Marin commission denies appeal by Lucas Valley housing developer

The Marin County Planning Commission is standing by a requirement that a developer seeking to build 36 homes in Lucas Valley pay for additional environmental analysis of the project.

The developer, 330 Land Co. and Lucas Valley Road LLC, has already received approval to build the homes on a 61-acre site at 1501 Lucas Valley Road. However, the developer still has to secure permission to subdivide the property, and county planners maintain that to do that it must underwrite additional environmental review.

On Monday, the commission heard an appeal of that decision. The developer asserted that the analysis being required exceeds what is allowable by law to require.

The site was included in the county’s updated housing element in 2023. A programmatic environmental impact report covering all 148 sites approved for housing development in the element was conducted at that time. However, Rachel Reid, a county planning official, told commissioners that more analysis is still required.

“The focus is really on showing that the prior EIR adequately covers this particular individual project’s environmental effects,” Reid said.

But Steve Reilly, co-founder of 330 Land Co., said, “The basis of the appeal is just the cost and the scope that staff has given us.”

According to the developer, the proposal calls for eight to 12 months of review time and a cost of $355,760 to $427,792. The developer also objected to the fact that the county was mandating that the analysis be prepared by a particular firm, Secular Environmental.

The Planning Commission issued its decision requiring the additional environmental review on May 29. Prior to that meeting, county staff were recommending a flat denial of the developer’s request for the subdivision. After the developer threatened to sue, the commission took a different tack.

A few days before Monday’s hearing, the developer’s attorney, Travis Brooks, sent a letter to commissioners restating the points included in the appeal.

“The applicant has already authorized litigation,” Brooks wrote, “and the applicant and this firm are ready to immediately pursue all available remedies in litigation that the county is likely to lose, subject to potentially significant penalties and attorney’s fee awards.”

In a letter sent the following day, Sonja Trauss, director of the pro-housing organization YIMBY Law, wrote, “Thus far, the county has failed to comply with state law, it does not have the discretion to deny this project.”

Trauss added that her organization would “not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced.”

Commissioner Leila Monroe said she was concerned that Reilly left Monday’s hearing immediately after speaking.

“I think that it is pretty clear that they plan to litigate,” Monroe said.

The county and 330 Land Co. signed a tolling agreement in July that extends the developer’s right to sue the county until 90 days after a final decision is rendered on the subdivision approval.

Gregory Stepanicich, the commission’s chair, said that he was most concerned by the developer’s plan to level the hills on the site to create a flat building pad instead of making the project conform to the topography. The site is within the district he represents on the commission.

The developer has asked the county to evaluate two different grading plans. One calls for the removal of 128,900 cubic yards of soil, while the other would involve retaining walls up to 15 feet high.

Stepanicich noted that while the county’s form-based code requires all grading to conform to the topography of sites, the developer would be able to circumvent that requirement using concessions and waivers granted by state density bonus laws. The developer is qualifying for a 35% density bonus by pricing five of the homes to be affordable to households at or below 80% of Marin’s area median income.

“But that doesn’t mean the analysis stops there. We have a legal obligation to conduct the CEQA review,” Stepanicich said, referring to the California Environmental Quality Act. “It seems to me that there are potentially a number of health and safety concerns. We don’t know whether there are until we do a study that’s much more in depth than we’ve seen so far.”

Several members of the public spoke in opposition to the project during Monday’s meeting. In addition to the amount of grading planned, residents are concerned about the plan for narrower private roads, fewer sidewalks and the effect on neighborhood fire evacuations.

Monroe said, “I feel for them because the fire risk in this county is highly elevated and particularly scary in communities where egress and ingress is challenging, like in Lucas Valley.”

She recommended that they consider contacting their representatives in Sacramento.

“I think it is important to have some upward dialogue with our representatives to let them know, yes, we want housing, but we don’t want our first responders unable to respond,” she said.