Commission continues 501 Via Casitas fuel‑cell review, requests improved screening and fence design

The Larkspur Planning Commission on March 10 continued a public‑hearing review of a proposal to install a fuel cell and associated condenser and retaining wall at 501 Via Casitas, asking the applicant to return with improved aesthetic screening and more precise engineering and access details.

Staff presented PLN25‑045, saying the project would involve cutting and filling the hillside to create a level platform for a fuel cell and condenser, and requested three entitlements: design review to allow an accessory structure larger than 400 square feet, a slope‑use permit for grading, and a fence‑height exception. Staff reported grading volumes tied to the slope permit as 37 cubic yards of cut and 99 cubic yards of fill (a total of 126 cubic yards). The submitted fencing on top of a retaining wall would produce a maximum combined height of 13 feet 10 inches at the highest point. Staff noted condition of approval No. 9 would require replacing chain‑link with a higher‑quality fencing option if the commission chose to do so.

The applicant’s on‑line representative, identified in the record as Cletus Plum of Rubicon Professional Services, said the project would replace an older, less efficient gas generator and that the proposed fuel cell “takes natural gas and can produce both electricity and hot water, both of which will be continuously provided to the building.” He told the commission the team preferred the location close to the building to minimize disturbance for utility runs and to provide straightforward street access for maintenance, but said they were “certainly willing to put some greenery in there to better buffer the view” and to consider alternative fence materials.

Several residents and speakers during public comment urged better screening. One commenter asked the commission to “have a fence that hides the fuel cells and fans so that it’s not an eyesore in the street,” while others proposed planting, planters, murals, or a higher‑quality metal fence and a finished wall surface to avoid an industrial appearance.

Commissioners agreed the engineering rationale for the location appeared sound but pressed for definite design solutions. Multiple commissioners said they could make the findings for the proposal as described, provided the applicant returned with concrete aesthetic treatments: a non‑chain‑link fence type (for example, metal mesh or tubular steel), landscaping appropriate to fire‑department clearance limits, and a more finished wall treatment. One commissioner noted a potential conflict with a nearby housing‑element site and said moving the equipment closer to the parking lot would likely conflict with future development plans and could increase excavation and utility trenching.

Given those outstanding design details, the commission voted to continue the item to the next meeting so the applicant could present a revised design package. Staff told the commission the applicant expected to provide revisions quickly; the commission scheduled the continued hearing for the special meeting on March 31, 2026 if the applicant can meet that timeline. The continuance motion passed on a 5–0 roll‑call vote.

Next steps: the applicant is to return with specific fencing and screening proposals, any necessary fire‑department clearances for planting or low shrubs, and engineering details addressing access and servicing. The commission will take the item up at the continued hearing and may impose or refine conditions of approval at that time.