Tiburon's 1983 Resolution Isn't a Contract — AB 2097 Still Applies

You're running an SB 684 starter-home project — a nine-unit townhome development, the kind of ministerial, by-right project the Starter Home Revitalization Act was built to speed up. The catch: your site sits on a public fee lot, and a decades-old local resolution says that lot must hold 239 parking spaces. Your project would take 93 of them. The city points at that old resolution and says the parking requirement is locked in — you'll have to keep the spaces.

Here's the thing: HCD's position is that a 1983 resolution isn't the kind of agreement that can keep AB 2097 at bay.

Verified against the Town of Tiburon Letter of Technical Assistance for 1801 Tiburon Blvd. (case HAU0003383), dated July 8, 2026.

The one lever the city reached for

The project at 1801 Tiburon Blvd. sits within one-half mile of the Tiburon Ferry Terminal — "a major transit stop as defined under Public Resources Code section 21064.3, subdivision (b)," in HCD's words. That puts it squarely inside AB 2097 (Statutes of 2022, codified at Gov. Code § 65863.2), which bars minimum parking requirements near transit. HCD's framing of the rule is flat: the Town "shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement" on the project unless it first makes specific written findings.

AB 2097 does carry one narrow escape hatch. Under Gov. Code § 65863.2(h)(1), the parking ban doesn't reach a site where — quoting the letter — "commercial parking requirements…conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public."

Tiburon's parking rule for the fee lot comes from a Precise Development Plan last amended by Resolution No. 2168 on October 5, 1983 — comfortably before the 2023 cutoff. So the Town asked HCD the obvious question: does a pre-2023 PDP or local legislative resolution count as that "contractual agreement"?

HCD's answer: a resolution isn't a contract

No. HCD's read is that a land-use entitlement and a contract are different animals:

"The Town's Resolution 2168 is a land use entitlement and not a contractual agreement with the public agency."

HCD also pointed to what would have counted and wasn't there. It noted the Town has no "development or management agreement, memorandum of understanding, parking covenant, or other contractual agreement" over the 239-space fee lot. Because none of those exist, HCD's position is that the § 65863.2(h)(1) exception simply doesn't apply to the site — the PDP can't carry the parking minimum past AB 2097.

That distinction travels. Plenty of jurisdictions bury parking minimums inside specific plans, precise development plans, and standalone resolutions, then treat them as untouchable. HCD's read here is that the label matters: an entitlement a council adopted is not a contract the agency signed, and only the latter opens the door.

Removing existing spaces doesn't change the math

The tempting counter-argument is that this isn't a new parking minimum at all — the project is removing existing public parking, so the city is only asking it to replace what it takes. HCD closed that door too. If the Town wants any automobile parking out of the applicant, it has to make the findings in Gov. Code § 65863.2(b): a written finding of substantial negative impact, "supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record," and — in HCD's words — "even where the reduction in existing parking results from the Project's siting."

In plain terms: replacement parking is still a parking requirement. No findings, no requirement.

What to do with this

A Technical Assistance letter is HCD's interpretive position, not a court ruling — but it's the read a city gets measured against, and it signals how HCD would weigh an enforcement referral. If your transit-adjacent project is hitting a parking minimum that traces back to a resolution, a specific plan, or a PDP rather than a signed agreement, that barrier may be weaker than the counter is treating it. Pull the actual instrument, check whether a real pre-2023 contractual agreement exists, and confirm how your jurisdiction and your counsel read § 65863.2 before you redesign around the spaces. This is background on one letter, not legal advice for your project.

What CrossBeam does with it

When the letter lands on your desk, CrossBeam turns it around the same day: what each item is actually asking, the code or law behind it, and a written response you can hand to your team or your attorney — the back-and-forth that used to eat weeks, done in a couple of hours.