furthermore, the City provides the public with
information on housing projects on an ongoing basis via the City’s Major Planning Projects website.
R2. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to engage with the
public on a quarterly basis on how State housing laws constrain the jurisdiction's ability to
approve or modify a housing project.
This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The City already
provides the public with annual Housing Element progress reports, and requiring City staff to provide the
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
same information on a quarterly basis will not further the City’s housing goals. Additionally, when housing
projects are presented at public meetings, staff describe how state laws apply to the projects.
Finally, the State Housing and Community Development Department is in the best position to update the
public on state housing laws.
R3. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to proactively
engage with potential developers to inform them of opportunities in their housing elements to
support addressing the housing needs within Marin County.
This recommendation has been implemented. San Rafael is already implementing this recommendation.
As noted earlier, the City publicly identified specific sites for housing development in its 6th Cycle 2023-
2031 Housing Element, and the City provides site selection assistance on an ongoing basis to developers
via the San Rafael GO program. Additionally, Community and Economic Development Department staff
participated in the Infill Builders Association forum with Marin County in the spring of 2025.
R4. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to publish and
regularly update a public accounting of the fees charged and expenses associated with each
development project submitted to the jurisdiction’s planning and building activities.
This recommendation has been implemented. San Rafael is already implementing this recommendation.
Project accounting is publicly available in San Rafael’s online permitting platform, eTRAKIT.
R5. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure their
housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of Accessory Dwelling Units.
This recommendation has been implemented. San Rafael is already implementing this recommendation.
More information regarding ADUs in San Rafael is available on its ADU website.
R6. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure that local
housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of multifamily housing in compliance
with State housing law.
This recommendation has been implemented. San Rafael provides an option for ministerial approval for
all Housing Element sites in compliance with state housing law.
CONCLUSIONS
The City is committed to providing more housing options at all income levels, as demonstrated in the
City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element. While the City disagrees with many of the findings and
recommendations of the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report titled “The Worrisome Future of Marin
Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic Reality,” the City appreciates that the Grand
Jury took time to examine the critical issue of increasing the supply of housing in Marin County.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element was the product of an intensive public outreach program. The
public outreach included three community workshops, eight Working Group meetings, eight briefings to
the Planning Commission and City Council, a resident survey, a developer forum, focus groups,
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
interviews, a youth/school program, and presentations to multiple neighborhood groups and community-
based organizations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:
1.Adopt the resolution.
2.Adopt resolution with modifications.
3.Direct staff to return with more information.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the Mayor to
execute the City of San Rafael’s response to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report titled, “The
Worrisome Future of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic Reality.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Resolution, with attached City Response to the Grand Jury Report
2.Grand Jury Report dated June 24, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. 15454
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE
RESPONSE TO THE MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT
ENTITLED “THE WORRISOME FUTURE OF MARIN HOUSING: NIMBY
RESISTANCE TAKES A BACKSEAT TO ECONOMIC REALITY”
WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933(c), a public agency which receives a
final grand jury report addressing aspects of the public agency’s operations must, within ninety
(90) days, provide a written response to the presiding judge of the Superior Court, with a copy
to the foreperson of the grand jury, responding to the report’s findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code section 933(c) requires that the “governing body” of the public
agency provide said response and, in order to lawfully comply, the governing body must
consider and adopt the response at a noticed public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act; and
WHEREAS, Penal Code section 933.05 specifies the required contents of a city’s
response to findings and recommendations of a civil grand jury; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael has received and reviewed the
Marin County Grand Jury Report, dated June 24, 2025, entitled “The Worrisome Future of Marin
Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic Reality;” and
WHEREAS, at a regular City Council meeting held on September 2, 2025, the City
Council discussed the report’s findings and recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael
hereby:
1.Approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the City’s response to the Marin County
Grand Jury’s June 24, 2025 report entitled “The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing:
NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic Reality,” a copy of which response
is attached hereto as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by reference.
2.Directs the City Clerk to forward the City’s response forthwith to the presiding judge of
the Marin County Superior Court, with a copy to the foreperson of the Marin County
Grand Jury.
I, Lindsay Lara, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San
Rafael City Council held on the 2nd day of September 2025 by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers: Bushey, Hill, Kertz, Llorens Gulati & Mayor Kate
Councilmembers: None
Councilmembers: None ______________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
REPORT TITLE: The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a
Backseat to Economic Reality
REPORT DATE: June 24, 2025
RESPONSE BY: San Rafael City Council
GRAND JURY FINDINGS
▪ We agree with the finding(s) numbered: F4
▪ We disagree wholly or partially with the finding(s) numbered: F1, F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9
GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS
▪ Recommendations numbered R1, R2 will not be implemented because they are not
warranted or reasonable.
▪ Recommendations numbered R3, R4, R5, and R6 have been implemented.
Date: _____________________ Signed: __________________________
Mayor Kate Colin
ATTACHMENT 1
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations
“The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic
Reality”
September 2, 2025
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Page 2 of 7
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDINGS
F1. Because the California Department of Housing and Community Development provided
the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns with unrealistic housing goals for
the 2023-2030 cycle, the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns will not achieve
their current cycle Housing Element goals.
Response: Disagree
The City disagrees with this finding. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65580, the
purpose of a Housing Element is for local governments to plan for and facilitate the development
of housing through appropriate land use policies and zoning. The Housing Element is a planning
document, not a mandate to build housing.
Furthermore, the City of San Rafael does not opine on whether the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) provided unrealistic housing goals in the last
Housing Element cycle. Rather, the City is focused on implementing its 6th Cycle 2023-2031
Housing Element and streamlining the processing of housing permit applications.
F2. The ability of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns to comply with the
current cycle California Regional Housing Needs Allocation housing goals is significantly
impacted by the lack of economic returns associated with that development and, therefore,
inhibits the construction of new housing in Marin County.
Response: Disagree
The City disagrees with this finding. As noted in response to Finding One, the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a planning requirement, not a production mandate. The state
determines compliance not by the number of housing units built, but whether a local jurisdiction
identifies housing needs, provides adequate zoning capacity, and implements policies and
programs that facilitate housing development in alignment with California Government Code
Sections 65580–65589.11. The Housing Element is intended to remove barriers and create
opportunities for development through land use policy, not to guarantee economic returns or
control market dynamics.
What’s more, whether developers are “significantly impacted by the lack of economic returns” is
a question best answered directly by developers. That said, City staff keep an open line of
communication with developers to understand any barriers they face. For example, in addition to
regular interactions with developers, the Community and Economic Development Department
staff participated in the Infill Builders Association forum with Marin County in the spring of 2025.
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations
“The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic
Reality”
September 2, 2025
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Page 3 of 7
F3. Under current state law, the failure of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and
towns to make adequate progress in achieving their California Regional Housing Needs
Allocation goals could expose these jurisdictions to the potential of litigation, loss of
permitting authority, financial penalties, court receivership, and streamlined ministerial
approval processes which could substantially impact the ability of local housing
jurisdictions to control the development of housing.
Response: Partially Disagree
The City partially disagrees with this finding. State law authorizes HCD to enforce various state
housing requirements. The City, however, cannot speak to whether the County of Marin and 11
Marin cities and towns will fail to comply with state housing requirements. Furthermore, it is
important to clarify that such enforcement actions are primarily triggered by failure to adopt and
implement a compliant Housing Element, not by the pace of actual housing production, which is
largely driven by private market forces beyond local government control.
F4. The cost of housing in Marin County is unaffordable for most current and potential
Marin County public-sector workers, which reduces the ability of the public-sector
employers to attract and retain employees.
Response: Agree
The City agrees with this finding. The recent Rooted in Marin report includes a variety of data
around the high cost of housing in Marin County, which has resulted in 64 percent of Marin County
workers living outside of the county. Similarly, 67 percent of San Rafael’s regular full-time
employees live outside of Marin County. The City of San Rafael notes that housing affordability
challenges are not limited to public sector employees and employers, as housing affordability
impacts the private sector as well.
F5. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns do not consistently inform the
public on how applicable state law is limiting or eliminating the discretion of the local
decision makers to modify or decline housing projects, and therefore, the public often
does not understand the range of options available to local housing decision makers.
Response: Partially Disagree
The City partially disagrees with this finding, as the City cannot speak to whether the County of
Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns consistently inform the public on how applicable state
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations
“The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic
Reality”
September 2, 2025
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Page 4 of 7
law is limiting or eliminating the discretion of the local decision makers to modify or decline
housing projects.
With respect to San Rafael, on March 17, 2025, the City Council held a Special Meeting on Recent
Housing Legislation, and the City regularly updates its Major Planning Projects website with
information on housing projects under review. Additionally, when development applications are
presented at public meetings, City staff explain to the public how state laws apply to the project.
F6. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently providing
developers and the public with detailed reconciliation of project level public accounting of
the planning fees, expenses, and time expectations, and therefore, housing developers are
not clear if their housing applications are billed on a cost-neutral basis as required by state
law.
Response: Disagree
The City disagrees with this finding because it cannot speak for developers as to whether they
are clear on whether they are billed as required by state law. Likewise, the City is unable to verify
whether the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are consistently providing
developers and the public with a detailed reconciliation of project-level public accounting of the
planning fees, expenses, and time expectations. That said, San Rafael supports government
transparency with the public and ensuring City fees comply with state and federal law. At its June
2, 2025, meeting, the San Rafael City Council approved the most recent update to the citywide
Master Fee Schedule.
F7. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently and
proactively engaging the housing development community on the opportunities available
in their communities to build new housing, and, therefore, housing developers may not be
aware of the opportunities available to contribute to local housing development.
Response: Partially Disagree
The City partially disagrees with this finding, as the City cannot verify whether the County of Marin
and the 11 Marin cities and towns are consistently and proactively engaging the housing
development community on the opportunities available in their communities to build new housing.
In terms of San Rafael, the City identified specific sites for housing development in its 6th Cycle
2023-2031 Housing Element. In accordance with the State’s Surplus Land Act, in 2023, the City
released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop affordable housing on a City-owned property
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations
“The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic
Reality”
September 2, 2025
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Page 5 of 7
at 519 4th Street, and the City provides site selection assistance on an ongoing basis to developers
via the San Rafael GO program.
F8. Accessory Dwelling Units are an element to the success of each jurisdiction's Housing
Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some jurisdictions
fail to provide a ministerial path to Accessory Dwelling Unit construction.
Response: Partially Disagree
The City partially disagrees with this finding. The City agrees that ADUs are an element of the
success of San Rafael’s 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element, which recognized ADUs as an
essential part of the City’s housing stock and a sustainable housing option for older adults,
students, multi-generational families, caregivers, and small households (Policy H-4.13: Efficiently
Using the City’s Housing Stock). In 2024, in partnership with other Marin County jurisdictions,
San Rafael supported expansion of the ADU Center to provide services to owners in Marin:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/the-adu-center-expands-to-marin-county/ Moreover, San Rafael
approves ADUs ministerially and provides the public with extensive information on its ADU
website.
However, San Rafael cannot speak to whether ADUs are an element of the success for all 11
Marin cities and towns’ Housing Elements, and whether some jurisdictions fail to provide a
ministerial path to Accessory Dwelling Unit construction.
F9. Multifamily housing is the most important element to fulfilling each jurisdiction’s
Housing Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some
jurisdictions fail to provide a ministerial path to multifamily construction.
Response: Partially Disagree
The City partially disagrees with this finding. Multifamily housing is one of many elements needed
to fulfill San Rafael’s Housing Element. San Rafael supports a range of housing product types,
including multifamily housing, to reflect San Rafael’s diverse community needs. San Rafael
provides a ministerial permitting process for multifamily projects in alignment with state laws.
Whether a project is approved ministerially depends upon the type of application that is submitted.
Finally, San Rafael cannot speak to whether multifamily housing is the most important element to
fulfill all 11 Marin cities and towns’ Housing Elements.
RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations
“The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic
Reality”
September 2, 2025
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Page 6 of 7
R1. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to provide detailed
quarterly updates to the community on the progress in executing their own specific Housing
Element.
Narrative: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or
reasonable. The City already provides the public with annual Housing Element progress reports
and requiring City staff to provide the same information on a quarterly basis will not further the
City’s housing goals. Rather, adding additional reporting requirements will divert the City’s limited
staff resources away from implementing Housing programs that increase housing options for San
Rafael residents. Furthermore, the City provides the public with information on housing projects
on an ongoing basis via the City’s Major Planning Projects website.
R2. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to engage with the
public on a quarterly basis on how State housing laws constrain the jurisdiction's ability to approve
or modify a housing project.
Narrative: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or
reasonable. The City already provides the public with annual Housing Element progress reports
and requiring City staff to provide the same information on a quarterly basis will not further the
City’s housing goals. Additionally, when housing projects are presented at public meetings, staff
describe how state laws apply to the projects.
Finally, the State Housing and Community Development Department is in the best position to
update the public on state housing laws.
R3. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to proactively
engage with potential developers to inform them of opportunities in their housing elements to
support addressing the housing needs within Marin County.
Narrative: This recommendation has been implemented. San Rafael is already implementing this
recommendation. As noted earlier, the City publicly identified specific sites for housing
development in its 6th Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element and the City provides site selection
assistance on an ongoing basis to developers via the San Rafael GO program. Additionally,
Community and Economic Development Department staff participated in the Infill Builders
Association forum with Marin County in the spring of 2025.
R4. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to publish and
regularly update a public accounting of the fees charged and expenses associated with each
development project submitted to the jurisdiction’s planning and building activities.
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Report Findings and Recommendations
“The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing: NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic
Reality”
September 2, 2025
City of San Rafael Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations Page 7 of 7
Narrative: This recommendation has been implemented. San Rafael is already implementing this
recommendation. Project accounting is publicly available in San Rafael’s online permitting
platform, eTRAKIT.
R5. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure their
housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of Accessory Dwelling Units.
Narrative: This recommendation has been implemented. San Rafael is already implementing this
recommendation. More information regarding ADUs in San Rafael is available on its ADU
website.
R6. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town Councils
for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials to ensure that local
housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of multifamily housing in compliance with
State housing law
Narrative: This recommendation has been implemented. San Rafael provides an option for
ministerial approval for all Housing Element sites in compliance with state housing law .
2024-2025 Marin County Civil Grand Jury
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
NIMBY Resistance Takes a Backseat to Economic Reality
June 24, 2025
SUMMARY
California is an expensive place to live, and Marin County (Marin) has the third-highest median
home price among all California counties.1 In 2023, four in ten Californians considered moving
out of California due to the high cost of living.2 Housing is by far the largest expense for most
families.3 The 2024-25 Marin County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) investigated the progress
Marin’s housing jurisdictions (Marin’s cities, towns, and the County of Marin (County)) are
making to ease the housing crunch by supporting the development of new housing as required by
the California Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) program.4 Building more housing
(even market-rate housing) has been shown to ease housing costs at all income levels.5 The
Grand Jury found that while most Marin jurisdictions are making good faith efforts to execute
their housing plans, most, if not all, Marin housing jurisdictions will fail to achieve the state-
mandated new housing goals for the current planning cycle.
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that despite the changes in state law since 2017,
designed to encourage more housing, the current housing cycle goal requiring the issuance of
14,405 building permits across the 12 Marin housing jurisdictions is unrealistic and is unlikely to
be achieved. In the current environment, the availability of housing expertise, building sites, and
the cost of financing, building materials, and construction labor do not provide developers a
reasonable economic return to build housing. The lack of a financial incentive to build more
housing significantly impacts new housing production.
The Grand Jury discussion and recommendations that follow to support new housing production
are organized under the following topics:
● Housing affordability impact on Marin’s workforce
● The community’s role in housing development
● Streamlined planning and permitting for multifamily and ADU housing
● Increased investment in multifamily affordable housing
● Improved site availability to support new housing
1 Current Sales & Price Statistics, Median Sold Price of Existing Single-Family Homes, April 2025
https://www.car.org/marketdata/data/countysalesactivity (accessed 5/14/25).
2 Sara Chernikoff, “California is Home to the Most Expensive Housing Markets in the US: See a Nationwide
Breakdown,” USA Today, March 12, 2024, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/12/most-expensive-
housing-markets-in-america/72930811007/, (accessed 5/14/25).
3 “Consumer Expenditures,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 25, 2024,
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cesan.nr0.htm, (accessed 5/14/25).
4 The term “Marin” means the entire county, including all cities, towns, and the unincorporated area governed by the
County of Marin. The term “County” means the county governmental agencies within Marin. The term “housing
jurisdiction” refers to a region (county, town or city) that is required to file and execute a housing element.
5 W. E. Upjohn Institute, “How Even Luxury Housing Can Help Solve the Housing Shortage,” page 7,
https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314&context=reports, (accessed 5/19/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 21
There are significant consequences if Marin’s housing jurisdictions fail to meet the current cycle
goal. Under State law, failure to make adequate progress in achieving their mandated housing
goals exposes jurisdictions to lawsuits, penalties, loss of permitting authority, and approval
processes, all of which could substantially impact future housing.6 The Grand Jury
recommendations focus on improving citizen engagement and maximizing multifamily and
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) development to increase the odds of achieving Marin's housing
goals.
BACKGROUND
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that Marin has a housing challenge. Marin
residents believe that housing and homelessness are the two biggest priorities in the County.7
The Marin County Board of Supervisors (BOS) deems improving the supply of affordable
housing and permanent supportive housing as the most important priority for the County.8
Interviews with numerous local leaders indicate that housing substantially impacts Marin’s
ability to attract and retain private and public-sector employers and their workforce.
The Housing Cycles and the General Plan
Since 1969, California has required every local municipality (towns, cities, and counties) to
create a housing plan (called a “Housing Element”) that describes how the municipality or
housing jurisdiction plans to address its existing and future housing needs and support a variety
of housing types for different income levels. Each eight-year period is referred to as a “cycle.”
The 5th cycle for Northern California counties began on January 31, 2015, and ended on January
31, 2023. The 6th cycle began on February 1, 2023, and ends on January 31, 2031.9
The Housing Element process requires housing jurisdictions to assess available land for
residential development, considering factors that might constrain housing production, such as
zoning laws, environmental regulations, and market conditions. The Housing Element process
also requires housing jurisdictions to enact policies and programs that prevent discrimination and
foster inclusive communities, including those that ensure housing is accessible to all, regardless
of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or economic status. Public participation is an important
component of the development of the Housing Element process because it allows community
members to contribute input and feedback, which helps to shape policies that reflect local needs
and priorities. As each cycle progresses, jurisdictions are required to demonstrate progress
6 Association of Bay Area Governments, “Consequences of Non -Compliance with Housing Laws,” June 2021,
https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-06/Consequences%20of%20Non-
Compliance%20with%20Housing%20Laws.pdf, (accessed 5/14/25).
7 Richard Halstead, “Marin Survey Outlines Residents’ Top Priorities, with Housing in Lead,” Marin Independent
Journal, November 12, 2023, https://www.marinij.com/2023/11/12/marin-survey-outlines-residents-top-priorities-
with-housing-in-lead, /. (accessed 5/14/25).
8 County of Marin Office of the County Executive, “How the County Budget is Created: County Service Funding
Levels,” January 19, 2024 update, https://www.marincounty.gov/departments/executive/budget-and-priority-
setting/how-county-budget-created, (accessed 5/14/25).
9 California Department of Housing and Community Development, “Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs
Determination Schedule”, ABAG Planning Period, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-
development/housing-element-and-regional-housing-needs-determination-schedule, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 21
toward achieving these goals. Lack of progress creates the potential for legal actions by the state
to increase accountability.10
The 5th Housing Cycle Goals and Results
During the 5th housing cycle, the California legislature recognized that the pace of housing
construction was not rebounding from the 2008-2010 financial crisis, which devastated the
development of new housing in California.11 The lawmakers also recognized housing
development was not keeping pace with new household formation driven by growth in health
care, information technology, and other areas of the California economy.12 The deficit between
the housing required and the housing available increased housing prices, making California the
second most expensive housing market.13
During the 5th cycle, nine of 12 Marin housing jurisdictions met their jurisdiction-level housing
goals. The three municipalities that failed to achieve their jurisdiction-level goal were: Tiburon
(36 percent of the goal), Belvedere (63 percent of the goal), and San Rafael (55 percent of the
goal). In addition, San Anselmo (88 percent of goal), Sausalito (88 percent of goal) met their
overall jurisdiction 5th cycle goals, but failed to achieve their very low-income housing goals.14
Figure 1 shows how all Marin housing jurisdictions performed compared to the original 5th cycle
goal.15 In total, Marin’s 12 housing jurisdictions achieved their overall 5th cycle goal of 2,298 by
permitting 2,605 housing units.
The 6th Housing Cycle Goals and Results to Date
In response to the continued housing deficit, in the 6th cycle, the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) significantly increased the RHNA (California
Government Code section 65580, et seq.) housing goals for the 539 housing jurisdictions in
California.16 Figure 1 shows how, in the 6th cycle, Marin jurisdictions are required to permit
14,405 units for an increase of 627 percent compared to the 5th cycle. The substantial increase in
the housing goal for Marin jurisdictions was based on an evaluation of 5th cycle results,
population and household growth, employment growth, and other factors, and was supported by
10 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Advancing Fair Housing at the State Level, page 4,
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/hud-exchange-advancing-fairhousing-2024.pdf, (accessed 5/14/25).
11 ft Editorial Staff, “California Residential Construction Starts”, firsttuesday Journal, April 14, 2025,
https://journal.firsttuesday.us/the-rising-trend-in-california-construction-
starts/17939/#:~:text=56%2C700%20SFR%20starts%20took%20place,was%202011%20with%2022%2C000%20st
arts, (accessed 5/14/25).
12 California Center Jobs & The Economy, “California Employment Report for May 2019,” page 4,
https://centerforjobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-May-job-facts-1.pdf, (accessed May 14, 2025).
13 David McMillin, “Median Home Prices in Every State,” BankRate, April 8, 2025, https://www.bankrate.com/real-
estate/median-home-price/, (accessed 5/2/25).
14 HCD, “Table of Regional Housing Needs Allocations RHNA Cycle 5 (2015 -2023): Building Permit Activity by
Jusrisdiction,” https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-02/2015-
2023_Bay_Area_RHNA_Progress_Report-.pdf,
(accessed 5/14/25).
15 HCD, “Table of Regional Housing Needs Allocations RHNA Cycle 5 (2015 -2023): Building Permit Activity by
Jurisdiction."
16 HCD, “Annual Progress Reports - Data Dashboard and Downloads,” slide 9, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-
and-community-development/housing-element-implementation-and-apr-dashboard (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 21
new laws that attempted to reduce the barriers that affordable and market-rate housing
developers faced in building new housing.17
Figure 1: Housing Permits Issued
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development
During 2023-2024, each Marin housing jurisdiction developed its plan and gained approval of
those plans from the HCD. The jurisdictions then rezoned land parcels to conform to their
approved RHNA plans. Figure 2 shows the housing permit requirements for the 12 Marin
jurisdictions for the 6th cycle:
17 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/regional-housing-needs-allocation, (accessed
5/25/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 21
Figure 2: Housing Units Required Under the 6th Cycle
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development
Key Housing Elements Definitions
To help housing jurisdictions achieve the aggressive 6th cycle goals, HCD created an online
portal to track the compliance of all jurisdictions with RHNA goals.18 The portal organizes
housing development into four processes:
1. Submitted — Housing application submitted
2. Entitled — All application documents are complete and approved
3. Permitted — All construction permits are approved
4. Completed — Property is ready for occupancy
A housing development is deemed entitled (Step 2) once the planning process is completed.
Housing jurisdictions gain an RHNA credit once a housing development is permitted (Step 3).
HCD also categorizes housing based on the median income of households in the housing
jurisdiction.19 The RHNA goals are evenly split between lower income (0-80 percent of the
18 “Annual Progress Reports - Data Dashboard and Downloads,” slide 2, California Department of Housing and
Community Development, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-element-
implementation-and-apr-dashboard (accessed 5/14/25).
19 “Income Limits,” California Department of Housing and Community Development,
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and-funding/income-
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 21
jurisdiction’s median income) and moderate and above-moderate income (over 80 percent of the
jurisdiction’s median income).20
The information published by HCD shows that as of January 31, 2024 (the date of the latest
available information), Marin lags far behind its 6th cycle goals (see Figure 3). Marin housing
jurisdictions need to permit an average of 1,800 housing units per year to achieve the 14,400 unit
goal over the entire 6th cycle. However, in the first year of the 6th cycle (2023), all Marin
housing jurisdictions combined permitted only 462 units (see column labeled “Permitted”) or
only 25 percent of the annual 1,800 unit requirement. Anecdotal information for 2024 indicates
permit activity consistent with 2023.21
Figure 3: 6th Cycle Housing Pipeline Progress as of 1/31/24
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development
Reasons for the Poor 6th Cycle Results
Despite the general population's agreement that California has a housing crisis,22 a major
impediment to new housing has historically been community resistance.23 The Grand Jury
determined through interviews that in the past, the “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) resistance
from members of the Marin community has been formidable. Among other tactics, community
members may oppose new housing development in Marin by citing the California Environmental
limits#:~:text=Extremely%20low%20income%3A%2015%2D30,80%25%20to%20120%25%20of%20AMI ,
(accessed 5/14/25).
20 Citizen Marin “California Housing Mandates and RHNA,” Table H-4.1, https://citizenmarin.org/rhna%3F,
(accessed 5/14/25).
21 “Creation of New Housing,” County of Marin, https://data.marincounty.org/stories/s/Creation-of-New-
Housing/k2pv-b86k, (accessed 5/14/25).
22 Californians and the Housing Crisis,” Public Policy Institute of California,
https://www.ppic.org/interactive/californians-and-the-housing-crisis/, (accessed 5/14/25).
23 Bruce Maiman, “NIMBYism is a California Thing, and it’s Wrecking Cities. Consider Loomis,” CAL Matters,
August 28, 2019, https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/08/nimbyism -in-suburban-sacramento/, (accessed
5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 21
Quality Act (CEQA).24 Although not all CEQA challenges are inappropriate, the ability of
community members to create obstacles has resulted in project delays, time-consuming
litigation, and often project cancellation. Litigation over planning decisions and project
approvals has both delayed the process and, importantly, raised the price of potential
development to the point where the development was no longer economically viable.25
Recognizing these impediments, the California Legislature passed over 100 laws26 from 2017 to
2024 designed to reduce the ability of community members to block new housing and increase
the ability of the communities to permit new housing construction. These new laws often provide
ministerial processes to encourage and streamline new housing development. These laws restrict
housing jurisdictions from delaying or denying projects based on subjective criteria such as
community character, color, and/or design style. The new laws allow developers to bypass such
legacy housing restrictions, and some laws encourage local jurisdictions to develop a set of
objective standards for developers to follow.
In interviews with local housing leaders, they praised some of these new laws and also
commented that they introduced more complexity into the development process. Through its
investigation, the Grand Jury learned that housing leaders struggle to understand the impact of
these new laws and new ministerial processes that support many different decision-making
protocols; and, every Marin jurisdiction has adopted its own ministerial processes, but has
struggled to align these local codes to the complex new state laws.
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that builders of new housing in Marin face
significant cost challenges that make building housing financially unattractive. High interest
rates, construction and labor costs, complex state and local building rules and codes, and a lack
of available land provide for-profit housing developers with inadequate incentive compared to
other investment opportunities. Affordable housing developers access different sources of
financing, but face the same cost pressures that impact market-rate housing developers, and they
also face restrictions on rental rates that further reduce the financial incentives for the
development.
24 Dan Walters, “How Environmental Law is Misused to Stop Housing,” Cal Matters,
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/01/how-environmental-law-is-misused-to-stop-housing/, (accessed
5/14/25).
25 Conor Dougherty, “Twilight of the NIMBY,” The New York Times,
https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/news/twilight-of-the-nimby-though-blamed-for-the-housing-crisis-
theyre-not-gi/, subscription required (accessed 5/14/25).
26 “California’s 2024 Housing Laws: What you Need to Know,” Section on Streamlining, Holland and Knight Law
Firm, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/10/californias-2024-housing-laws-what-you-need-to-
know, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 21
APPROACH
In order to prepare findings and recommendations to address the complex problem of housing in
Marin, the Grand Jury pursued the following:
● Conducted research into the physical and economic conditions and demographics of
Marin, including population, economic and financial data regarding land use
policies/constraints, and housing supply and demand
● Reviewed historical construction data of new housing in Marin
● Interviewed Marin town and city planning directors
● Interviewed Marin County Community Development Agency leadership
● Interviewed local housing developers and attorneys who support Marin housing
development
● Researched issues and interviewed leaders of housing advocacy organizations
● Researched recent state laws intended to increase the quantity of housing in California
● Conducted a detailed review of the current cycle of the Marin RHNA housing
requirements and evaluated each Marin jurisdiction’s progress toward reaching the goals
DISCUSSION
Housing Affordability Impact on Marin’s Workforce
Housing affordability is a key challenge for many current Marin households and people who
would like to live and work in Marin. Households are considered cost-burdened when they spend
more than 30 percent of their income on housing.27 A majority of Marin renters (58 percent) are
cost-burdened, and 38 percent of Marin homeowners spend more than 30 percent of their income
on housing.28
As Figure 4 illustrates, decreased new housing construction, which contributed to increased
housing prices, was decades in the making. The building of single-family residences in Marin
peaked in the early 1970s and bottomed out by 2010. (See the thin red line in Figure 4.) By the
end of the 1990s, easy-to-build-upon flat parcels of land were hard to find, and Marin’s housing
jurisdictions created local ordinances limiting hillside construction that supported housing during
earlier periods.29
Construction of multifamily housing units followed a similar trend (See the light blue line in
Figure 4). Construction peaked in the 1970s, but dropped precipitously starting in the 1980s and
has not recovered. The solid red line in Figure 4 represents the 6th cycle yearly goal, which
shows Marin would need a very large increase in housing construction to reach its RHNA goals.
27 Sara Kimberlin, “California’s Housing Affordability Crisis Hits Renters and Households With the Lowest
Incomes the Hardest, page 1, California Budget & Policy Center, April 2019,
https://calbudgetcenter.org/app/uploads/2019/04/Report_California -Housing-Affordability-Crisis-Hits-Renters-and-
Households-With-the-Lowest-Incomes-the-Hardest_04.2019.pdf, (accessed 5/14/25).
28 County of Marin, “Housing Affordability in Marin County,” https://data.marincounty.org/stories/s/Housing-
Affordability-in-Marin/eixh-kvn2/, (accessed 5/14/25).
29 City of San Rafael, “Hillside Guidelines Handout,” https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/11071-2/, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 21
Figure 4: Marin Housing Construction (Built units per year - 1965-2023)
Source: Marin County Community Development Agency
Each jurisdiction conducts a rigorous evaluation of its future housing needs and describes the
plan to fulfill those needs in its Housing Element. Marin housing jurisdictions face the challenge
that the current housing stock of family-oriented single-family housing built primarily in the
1970s and 1980s is often not well aligned with the current or future population, dominated by
older, often single, adults. About one-third of all current Marin households house only one
resident, yet over 70 percent of Marin's housing stock is single-family residences with multiple
bedrooms.30 The affordable housing type often best suited to serve the needs of Marin’s median-
income workforce is multifamily rental housing located close to transportation and services. In
identifying sites for their Housing Elements, many Marin jurisdictions have struggled to find
sites appropriate for this type of housing during the Housing Element development process.
The lack of new housing stock contributed significantly to rising Marin median housing prices,
which increased by over $1 million in the eight-year period between 2013 to 2021 (from
$966,000 to $1.91 million, a 98 percent increase).31 Over that same period, median household
income in Marin only increased by 45 percent. In addition, housing costs impact affordable
30 “2023-2031 Housing Element,” Marin Countywide Plan, Table H-2,15: Housing Units by Type, Countywide,
page 32, https://www.marincounty.gov/sites/g/files/fdkgoe241/files/2024-05/2023-
2031_marincountyhousingelement_chapter2.pdf, (accessed 5/14/25).
31 “2023-2031 Housing Element,” Marin Countywide Plan, Table H2.4, page 45.
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 21
housing residents more than market-rate housing residents, since housing consumes a much
higher percentage of the household budgets for the affordable group.32
The consequences of high housing costs are significant and impact Marin’s public-sector
workforce. According to Marin public-sector leaders interviewed by the Grand Jury, 60 percent
of public-sector workers (including teachers, police, and fire) do not live in Marin. These leaders
indicate that the lack of local affordable housing is the primary reason why these workers are
forced to live in other counties, which impacts employee job satisfaction and retention.33 More
broadly, housing costs are the number one reason why people are leaving California.34
The Community’s Role in Housing Development
Marin has had the reputation of being anti-growth for a long time. Dating back to the 1960s,
residents and local officials actively opposed large-scale housing projects to maintain local
control, preserve the county's scenic landscapes, and protect its unique character.35 At the time,
these pro-environmental values were widely celebrated in popular culture.36 Historically, the
public hearing process has been a deterrent to building housing because the process discounts the
value of objective information and technical expertise in favor of subjective opinions that
prioritize speakers who are unrepresentative of the whole community and provide few
mechanisms for addressing misinformation.37 Against this backdrop, the Grand Jury was
surprised to repeatedly and consistently hear from local planning directors, developers, and other
housing experts that community opposition is not currently the most significant impediment to
the development or construction of housing.
In recent years, there has been a growing recognition across the country of the severe housing
crisis.38 Much has been written about how the NIMBY tide is receding in California.39 This is
32 Examiner Staff, Low-wage Workers Might Make More in SF, but Housing Costs are Still out of Reach, San
Francisco Examiner, February 10, 2015, https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/low-wage-workers-might-make-more-
in-sf-but-housing-costs-are-still-out-of/article_7415c2ac-3dc9-55dc-97d3-c48b52708f12.html, (accessed 5/14/25).
33 Confidential Interviews
34 Hans Johnson and Eric McGhee, “Who’s Leaving California and Who’s Moving In,” Public Policy Institute of
California, https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/, (accessed 5/14/25).
35 Among the most significant housing proposals blocked by local activists was the massive Marincello planned
community in the Marin Headlands and expansions of 101 and Sir Francis Drake Blvd to prevent improved access
to Western Marin, thwarting the development of significant housing there. This Small is Beautiful movement
generally advocated for small, local control of decision making. See Mary Perot Nicols, “Buildings Are Judgement -
II,” Ramparts, May 1975, p. 50.
36 See popular songs such as Joni Mitchell’s 1970 song “Big Yellow Taxi.”
37 Anika Singh Lemar, “The Public Hearing Process For New Housing is Broken. Here’s How to Fix it,” The
Brookings Institute, May 4, 2022. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-public-hearing-process-for-new-housing-
is-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it/, (accessed 5/14/25).
38 Conor Dougherty, “Why Too Few Homes Get Built in the US,” The New York Times, Aug 22, 2024.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/22/briefing/us-housing-crisis.html, (accessed 5/14/25); Also, see Conor
Dougherty, “America’s Affordable Housing Crisis,” The New York Times, March 27, 2024,
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/27/briefing/affordable-housing-crisis.html, (accessed 5/14/25); And also, Lily
Geismer, “America Needs a New Approach on Affordable Housing: History Offers a Guide,” AOL, March 25, 2024,
https://www.aol.com/america-needs-approach-affordable-housing-150752019.html, (accessed 5/14/25).
39See, for example, Annie Lowrey “Four Years Among the NIMBYs,” The Atlantic, May 12, 2022,
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/san-francisco-bureaucracy-housing-crisis/629719/, subscription
required, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 21
especially true in the Bay Area.40 While some Marin residents still express concerns about
potential impacts on neighborhood character, infrastructure strain, and environmental
considerations, this is somewhat balanced by YIMBYs (Yes in My Backyard) advocating for
increased housing production to address affordability and availability issues. At some point,
California residents who were concerned about growth went from being viewed as noble
protectors of the environment to being criticized for perpetuating inequality.41
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that recent California legislation has reduced the
ability of residents to significantly disrupt or influence most housing development projects. Since
2017, California lawmakers have passed over 100 pieces of legislation intended to combat the
growing housing affordability and availability crises by shifting housing policy from the local
level to the state. In confidential interviews, the Grand Jury heard from both developers and
planning directors throughout Marin that new state laws significantly reduce the ability of local
jurisdictions to deny housing projects that meet objective requirements, even if there is
community opposition.
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that Marinites may now refrain from saying
explicitly they are anti-growth, but they are still anxious about change and have legitimate
concerns about how housing development may impact their communities. Traffic and emergency
evacuation remain concerns for many Marin residents. While the state-led RHNA program limits
local community discretion, the local jurisdictions still have an interest in being responsive to
their constituents. Marin jurisdictions can encourage housing development, while at the same
time making their communities feel heard and addressing their concerns by following a set of
best practices.
When Should Community Engagement Occur?
Numerous housing leaders told the Grand Jury that the public often fails to understand that
recent changes in California law have streamlined the planning process and prevent the use of
subjective criteria as a basis for project denial. Repeatedly, the Grand Jury was told that
jurisdictions should engage their communities proactively during the development of the
Housing Element and the rezoning processes that increase site density – not merely reactively on
a project-by-project basis. Under current state housing laws, community opposition occurring in
response to a housing application may well be too late for the community to have significant
input.42 Depending on the jurisdiction, there may not be a hearing or a requirement to obtain an
40 The San Francisco Chronicle has had a regular, dedicated section entitled “Bay Area Housing Crisis.”
41 Conor Cougherty, “Twilight of the NIMBY,” June 5, 2022; See Also, Sophia Bollag, “Gavin Newsom Ups
Pressure on Cities to Build More Housing,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 22, 2022,
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/newsom-housing-17188515.php, (accessed 5/14/25).
42 Anika Singh Lemar, “The Public Hearing Process For New Housing is Broken. Here’s how to fix it,” The
Brookings Institute, May 4, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-public-hearing-process-for-new-housing-
is-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it/, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 21
environmental impact report (EIR) under CEQA.43 In particular, if the project is eligible for
ministerial approval, there will be limited opportunities for community input.
Jurisdictions should take steps to ensure the community understands changes in California
housing law that impact the community input process. If jurisdictions fail to keep their residents
informed as developers accrue entitlements and building permits under the new state laws, there
is the risk of backlash when the community becomes aware of a development only once
construction has begun.
What Type of Engagement is Best?
Studies show that intentional and accessible engagement with the community leading up to the
development of a Housing Element or housing up-zoning can help garner broad support for
development.44 Marin housing leaders describe an array of best practices, including:
● Holding public forums about building ADUs, with staff participation from a multitude of
agencies (planning, building, fire, water, and sanitary district).
● Engaging people where they already socialize, shop, and play, e.g., farmers markets,
sporting events, music events, and parks.
● Using multiple means of communication, including a robust town website, postings on
social media, and outreach to community newsletters published by residents.
● Putting a human face on the housing crisis. One jurisdiction created a video, highlighting
people in the community who were on the verge of being unhoused.
Studies show that best practices include acknowledging that residents may have legitimate
concerns about development, such as increased traffic, but planners should reorient the
conversations away from what residents might lose from increased growth and, instead, focus on
what they will gain.45 The Grand Jury determined through interviews that planners could help
connect the dots for residents so they understand that more housing means more vibrant towns in
Marin with greater local amenities; and that more affordable housing could help alleviate the
local shortages of workers in retail, homecare, and local government. For residents with climate
change concerns, planners could emphasize that local housing development means local workers
driving fewer miles across the county.
43 “California’s 2024 Housing Laws: What you Need to Know,” California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
Holland and Knight Law Firm, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2023/10/californias-2024-housing-
laws-what-you-need-to-know
(accessed 5/14/25).
44 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, “Lessons in Land Use Reform: Best Practices for Successful Upzoning,”
page 3, UC Berkeley, December 1, 2019, https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/Lessons_in_Land_Use_Reform.pdf , (accessed 5/14/25).
45 “The Housing Hub - Housing and Traffic” Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative (MEHC),
https://marinmehc.org/featured/housing-and-driving/, (accessed 5/14/25). See also, “the Housing Hub - Marin Needs
Housing to Serve its Aging Population,” MEHC, https://marinmehc.org/featured/marin-needs-housing-to-serve-its-
aging-population/, (accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 21
Who Should Be Included in the “Community”?
Planners told the Grand Jury that when a broad spectrum of the community participates, they
more easily acknowledge that the housing requirements are state-mandated. The jurisdictions
should engage all potential stakeholders, including those who are unlikely to attend public
meetings. Polls, surveys, and online comment tools can be effective to reach the broader
community.46 Planners also should attempt to engage those outside of their jurisdictions. When
planners hear only from existing residents, they may only capture the opinions of those with a
bias toward the status quo. By broadening their engagement, planners could hear from those who
do not live in the jurisdiction but hope eventually to do so.47
Streamlined Planning and Permitting for Multifamily and ADU Housing
As part of its investigation, the Grand Jury interviewed planning directors from all of the Marin
jurisdictions. These planning directors described a variety of processes in communicating with
developers. Developers and their attorneys told the Grand Jury they receive a confusing array of
planning information from planning staff, who often do not cite the governing laws that support
their positions on new development projects. The developers and attorneys stated they
experienced less push-back from the community where constraints on the decision-making board
or council are transparent to the public. Interviewees described how substantial pressure is
reduced on local decision-makers when the applicable law or rules are provided to the public and
the public is informed about which laws or rules are not within the housing jurisdiction's
authority to change.
The Grand Jury interviews indicate that Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS),
developed to support certain ministerial processes intended to reduce discretion in the
development process, are not achieving their intended outcomes. State law defines objective
standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are
uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available
and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submission.”48
These standards were developed by consultants hired by the jurisdictions, and are hundreds of
pages long, are highly complex, and can be internally inconsistent. Recent changes in state law
(SB 35, SB 330, and AB 2011) “require that for certain types of housing and mixed-use projects,
46 Sarah Karlinsky, “Structured for Success: Reforming Housing Governance in California and the Bay Area,” page
48, SPUR, October 3, 2023, https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/SPUR_Structured_for_Success.pdf,
(accessed 5/14/25).
47 Jerusalem Denasas, “Community Input is Bad, Actually,” The Atlantic,”(starting at paragraph 16), April 22, 2022
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/04/local-government-community-input-housing-public-
transportation/629625/, subscription required, (accessed 5/14/25).
48 “California Code Title 7. Planning and Land Use, Division 1. Planning and Zoning, Section 65913.4, paragraph 5,
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65913.4.&lawCode=GOV ,
(accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 of 21
jurisdictions may only consider objective criteria, and only those that are in place at the time the
project application is filed.”49
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that Marin jurisdictions created objective design
standards that were purchased at significant expense from consultants and then customized for
the jurisdiction in an attempt to improve consistency and predictability in the planning process
and reduce subjective objections to projects. From interviews, the Grand Jury learned that the
standards were developed with limited consultation with multifamily housing developers who
bring their own previously developed housing designs to the project. Thus, the ODDS and the
developer product are misaligned and vary across each jurisdiction, forcing developers to shop
their housing designs to the jurisdiction with the best economic return and then obtain exception
waivers to navigate the easiest and least expensive path to planning approval.
Under state law, Marin housing jurisdictions must provide developers with a clear, simplified
process and a detailed reconciliation of planning fees for obtaining planning approval.50
Developers described some housing jurisdiction planning staff that are effective in providing up-
to-date process documentation and reconciliation of planning fees, while other communities were
poorly organized, the planning approval process was difficult to navigate, and planning fees were
unclear. By law, planning fees are not allowed to be a profit center for local communities, but
developers describe some fees as arbitrary and not backed up by documentation. The Grand Jury
determined through interviews that Marin planning jurisdictions are not consistently providing
developers and the public with detailed reconciliation of project-level planning fees, expenses,
and time expectations, and therefore, some housing developers are unclear if their housing
applications are billed on a cost-neutral basis as required by state law.
Virtually every local housing jurisdiction has made some efforts to streamline the process to
develop ADUs, which provide another pathway to support their housing goals. According to
interviews with Marin housing professionals, some jurisdictions provide a streamlined
ministerial process to approve ADUs, while other jurisdictions continue to have barriers to ADU
development, either regarding process or fees. Some planning jurisdictions are not consistently
providing informal and informational forums for the public who may be interested in exploring
an ADU to help meet the County’s housing needs. The Grand Jury is concerned, based on
interviews with housing planning staff, that the majority of ADUs are not being used to provide
housing but are used by homeowners as an easy path to increase housing square footage.
The impact of inclusionary housing policies that require affordable housing to be included with
market-rate housing was unclear based on the Grand Jury interviews. Some public and private
housing professionals were very supportive of requiring low-income housing to be included in
market-rate housing, while others believed that focused low-income housing development was a
49 “Objective Design and Development Standards Take On New Importance Under State Law,” paragraph 3, SMW
Law, https://www.smwlaw.com/2025/01/29/objective-design-standards-take-on-new-importance-under-state-law/
(accessed 5/14/25).
50 “California Code Title 7. Planning and Land Use, Division 1. Planning and Zoning, Section 65583(a), paragraph
five, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65583.&lawCode=GOV ,
(accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 of 21
more successful strategy to achieve RHNA goals. Housing applications that set aside a portion
(15-25 percent) of the development for affordable units are allowed under new state laws to
access streamlined processes or higher density units or both.51
Increased Investment in Multifamily Affordable Housing
Most Housing Elements define multifamily housing as the major source of new housing for
Marin. A current multifamily project, Oak Hill workforce housing, is projected to cost
$118,000,000 for 135 units or $874,000/unit.52 The housing sector competes against other
investment opportunities to attract financing and investment capital. Affordable housing must
also compete for scarce tax incentives to attract capital to finance the project. Market-rate
housing developers compete against non-housing investment opportunities and housing projects
outside Marin. New housing projects must provide adequate profit to housing developers, capital
providers, and labor in order to be built. Multiple factors impact housing costs, but current
interest rates are a substantial impediment to housing investment. In the current housing cycle,
interest rates have increased 2.35 percent compared to previous housing cycles, providing
substantial barriers to project economic incentive.53 For existing Marin multifamily properties,
the return on investment is significantly lower than in other parts of the country. In Marin,
apartment cap rates (a measure of the return on investment) reached a median of 5.15 percent in
2024, rising from a median of 4.63 percent in 2023.54 In 2024, the average cap rate in the U.S.
was 7 percent.55 Therefore, Marin multifamily housing remains a less profitable investment
compared to the alternatives in other parts of the country.
The financing of affordable housing is fundamentally different from market-rate housing
development. Almost half of Marin RHNA goals support affordable housing (less than 80
percent of median income), and 78 percent of rental housing units in San Rafael house lower-
income workers.56 Historically, the State of California financed its affordable housing investment
through 400 California redevelopment agencies. The redevelopment agency program ended in
2011, but the legislature elected to advance the development of affordable housing by passing
51 The original density bonus law was originally enacted in 1979 (Gov. Code §§65915 -65918), with a recent update
being AB 1287, “AB1287:Density Bonus Law: Maximum Allowable Residential Density: Additional Density
Bonus and Incentives or Concessions,” CALMATTERS, 10/11/23,
https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab1287 , (accessed 5/14/25).
52 Gaetan Lion, “The Unaffordable Oak Hill Project,” The Marin Post, March 24, 2025,
https://marinpost.org/blog/2025/3/24/the-unaffordable-oak-hill-project, (accessed 5/14/25).
53 “30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgage Average in the United States,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US, (accessed 5/14/25).
54 “Marin Apartment Investors Scoop Up Discounted Deals in 2024 Market,” Marin Apartment Investments, January
10, 2025, Ihttps://marinapartmentinvestments.com/marin-apartment-investors-scoop-up-discounted-deals-in-2024-
market/, (accessed 5/14/25).
55 “U.S. Cap Rate Survey H1 2024,” CBRE, July 31, 2024, https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/us-cap-rate-
survey-h1-2024, (accessed 5/14/25).
56 City of San Rafael Housing Element,” calculation from graph on page 3 -23, San Rafael, February 12, 2024,
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/city-of-san-rafael-housing-element-adopted-may-15-2023/, (accessed
5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 16 of 21
over 100 pro-housing bills since 2017.57 Affordable housing developments in California now
primarily take advantage of the Federal and State Government Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) programs. These competitively awarded tax credits take advantage of several tax
provisions to provide subsidies of 9 percent of the cost of the new housing project. In 2024,
California was only allocated $113,944,937 of tax credits to 55 projects, and demand for these
credits far outstrips supply.58 The limited availability of LIHTC funds reduces the ability of
housing jurisdictions to meet RHNA housing goals.
An additional obstacle to building affordable housing is labor costs. Labor costs can represent up
to 40 percent of housing costs,59 and Marin housing costs reflect the fact that multifamily
housing construction is very labor-intensive, and labor costs are very high in Marin compared to
other parts of California and the United States.60 In California, affordable housing construction
costs are 39 percent higher than market-rate housing. Prevailing wage laws have a substantial
impact on increasing the cost of affordable housing. Marin housing jurisdictions should
understand that the payment of prevailing wages may result in the failure to construct affordable
housing units and meet RHNA goals.61
Bay Area housing leaders have analyzed progress toward meeting the 6th cycle goals and realize
that additional sources of funding are required to meet these goals. One important alternative is
passing a bond to support affordable housing, paid for by Bay Area residents’ taxes. A recent
attempt to authorize a $20 billion bond62 to benefit Bay Area counties (Marin’s share would have
been $700 million) was pulled from the November 2024 ballot due to a lack of confidence to
meet the required two-thirds voting threshold standard.63 Marin housing jurisdictions could work
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to investigate whether a well-structured
housing bond would be supported by Marin and Bay Area voters.
57 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, “Database of California Housing and Land Use Laws,” copyright 2025,
https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/california-land-use-housing/, (accessed 5/14/25).
58 “California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 2024 Annual Report,” page 8 (“2024 CTCAC Fast Facts”),
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/2024/2024-TCAC.pdf, (accessed
5/14/25).
59 “Labor vs. Material Cost in Construction: 6 Things to Keep in Mind,” paragraph 3, Bridgit,
https://gobridgit.com/blog/labor-vs-material-cost-in-construction-6-things-to-keep-in-
mind/#:~:text=Labor%20costs%20represent%2020%25%20to,skilled%20professionals%20are%20required%E2%8
0percent8B, (accessed 5/14/25).
60 “Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023, Construction Laborers,” Top paying metropolitan areas for
Construction Laborers, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes472061.htm,
(accessed 5/14/25).
61Jason M. Ward and Luke Schlake, “The High Cost of Producing Multifamily Housing in California,” Key
Findings, page vi, RAND, April 2, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3743-1.html#document-
details, (accessed 5/14/25).
62 “2024 Bay Area Affordable Housing Bond: Regional Funding for Local Solutions,” Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, June 2024, https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-07/BAHFA_Bond_Report.pdf,
(accessed 5/14/25).
63 Cole Reynolds, “$20 billion Bay Area Housing Bond Pulled from Ballot as Support Sputters,” NBC Bay Area,
August 14, 2024, https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/bay-area-housing-bond-removed-ballot/3625577/,
(accessed 5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 17 of 21
Marin jurisdictions can ease the path for multifamily development by defining zoning districts
where they want to encourage multifamily development and provide streamlined processes to
support that development. San Rafael created a “Downtown Code” which encourages and
supports a Multifamily Residential District to encourage this type of development.64 The Grand
Jury determined through interviews that several Marin housing jurisdictions have an array of
processes that proactively engage potential housing developers on opportunities to develop new
multifamily housing in their district.
The Grand Jury investigation revealed that in many Marin jurisdictions, outside expertise is
required to review multifamily housing applications since many staff planners lack the requisite
experience in multifamily housing development. All jurisdictions rely on multifamily housing to
meet their affordable housing goals and also support their market-rate housing goals. Planning
Directors should ensure their staff or consulting staff have the necessary background to deal with
complex multifamily projects. Housing development is a partnership between communities and
housing developers, and housing planners need to approach the housing plan as a way to improve
the ability of the community to thrive with new neighborhoods and new residents.
Improved Site Availability to Support New Housing
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that housing site availability has an important
impact on the cost and ability to develop housing in Marin. Marin has long struggled with high
housing costs. The limitations on land for development have hindered the construction of new
homes.
All jurisdictions were required by RHNA to identify in their Housing Element sites that would
support the development of new housing. Many of these sites have existing uses that often make
modest or no contribution to housing.65 After the approval of the Housing Elements, the sites are
rezoned by the jurisdiction to align with the housing plan. While this process, defined by state
law, has made progress in providing developers with opportunities to contribute new housing,
interviews indicate that many sites are not economically viable for the 6th cycle development.
The Grand Jury determined through interviews that steep hillside land and difficult
environmental mitigation ensure that a substantial share of the sites that Marin communities
make available are not economically viable. The Grand Jury investigation revealed that the key
barrier to building new housing in Marin County was the economics of the housing development,
and a central pillar of housing for developers was affordable access to high-quality housing sites.
High-quality sites are flat land not subject to flooding, close to public transportation and
shopping, and that will provide the economic returns necessary to induce investment capital.
64 “San Rafael Zoning Ordinance Revisions and Downtown Code,” State of California,
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019039167/5, August 17, 2021, (accessed 5/14/25).
65 “What is Infill Development,” Planetizen, https://www.planetizen.com/definition/infill-development, (accessed
5/14/25).
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 18 of 21
Grand Jury interviews indicate that many sites currently being used for commercial and retail
uses throughout Marin are often located on flat land near transportation and are not included in
housing plans. These sites are opportunities for housing pursuant to the incentives in California
Government Code section 65912.100, et seq., for the conversion of commercial properties to
residential units. To get ahead of the future housing challenges, housing jurisdictions should
proactively identify commercial office sites now that could be converted, and meet with the
property owners to consider re-zoning the properties for residential uses.
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 19 of 21
FINDINGS
F1. Because the California Department of Housing and Community Development provided
the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns with unrealistic housing goals for
the 2023-2030 cycle, the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns will not
achieve their current cycle Housing Element goals.
F2. The ability of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns to comply with the
current cycle California Regional Housing Needs Allocation housing goals is
significantly impacted by the lack of economic returns associated with that development
and, therefore, inhibits the construction of new housing in Marin County.
F3. Under current state law, the failure of the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and
towns to make adequate progress in achieving their California Regional Housing Needs
Allocation goals could expose these jurisdictions to the potential of litigation, loss of
permitting authority, financial penalties, court receivership, and streamlined ministerial
approval processes which could substantially impact the ability of local housing
jurisdictions to control the development of housing.
F4. The cost of housing in Marin County is unaffordable for most current and potential Marin
County public-sector workers, which reduces the ability of the public-sector employers to
attract and retain employees.
F5. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns do not consistently inform the
public on how applicable state law is limiting or eliminating the discretion of the local
decision makers to modify or decline housing projects, and therefore, the public often
does not understand the range of options available to local housing decision makers.
F6. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently providing
developers and the public with detailed reconciliation of project level public accounting
of the planning fees, expenses, and time expectations, and therefore, housing developers
are not clear if their housing applications are billed on a cost-neutral basis as required by
state law.
F7. The County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns are not consistently and
proactively engaging the housing development community on the opportunities available
in their communities to build new housing, and, therefore, housing developers may not be
aware of the opportunities available to contribute to local housing development.
F8. Accessory Dwelling Units are an element to the success of each jurisdiction's Housing
Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some
jurisdictions fail to provide a ministerial path to Accessory Dwelling Unit construction.
F9. Multifamily housing is the most important element to fulfilling each jurisdiction’s
Housing Element for the County of Marin and the 11 Marin cities and towns, yet some
jurisdictions fail to provide a ministerial path to multifamily construction.
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 20 of 21
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Marin County Civil Grand Jury recommends:
R1. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town
Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials
to provide detailed quarterly updates to the community on the progress in executing their
own specific Housing Element.
R2. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town
Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials
to engage with the public on a quarterly basis on how State housing laws constrain the
jurisdiction's ability to approve or modify a housing project.
R3. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town
Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials
to proactively engage with potential developers to inform them of opportunities in their
housing elements to support addressing the housing needs within Marin County.
R4. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town
Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials
to publish and regularly update a public accounting of the fees charged and expenses
associated with each development project submitted to the jurisdiction’s planning and
building activities.
R5. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town
Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials
to ensure their housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of Accessory
Dwelling Units.
R6. By January 1, 2026, the Marin County Board of Supervisors and the City and Town
Councils for the 11 Marin cities and towns should direct their housing planning officials
to ensure that local housing laws provide a ministerial path for the approval of
multifamily housing in compliance with State housing law.
The Worrisome Future of Marin Housing
Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 21 of 21
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the Grand Jury requires responses from the following
governing bodies:
From the following elected county officials within 90 days:
● Marin County Board of Supervisors (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Belvedere (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Larkspur (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Mill Valley (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Novato (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of San Rafael (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● City Council: City of Sausalito (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of Corte Madera (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of Fairfax (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of Ross (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of San Anselmo (F1-F9, R1-R6)
● Town Council: Town of Tiburon (F1-F9, R1-R6)
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the
governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code section 933 (c) and subject to
the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.
Note: At the time this report was prepared information was available at the websites listed.
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires
that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person
who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the
provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in
testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in
any Civil Grand Jury investigation.