Supervisors direct appellant to fund environmental review for contested Lucas Valley housing subdivision

The Marin County Board of Supervisors voted to require the appellant in the Riley appeal to fund the environmental review for a proposed 36-unit subdivision at 1501 Lucas Valley Road in San Rafael. The motion, made by Supervisor Sackett and seconded by Supervisor Rodoni, passed by voice vote after staff and the appellant's counsel clashed over the appropriate scope and cost of CEQA review.

Community Development staff said the project, ministerially approved for 36 units in May 2025, proposes discretionary subdivision approvals and a tree-removal permit for more than 100 trees and therefore requires site-specific environmental review. Staff's environmental coordinator, Rachel Reid, told the board that the applicant submitted two very different grading plans: one involving multiple retaining walls with a cumulative exposure of roughly 52' 55 feet from Lucas Valley Road and the other involving a much larger area of site disturbance but a single ~15-foot wall. Those two options, staff said, increase the complexity and cost of the analysis and could mean substantially different impacts.

Appellant counsel Travis Brooks argued the county's 2023 housing-element programmatic EIR already analyzed the site's underlying density and that the proposed consultant proposals (including one sole-source proposal by Secular Environmental Consulting that Brooks said exceeded $400,000) were excessive and unlawful. Brooks asked the board to direct staff to solicit additional proposals and to limit duplicated review that he said would impede housing under state streamlining guidance such as the Section 15183 checklist and SB 131 near-miss provisions.

Staff countered that the programmatic EIR is high-level and that site-specific conditions ' including 11 special-status species reported on the parcel, hydrology/stormwater concerns, traffic and evacuation issues, and very large earthwork estimates ' justified preparing a Section 15183 checklist and a reasoned response-to-comments process. Environmental staff estimated the off-haul for the lower-disturbance option at roughly 2,000 truckloads and the higher-disturbance option at roughly 11,000 truck trips, figures that neighbors and commentors also disputed.

Several residents testified during the public hearing. Michael Spalding, a nearby resident, presented photographs and said the elevation change and slope make the grading proposals visually dramatic. Louise Gaston raised health concerns about asbestos exposure from disturbed ultramafic and serpentinite rock and urged a full EIR. Neil Sorensen said his group estimated about 13,000 truck trips and expressed concern about hillside stability and emergency response distance.

After asking questions of staff about the extended RFP outreach and the lack of initial consultant responses, the board deliberated. Supervisor Sackett moved to direct the appellant to fund the project's environmental review and Supervisor Rodoni seconded. The board approved the motion by voice vote; the record shows no roll-call tally. Staff said an RFP is already out and that additional proposals will be evaluated; staff recommendation remains to deny the appeal and proceed with environmental analysis if funding is provided.

Next steps: Staff will pursue additional consultant proposals through the RFP process and return to the board as required by county procedures; the motion directs the appellant to provide funding for that work prior to further discretionary approvals.