The Marin County Planning Commission continued the hearing on a proposed 36‑lot vesting tentative map for 1501 Lucas Valley Road to June 23, 2025, after staff recommended a summary denial and the applicant submitted a late legal letter that county counsel and staff requested time to review.

Staff said the subject site carries an agricultural conservation designation with a Housing Overlay (HOD) under the county’s adopted housing element and that the county previously approved an administrative housing compliance review allowing housing on the site. The developer submitted an application that proposes 36 detached single‑family lots and five below‑market‑rate units to meet inclusionary requirements; the affordability mix would have allowed a density‑bonus increase from 26 base units to 36. However, staff recommended summary denial of the tentative map, citing excessive grading and retaining‑wall design under the applicant’s preferred grading plan and multiple discretionary problems with street geometry, slope and drainage easements. The staff report said the preferred grading plan would require a bank of retaining walls (five tiers with heights ranging roughly 10–15 feet each) and cut into the hillside—about 28–29 feet of elevation change to the building pads—while the alternate “bench” plan would reduce wall exposure at the cost of significantly greater off‑haul of material.

“Those retaining walls total nearly fifty feet of cutting into the hillside,” said a public speaker with decades of land‑use experience, describing the magnitude of excavation and haul. Department of Public Works staff advised the commission that the proposed site driveway grade off Lucas Valley Road would be about 8.6 percent and interior site roads generally 6.5–7.8 percent; DPW also noted a required left‑turn pocket on Lucas Valley Road and said sight‑distance checks would be needed. The geotechnical report noted undocumented fill in places and proposed standard mitigation through over‑excavation and compacted base rock under building pads; the civil engineer said the geotechnical mitigation approach would be addressed during building‑permit review.

Several neighbors testified about evacuation and safety concerns. One resident said a voluntary evacuation drill from Mount Muir Court to Los Gamos took 45 minutes, and speakers argued that adding dozens of homes would worsen congestion and complicate emergency egress during wildfire or flood events. Commissioners asked about defensible‑space and fire‑safety conditions; staff confirmed the Fire Marshal required sprinklering and fire‑resistant exterior construction standards for the new homes.

Applicant counsel Travis Brooks said the county’s permit‑streamlining and state housing laws constrain some local discretion and that the applicant considers the overall project application complete under the Permit Streamlining Act. The applicant submitted a substantive legal brief from counsel late in the record (received after business hours the prior day). The applicant asked for a continuance to allow county counsel and staff to respond and requested that the Board consider a tolling agreement that would preserve the applicant’s rights to challenge the prior housing compliance review approval should the applicant pursue litigation. County counsel agreed to recommend the Board consider a tolling agreement and the commission continued the matter to June 23, 2025 so staff and counsel can fully analyze the late legal submission and prepare any additional environmental review if the commission chooses not to accept staff’s summary‑denial recommendation.

Because the administrative housing compliance review (HCR) already exists, staff noted that denial of the tentative map would not prevent development of the approved housing on a single legal lot; it would, however, prevent the creation of separate saleable lots because those subdivisions are the subject of this discretionary review. The commission directed staff to return with additional analysis on the grading, retaining walls, drainage easement and street geometry and to coordinate with DPW, Fire and County Counsel before the continued hearing on June 23.