County officials have a Nov. 12 deadline to meet an order stemming from a lawsuit that challenged an update to the countywide plan’s housing element. But last week, supervisors asked for more time. An extension would give the county a chance to work out its disagreement with Bruce Corcoran, the Strawberry resident who filed the suit. And it will give staff an opportunity to make peace with the Planning Commission, whose members felt miffed and ignored after Marin’s first attempt to meet Judge Sheila Shah Lichtblau’s order. The ruling addressed so-called precedence clauses in the housing element and in amendments intended to integrate that document into the countywide plan. West Marin community groups have been watching the case closely, fearing a ruling in the county’s favor could erode the county’s 22 community plans, which give villages a say in zoning and development decisions. California requires municipalities to update their housing elements every eight years; Marin’s update, certified in June, identified sites in unincorporated areas that would accommodate at least 3,596 units of new housing, including 1,734 affordable units. The update included new language that gave county policies priority in cases in which community plans discourage construction of multi-family housing. County staff said the language was necessary to meet new state laws that require counties to affirmatively further the state’s fair housing laws, which are intended to racially integrate communities. In its efforts to comply with Judge Licht-blau’s order, county staff removed the precedence clauses but replaced them with new language designed to achieve the same fair housing goals. They asked the state Department of Housing and Community Development to review the new wording without first conferring with the Planning Commission, whose members fiercely objected to being excluded from the process. Even though the H.C.D. approved the new language, the commissioners recommended removing it, saying the additional verbiage would undermine community plans. So last week, county staff came up with softer language intended to acknowledge the importance of community plans while still facilitating the construction of multi-family housing. At last week’s supervisors meeting, Mr. Corcoran’s lawyer proposed yet more alternative language and said his client was willing to ask the court for more time so the two sides could reach an agreement. The supervisors voted unanimously to pursue the last-minute suggestion, which will allow staff to confer with planning commissioners before heading back to the state for yet another review. Supervisors stressed their desire to respect the Planning Commission, satisfy the court and ensure state certification—goals in seeming tension. “I have deep respect for our community plans,” Supervisor Dennis Rodoni said. “But I also don’t want to put the county in a position where the state is going to come down on us and decertify our housing element. This is really about trying to thread the needle to satisfy both sides as much as we can.” If the state does not certify the housing element, the county would become ineligible for various housing funds and could be subject to something called the builder’s remedy, in which developers bypass local zoning rules. “That would strip away virtually all our control,” Supervisor Katie Rice said.