Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Larkspur Planning Commission. All right, there we go. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Larkspur Planning Commission, Tuesday, February 10th, 2026, at lovely Larkspur City Council Chambers. Can we have a roll call?

Yes, Commissioner Hull? Here. Commissioner Wagstaff? Here. And Chair Swisher?

Here.

You have three members here. Vice Chair Campbell and Commissioner Chalmers are absent tonight, but you do have a quorum.

All right. So very first thing are public comments on any matters that are not currently on the agenda. Are there any matters not on the agenda that someone would like to address? Anything on zoom?

We have no zoom attendees currently.

All right. Next item on the agenda is the community director of support. Do we have anything to report?

Yeah, one of the things that we'd like to discuss with you at the next Planning Commission meeting is that one of the comments that we've been getting from residents is a bit of a confusion over the start time. As you know, City Council starts at 6.30, Heritage Preservation starts at 6, and this meeting starts at 7, so we would like to change the time, the start date. of planning commission to be in line with our other committees and city council. And the other type, the other reason for that is we do have staff who work on an hourly rate. So the earlier the start time, the less cost to city for overtime and other expenses. So one of the things we just want to bring up at the next meeting.

Yeah, that would be great. I mean, I mean, my bedtime is eight, so I would love a start at earlier. It'd be great. So we can happy to discuss that.

Thanks. Also, the other thing I was going to report is we had the city council retreat on Saturday, and they did discuss the council goals. There'll be a report released at the next council meeting summarizing the outcome of the retreat, but we did report back on the efforts of the planning commission to examine FAR. And there was support from council to examine that. And we'll be analyzing a list of topics in the zoning ordinance to address to help look at those types of issues related to, like, for example, the FAR regulations and look at streamlining possibilities.

Great.

Thanks. All right.

Anything else?

That concludes my report.

All right. Then we will move on to the public hearings. And the very first item on the agenda is 8 Loma Vista Avenue. APN 21-231-10, Environmental Resource Group Inc. Applicant is Allison Douglas. And this is a hearing for design review to rebuild the rear of a fire damage residence, including a 30 square foot area behind the garage, which is currently an entrance, a new existing staircase extending from the roof terrace to grade at the rear of the structure, altering an existing flat roof above the breakfast nook to become a hipped roof. And that, I believe, is it. And we have staff report.

Yes, give me just a moment to share my screen here. Okay, yes. Good evening, Planning Commissioners. The item before you is PLN 25-043 for 8 Loma Vista Avenue. It is just east of us here, right sort of at the corner of Loma Vista and Alexander Avenue. If you recall the project you reviewed at 300 Alexander last year, maybe it's directly behind that house. And so as you may or may not be aware, there was a structure fire in 2024, I believe, that essentially demolish the rear of the home and the owner has been pursuing the means to reconstruct it. And for the most part, the proposal would be just to reconstruct the residence like for like to what it was before the fire. However, there are a couple of changes that have been proposed, which do require a design review entitlement. And those, as you mentioned, are a new rear staircase, a new hip roof, which replaces an area that was previously a flat roof. And then a small addition to kind of infill some negative space behind the garage. And so here's the site plan for you. The areas we're talking about here that were damaged by the fire, you can't really see the darker gray here, but it's all at the rear of the structure. And then the staircase here is just coming off of the back. The structure is listed on the city's historic resources inventory, and I will get into the Heritage Preservation Board's review of the project a little bit later on. But as I said, it will be rebuilt in kind with only a few minor alterations. Here's the floor plan for you on the first floor is really you know, this is the area that's being infilled here, if you can see my cursor on the screen. And it's just place a door and create a little bit more square footage on the interior. And then this is the second floor plan. And this is where you can see the roof terrace with the new stairway coming off the rear of the structure. And then this is the new hip roof above the kitchen nook that would replace a flat roof. And for the most part, these are located far enough back on the property that they are not visible from the public right of way, at least that the staircase, the hip roof will be a little bit more visible from the public right of way. And then here's the affected elevations. This section here, you can kind of see where on the top, this is the prior to the fire, the original elevation with the flat roof. And then beneath here is the hip roof. And there's a little bit more glazing on that, that kitchen nook. And then you can see the stairway and then a railing that will ring the roof terrace. So because of the structure is listed on the city's historic resources inventory, it was reviewed by the heritage preservation board and it was evaluated by an architectural historian. The architectural historian found that the project complies with the secretary of the interior standards because the proposed work is differentiated from the existing structure. There are no conjectural features being added and work occurs on non primary elevations and the preservation board reviewed the materials and voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the planning commission. There you've received no public comments on this project so staffs recommendation is that you hold a public hearing consider public testimony discuss and approve the project subject to findings conditions for approval and class 131 sequel exemptions, thank you.

Does the architect or the owner want to make a comment?

I had a quick question. Oh, sure. Is there – I wandered up to the back of the house. It looks like it's already built. Is there more being added or is that it?

So – they've been going through kind of a long process. So what they've been approved for is to rebuild the portions of the residents that are not being altered so that they can continue to work on the project while they got the approval to, to modify the, like the hip roof and the rear staircase. So everything that's being done out there should just be basically reframing the rear of the residents, but not, not constructing the work that we're here to discuss tonight.

Owner, architect, want to make any comment? No comments. If we could have you speak into the microphone. Sure, come on up and introduce yourself.

And I've always loved this house. And I was sad to hear that there was a fire and it happened at a time in my life when I was ready to do a project. So I really just want to put this house back. And the back of it was... not as pretty as the front and i want to just add some details that are consistent with the front to make it a little more attractive but i didn't want to add a lot of square footage or do anything different i just want to rebuild it right it's um are you are you living in the house is it no you're doing kitchen their fire kind of made it impossible to live there but we've kind of been anxious to move in. We're kind of hoping we can do this.

So you're planning on living in the house?

Oh, yes. I'm going to move in as soon as I can.

What was the cause of the fire?

I don't know. It wasn't when I owned it. I bought it. It had already been demoed. I think it was a garage, like a I think of rags that caught fire.

Yeah. Rags. Yeah. Yeah. That's happens unfortunately too much to be funny. All right. Very good. Do you have any questions?

Any questions?

No. Okay, great. Thanks so much. All right. Then are there any public comments?

If you're on zoom and you'd like to comment, please raise your hand. No comments on Zoom.

All right, then I will take it back to the commission. Brock, do you want to start?

Yeah, I've always liked that little house, more bigger house. And it looks great there. And from what they're doing, it looks like it'll fit in really well. So I have no problems with it.

I ditto what Brock is saying. I think a lot of it you were not going to even see from the street unless you're really, really trying to look, you know, because you're kind of sitting up. But I think that the design makes sense to me, fits in with what's already there.

I also like it. It's one of those, I think a 1937 Spanish revival house. I think probably this is why it's on the historic site.

Yes.

Yeah, right. It's interesting history to those houses. And I think the hip roof is actually an improvement. I think it's a really nice design. I have no objections to it. It looks great to me. So I'm in favor of it.

I make a motion to approve design review for 8 Loma Vista Avenue, APN 021-231-10, project number 25-043.

And I'll second it. Can we have a roll call vote?

All right. Commissioner Hall? Yes. Commissioner Wagstaff? Yes. And Chair Squisher? Yes. Okay. The motion passes three yeses with two absences, and the approval is subject to a 10-day appeal period. Interested parties can appeal the project by filing the required forms and fees with the city clerk.

Great. Congratulations. Yeah. Thanks. All right. Next. Okay. 9 Murray Lane, APN 020-031-12, Polsky, Perlstein Architect, Applicant Aaron, and Aaron and Aaron Kahn, owners are one first residential zoning district. It's a public hearing request for design review to permit an addition of 1,814 square feet to the first story of the existing residence. The addition is split between 1,199 square feet of living space and a 615 square foot two-car garage. Also proposes a 49 square foot addition to the rear of the existing storage building and a new 899 square foot ADU. ADU is included for context only per state law. It's not eligible for our review. As well as a heritage tree removal to permit the removal of two heritage oak trees, which are located within the footprint of the proposed residence and proposed site improvements. And I'll make a note that this is actually probably one of the oldest houses in Larkspur. I think the original house was, if I remember from the report, it was built in 1866, which was the Lagras cabin, and then added in 1882, which is the other house. And then in 1889, it was made into a boarding house. Really interesting history. So the Murray family.

All right, let me share my screen here. All right.

Yes.

So the project before you for this item is PLN 25-027 for 9 Murray Lane. The project is basically all the way north along Magnolia and then just west along Murray Lane. It's right at the edge of the city jurisdiction. And there's a street view on the right there and then the overhead shot on the left for you. And as you've just heard, the project proposes an 1,814 square foot addition to the first story of the existing residence, which includes a new two-car garage and living space. There's a 49 square foot addition to the rear of an existing workshop structure and the new ADU, which is, again, included for context only. As it's designed, it requires the Planning Commission to approve design review and a heritage tree removal permit. And the site plan is here for you so you can kind of get your bearings. There was a similar project that I believe came before the commission a couple of years ago. And that was, I think, 2022. And that was under a previous owner and it was never completed. This is largely a very similar design, but there is no second story in this current iteration when there was a second story in the prior. And no second story, I should say, being proposed. There is a second story, obviously, on the existing house. And here are the floor plans for you. As I had mentioned, this wing being added by the project would include the two-car garage and then living space, bedrooms, office, living room. There is also some work being done to recreate a patio area along the eastern elevation, kind of one of the primary facades of the residence, and then the improvements to the rear patio. And then these are the elevations of the residence before and after. This is, I think, the most prominent elevation for the proposed wing. You can't really see it here. It's a little grayed out. My apologies. But the addition would extend all the way out here to the edge of the drawing.

This is the rear of the residence.

And then finally the front, this is what you would see as you get all the way down Murray Lane with the new two-car garage. and addition in addition to the design review request they do they are seeking approval to remove two heritage trees there's one valley oak with a 63 inch circumference and that is located at the front of the lot and a 60 inch circumference coast live oak which is located within the footprint of the proposed garage and so for both of these the the valley oak is in an area where the fire department is requiring a residential turnaround And so that obviously needs to be improved and graded and paved, which would kill the tree. And then the Coast Live Oak located in the garage, I think I noted in the staff report. Well, certainly there are ways to reconfigure in addition to retain it. Because it's a listed historic resource, that's really kind of important that we don't alter the footprint in such a way that it is incongruous with the historic resource itself or have any kind of issues with the primary facade and changing the layout of the residence. And so staff supports both removal requests. I believe there are a total of six trees being removed, but the rest do not meet the size definition of a heritage tree. And this project again was evaluated by an architectural historian who found it complied with the Secretary of the Interior standards as the historic house will be retained and preserved. The proposed work blends well with the existing and the original massing profile and roof lines remain unchanged. This was reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Board at their January meeting and they voted unanimously, excuse me, to forward a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission. You have received one public comment on this application from the owner of 601 College Avenue, and they are requesting assurances that the proposed drainage system is adequately designed to capture stormwater runoff as that has been an issue for them. And I will just note on that that the Public Works Department has reviewed the plans and found no red flags with their proposed drainage plan, and I believe the applicants have brought their civil engineer to discuss the matter a little bit further tonight. And with that, staff recommends that the commission hold a public hearing, consider testimony, discuss the project, and approve the project subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a class 1 and 31 CEQA exemption. And that concludes my report. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Do we have any questions?

I don't either. Mr. Polsky, I see, is here.

Good evening, Tom. I think it was a very well-written report. Thank you very much. This is our second go-around of this project. It needs work. It definitely needs work. And the Historic Preservation Board was very helpful. We followed all the recommendations. Jerry Hollan was our consultant. And we're here to answer any questions you might have.

Go ahead, Brooklyn.

Oh, our civil engineer, by the way, Glenn Enderth is here to talk about drainage.

Jared, just out of curiosity, how long has the house been empty? It's got to be six, seven years or more. Because I just, for yucks, I mean, long ago, I looked at remodeling it and ran afoul of the heritage board.

But I'm glad to see some things happening there. I don't want to wait too much longer.

fading away and you're right i think it might be the oldest house i think i think it is yeah it's uh it's been there a long time 1866 i mean that's uh not a lot here in 1866 you know i mean it was i mean you know not a lot um i don't even think the sawmill at uh end of uh You know, that was here, the original sawmill that they logged, I mean, that they took the logs to. I don't even think that was here at that point. Yeah, it's a long time. Tara?

I have no questions.

Just a few. In terms of the construction of the house, because it is such an old structure, foundational issues, do you have to get into the foundation of the old part of the house as well? Obviously, yeah, clearly. You're going to have to jack it up and build a new foundation. Yeah, I thought so. Could we hear from the civil engineer?

I'm Glenn Durth, principal at LTD Engineering. We designed the drainage system to be consistent with Marin County regulations for stormwater retention. There are two bioretention basins that are included in the project. one toward the rear of the lot that captures runoff from the rear of the lot, and one in front that captures the front half of the lot. The one in front will be a little bit unique in that it's designed to look like a river channel with some rocks and landscaping and so forth in it. There won't be any concrete walls or anything at all like that. So it should be quite beautiful. The discharge, if there is any from those basins, will go into the channel along Murray Lane. And the other part of the drainage system that we've designed is to capture runoff from the uphill properties. There's been historically some problems on this lot with runoff from those uphill properties coming down. And so we designed a series of catch basins along the uphill property line, and we've got an easement from a neighbor to carry that pipeline toward the creek in the southerly direction to the creek. So that runoff will be diverted to the creek. That's basically the concept, and we feel it'll be adequate and comply with all the regulations.

Pep discussed with the neighbor that had the complaint regarding, because it seems like they were not satisfied with the original Larkspur plan back, you know, a while back about how drainage happens there.

Right. And some, the town, I understand the city, um, constructed the concrete drainage channel along the side of their property to tie into the, the storm drainage system that carries it on out to the bay. And, uh, it it has sufficient capacity for the storms um i haven't heard of any reports of any kind of flooding problems on that that college avenue property since that was put in and so we're confident that it's that it's working properly okay all right great uh then could we have public comment

Good evening. I'm Lara Costello-Detals. And I know the history of the property. I own Murray Lane and have since the early 70s. My grandmother owned it before me, and she knew John Murray. And she was sued by 601 College for drainage because they are in a flood zone. And when the bank, what was it? the bank that was constructed by McLaren way back. That's what caused the flooding. Also the drainage. And so that's when the culvert, the cement culvert, was put in place. Drainage is a huge issue. Most of Kent Woodlands drains down Murray Lane, including I'm behind 9 Murray Lane. So we've put in extensive drainage for our property to drain not only our property, but everyone else above us that drains onto us. So you have all of Rancheria flowing through most of it coming down Murray Lane. So we have an extensive amount. So drainage is a huge issue and shouldn't be considered lightly. So the idea of the easement, is that it's a very limited amount of drainage that is to go into Murray Lane. And that is why the back end needed to happen. And so I guess they've been granted an easement by the Salters to go into the back area where it drains through my property. There's a channel there. So... That's that. So it's really important that the issue of drainage not be taken lightly. And it was understood by me and Julian Skinner, Public Works, he was to go through and figure out all the calculations on how much water was actually going to be added, newly added, into Murray Lane. So I trust in his calculations and approval. The property does has no drainage at this time. Never has. Okay. Just stating that now, as far as the heritage Oaks, I have a ton of heritage Oaks on my property. The heritage oaks mean a lot to me. I'm just opposed to the heritage oak, the coastline oak, the removal of that one because that's the privacy because I'm just behind them. And that's the very corner of my house is my master bedroom. And that's the only tree that gives me a little bit of privacy. So I am opposed to that. And then they are removing, if you look on... The page there, number four and number five of the trees. Number four is somewhat on the property line, kind of goes right through the oak tree. But number five is on Murray Lane. And that's being removed. And they don't have approval from me. That's my property. So they need to get approval. We need to have a discussion about that.

Yeah, let's make a note. Alex, do you have a comment on that?

I mean, yeah, she's correct that it is a private road.

So they would have to come to an agreement. I think we would view that as a civil matter. Right. Okay. So it's not really a planning commission matter.

Yeah, it's not a protected tree. So they could, as long as the two parties came to an agreement, they could remove it without a permit. Got it. I'm sorry, which is the one you say that grants you privacy number?

Which tree is it? I see trees one, two, three, four, five.

13, I can't.

So the one that's, it's where the footprint of the garage is. Is that the one you're...

It's the highest one.

But it's within the footprint of the garage.

Higher than that. I think so.

There's only four trees there with Xs on them.

So then what?

So there is, and one of the conditions of approval speaks to this. You're talking about this one I'm circling right here. That's actually proposed to be retained. The landscape, the tree protection plan needs to be updated, and that's one of the conditions of approval. It was originally proposed for removal, and then city staff indicated we wouldn't support that, and so they had revised it. So the arborist report that's attached does have the more up-to-date tree protection plan. No, that's not been added.

And that's number nine, Alex?

Number 12. Yeah, I could see why that would be an issue. But that's not being removed.

Okay, so X needs to come off.

Yeah, so that X will come off, and then it's these two in the garage. Okay, we have the revised report with that not being taken off.

Okay, that's not, okay. That's what I was looking off of.

Yeah.

Okay. That needs to be corrected. Okay. So that's it.

All right. Thank you very much. Are there any other public comments?

When you'd like to comment, please raise your hand. No hands raised on Zoom.

Okay. And we'll take it back to this time. We'll start with you.

Well, I respect the concerns of the neighbor who apparently owns the lane, which I didn't understand before tonight. But it sounds like there is a drainage plan. I'm not a civil engineer, so I'm going to have to defer to the experts and our own public works director. So I hope that they are correct. I am still a little concerned about what the email from the family at 601 College. They're saying that the drainage is not sufficient for the two homes that are there now. So... I am concerned about that, but I'm trusting that you guys have done the calculations, done the mapping. Because it sounds like it won't be a good idea if it doesn't work. You've got neighbors behind you and next to you. So I do think that the plan itself, you know, from a design review standpoint, you know, I agree with the heritage preservation that, you know, looks like it all matches. It's all going to be the right type of siding. Although I noticed that the historian kept saying that they assume. So I'm assuming as well that the siding and all the materials are going to match. And, um, yeah, I, I could make the findings for it. Okay.

Yeah. I, um, I, I think it's great that it's finally, um, getting it, uh, getting it what it deserves, which is to be put back in some kind of, uh, usable condition. So I can support it and I'm really happy. They kept it to one story on the edition. Um, So I, I can also support it.

Okay.

Uh, and I'm in agreement as well. I think it's a really nice design. It's a beautiful design, uh, which is consistent with your designs. They're really nice. Um, and I, and I agree with Brock. I'm glad it's not a second story. Cause I remember when it first came up, they proposed a second story on that thing and it's, it would change the look of the house. And I think it's really a well done, uh, house and obviously it deserves a lot of care given it's the oldest place in Larkspur. Um, And as far as I can make the findings for the tree removal in the footprint of the house, it's sad, of course, when you have to take a tree out, but I don't think that's... That's just, there's nothing to be done about that. And I'm glad we're keeping your tree, number 12. Drainage is a civil issue with the city. And hopefully, as everybody says, they'll do a good job and make sure. I mean, unfortunately, Larkspur's got a lot of hills and there's a lot of drainage that goes into people's houses, mine included. And yeah, good design is going to go a long way in improving that. So I can make the findings as well. So can you want to make a motion?

I would move approval of 9 Murray Lane, project number 25027, including design review and the heritage tree removal, except tree number 12.

I second.

All right.

Roll call. Okay. Commissioner Wagstaff?

Yes. Commissioner Hall?

Yes.

And Chair Swisher?

Yes.

Okay. The motion passes. Three yeses, zero noes, and two absences. The approval is subject to a 10-day appeal period. Interested parties can appeal the decision by filing the required form and fee with the city clerk. Thank you.

All right. Thanks, everybody. All right. Next item on the agenda is to approve the January 27 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Any comments on those?

No, it was a pretty straightforward meeting. I move to approve the minutes.

Rob, second.

I'll second it.

Uh, any, uh, objections? No. Uh, I think unanimous consent to approve the minutes of that meeting.

He still has to do roll call, doesn't he?

No, I don't think so for a minutes approval. No. Okay. No. Um, are there any planning commissioner reports? Seeing none. The next, uh, meeting, uh, item is, uh, next planning commission meeting is 7 PM on February 24th, 2026. Uh, Can I have a motion for adjournment?

I move to adjourn.

I'll second that. And I'll third that. Done.

You know what's interesting?