Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Larkspur Planning Commission for Tuesday, June 9th, 2026, 6.30 p.m. Can we please have a roll call?

Good evening. Good evening. Sorry. Commissioner Chalmers?

Here.

Commissioner Hull?

Here.

Commissioner Wagstaff? Here. Here. Vice Chair Campbell. Here.

Chair Swisher. And I am here. We have a quorum. Thank you. Excellent. And so the next item is public comment on matters not on the agenda. Any matters that are not currently on our agenda. This is the time to speak. Do we have anybody in the audience who would like to speak on a matter not on the agenda? Or do we have anybody on Zoom?

If you're on Zoom and you'd like to speak, please raise your hand.

All right, hearing none, do we have any community development directors' reports?

City Council interviewed candidates for planning commission at a special meeting held at 6 o'clock on Wednesday, June 3rd. They will be making those decisions at the next meeting on Wednesday, June 17th. So we will know who our new planning commission is.

How many candidates were there?

We had three candidates. Of the three, one of the candidates was willing to do heritage preservation as well. So technically, they had three candidates that were considered for planning commission.

We have one opening. Ms. Hall, this isn't your last meeting tonight.

Maybe.

Maybe. Well, thank you. Thanks for your...

Tuesdays, actually.

Oh, really? Wow. I mean, okay. Well, we'll see. Maybe not. Maybe we won't be crying tonight. All right. And next are the public hearings. Before we start public hearings, I just want to, because we do have a lot of people here who want to speak, we have a three-minute rule for about public comments. So just keep your comments brief. And if somebody says something, you don't necessarily have to come up and say the exact same thing again. I know people like to say the same thing, but you don't have to. So just we'll keep our comments to three minutes so we can get through the agenda. Yes.

And I live in the neighborhood. I can see the subject property, so I actually have to recuse myself. So I guess I'm leaving the room completely.

For the first item. All right. We will call you. All right. All right. So this first item is for 334 Riviera Circle, APN 022-222-04, Eric Layton applicant, Josh Riefener owners. And it's a public hearing request for design review to permit demolition of an existing 2,580 square foot, one-story single family residence to be replaced with a new 4,526 square foot, two-story single family residence. This item was continued from our May 26 meeting. So can we have the staff report?

Yes, good evening, Commission. As you just noted, this is a hearing on PLN 26-005 for 334 Riviera Circle. Just a reminder, this is in the Larkspur Marina, just south of the Corte Madera Creek, and there's a street view of the current residence for you on the right there, excuse me. So this project was first before you at your May 12th hearing. It was continued, and you had provided feedback to the applicant to reduce the height and bulk of the structure. And then it was agendized for the May 26th meeting. Unfortunately, there was not a quorum to hear the item. So it was continued again to tonight's hearing. So I just have a bit of a refresher here for you on the plans. We'll just quickly go over what's changed here. But it is a design review application as the project proposes to demolish the existing residence and construct a new 4,526 square foot, two story, single family residence with an attached garage. And here are the floor plans. The floor plans remain unchanged from your first meeting on the item. This is the first floor with the garage and general living areas. And then this is the second floor with the bedrooms. And then here are the elevations, which I think is where the changes are most notable. One of the things that the architect discussed at the last meeting was changing the roof design from gable ends to hip ends, and then altering some of the plate heights to reduce the overall height, which they've done here. So on the left are the earlier iteration of the plans, and then on the right is the current iteration showing, again, the hip roof and the plate height changes. And here are the side elevations. Again, left was the prior submittal, and on the right is the new design in front of you tonight. And then I just included a section drawing here so you can also compare. In this case, the section drawing on the top is the original, and on the bottom is the revised section. So you can kind of see how the plate heights have changed. And in all of these, I should have gone over it earlier. My apologies. But the dashed line shown at the top of all of these is the 30-foot height limit. So it's dropped.

I believe it's 28 and 1 half feet now.

You've received a number of public comments on this. I think it's seven in total across all of the hearings. They're all from residents in the vicinity who are opposed to the size and bulk of the proposed residents. They've all been forwarded to you. So with that, I'm going to conclude my presentation here. And our staff recommendation is that you hold a public hearing, consider public testimony, discuss the project, and approve it subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class III CEQA exemption. And I'm available for any questions, and the project owner and architect are here as well. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. Can we hear from the applicant owner?

Oh, wait. Oh, well, we have questions.

Oh, yes. Questions for us, for the group. Let's do that first. Brock, go ahead.

Just what was the height of the ridge originally? I think it was just under 30 feet. I think it was 29 and a half, and now it's 28.

It's 28, okay. So what I was trying to struggle with is the plates dropped a foot and a half, but the roof slope changed to 5 and 12. So by my calculations, it's a foot below on the ridge. It's minor stuff, but I just... I was curious if you got the same.

I can go through all we're discussing and remeasure and make sure that I've got the height. And six inches doesn't make that much difference.

Any other questions? More? Liam? Tamara? Okay, I don't have any. All right. Now can we have the applicant, if they would like to speak,

My name is Josh Rupert. Love the city of Larkspur. I moved here with my family. I got two boys, 10 and 12 years old. My wife and I, we moved here with the kids for the school districts. We love the Marina area. The house we got is just a little too small for our family growth. And that's, that's why we're proposing this project. I think we made reasonable concessions and I hope there's, you know, favor to that in this meeting.

All I have to say.

Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Thanks for hearing us this evening. Eric Leighton, the architect and applicant. I think what I'll focus on is the differences between last hearing and this one. How much time do I have? Three minutes total. Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm just glad I asked. So yeah, the feedback that we received, particularly from Brock, as far as the height and bulk and mass is what we've mostly addressed in this redesign. We did lower the first ceiling height by one foot. So the plate height by one foot. And then the upper plate height. was an additional six inches, but I have to say we're still at a 12 foot base floor elevation because of the flooding in our neighborhood. Officially it's 11 feet, but 12 is really what rationally needs to be done for new homes. Um, so we're starting at a one foot higher. Um, The issue with the slope of the roof, there was contradictory drawings. The site plan had shown a four and a half and 12, but the elevations were drawn at five and 12 and they actually show that. So it was a conflict, but the actual elevation shown and the elevation of the elevation marker was at 28.5 or yeah, 29.5. And so we dropped it to 28. So that was the conflict. And you can go through the plans and I'll verify that with you. So the overall height of it is still dropping 18 inches. But the ridge is much less of an issue when you view the building from below, the plate heights and surrounding. And the gabling down is a much, or the hipping down of the gables is a much bigger improvement or impact on the overall massing. Um, we've looked at the impacts on the neighbors, uh, just a couple other, um, points. There were some letters sent, but I also, there was some, two letters of, of support that I sent you this afternoon. I just, I didn't get a response back from you. They, they came in late. So we have two letters on the record. Um, one from, uh, the folks at 255 Riviera circle expressing support and also at, um, 80 Cortes del Bayo expressing support. And we also have some folks here that are supporting as well. In general, there was also a discussion from one of the letters from one of the folks with concerns about the FAR and had talked about the Overall massing, the FAR should be higher. And I look closely through the zoning and we've reviewed it many times. And that does not reflect the current zoning code where there's an alcove or if there is an atrium, apparently, totally within, that would be considered, but not a covered porch as drawn. Also, the stairs are captured twice. So I don't believe there's any mistakes on the FAR. Okay. So in general, the homes, and if I'm running out of time.

I mean, you're presenting. So I think people want to hear what you have to say. So you can have more than the three minutes.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah. There was also some graphs presented of the size of buildings in the neighborhood. And there's a number of homes that are of this size. The efforts that we've made with the original design to move the building back an additional six feet on the lower level, and then the upper level, an additional six feet. And it's wedding caked back on all sides. The original design, I think, is a really close approach to what the zoning code would like to see. Admittedly, the home is on the larger side of some of the homes in the neighborhood, but it's not certainly the larger by any stretch. There's many homes that are of that size, not many, but several. And so I do believe it's a reasonable design and it fits the owner's hopes and desires for their needs. And in general, I think it really does work to comply to all the zoning guidelines. And since the last hearing, the very specific guidance we received was make it less size and lower. And we did that very specifically. So I think we've responded in the way that was appropriate for for the commissioner's requests. And we have some other folks that would speak before, for you and for, and against, I guess the project, but I would like to save a little time for questions and clarifications. Sure.

So if that's, why don't we have, do we have any questions for Mr. Layton?

Tamara?

No. Okay. Why don't we have a public comment and then we can, what's that? Well, let's, I think he answered the size reduction. He said, you're lowering it, the plate height. Again, you'd want to go over specifically what again, size reduction we're doing.

So the height, the overall height is down 18 inches. The lower, the square footage is remained. There's no change to that. Okay. So you were correct. Yes.

Any other questions? So again, you lowered the plate height and you lowered the first and the second. Correct.

One foot on the lower level, which lowers the whole, all the surround perimeter. And then another foot or half an inch or six inches above. And the roof pitch remained. But the overall height at the ridge dropped 18 inches as well. But the overall plate on the upper level dropped 18 inches. And you changed the, from a gable to a hip roof. And that is a very big impact. Yes. And I think the elevations helped demonstrate that well.

All right. Thanks. So let's have public comment. Who would like to go first? Come on up and introduce yourself. And again, three minutes if you can.

Sure, so apparently I like to go first. I'm the next door neighbor, so I guess I'm most impacted by this. Thank you again for letting us speak here and be part of this process. I wish that we weren't here. I wish that we were here with more substantive actual regard to the conversation we had. The only thing that happened is that there's been a reduction of a foot and a half, not an inch of square footage was reduced at all. And more to the point, the massing issue was not addressed at all. So I think really cursory attention was paid to the discussion last week. um it's the same location it's the same mass there is still a compromise to the privacy to the light to the views to the openness in um to our home and to the homes around us um i told you last week i brought pictures that our bedrooms face bedroom windows with this design have windows going directly into our spaces, both on the top and the bottom floors, first and second floors. These are bedrooms. Now with this proposed design, we would have windows from the neighbors going directly, compromising privacy and just peace of mind. I also wanted to say that there is If anybody's been to Riviera Circle, you would see that every house, with the exception of one, which frankly has been discussed as something of an exception, some would say an aberration, that's 304, every house is set back. Every house is built with consideration for the neighbors around. It's a character of the neighborhood. Even our architect's home is set back like that. This house... absolutely has no consideration its design doesn't contemplate anybody's anybody's real needs except for its owner there's a character to revere a circle it was built in a way that respected neighbors privacy their access to the light the views around. And honestly, if this house is built as it is right now, there's a certain precedent being set, which means that from now on, any house that's built, demolished, can now be built with really no consideration to anybody else around, right? Maybe some consideration, but we're talking about So large, very large, and it's not true that there are many homes of this scale. I think this would be the largest, again, with the exception of 304, which is everybody's kind of, you know, agrees that it's an exception and a strange one. So I don't want to take more time. Obviously, I've got four seconds. But there has been no change, no change that I see, no change to me, no change to the neighbor to the left. This design continues to be really problematic, and it sets up a certain kind of standard that flies in the face of what this neighborhood is. So I would ask that you reconsider this The point is not just to meet certain kind of to-the-letter requirements, but also to consider the quality of life that those of us around have, right? So coming in and just sort of mathematically coming within a few inches of what's allowed It's really a very unfortunate trend, I think. So thank you so much. I think there'll be a lot of other people. And I also would ask that a lot of people took time and wrote letters. They're not being heard. They couldn't be here. So if you could read those letters, it would be really useful. And it would also speak to the openness of this forum. Thanks.

All right, go ahead and introduce yourself and where you live. Yes, my name is Keith Pollack. I live at 165 Riviera Circle in the neighborhood. And I'm just really quick, pretty simple. I think I've seen the plans. The house seems reasonable, the way it's set up and built. And I just have no issues with it. I think it'll bring value to the neighborhood. And I'm here to support it. Thank you.

Hi there. I'm Steve Horn, and I've lived at 321 Riviera Circle for 16 years. At the May 26th hearing, I believe Commissioner Wagstaff suggested lowering the overall height of this project by three feet. The revision submitted is not sufficient for the neighborhood. The mass height and lot coverage are excessive. The only home larger nearby is 304 Riviera Circle, and that's an abomination. Most houses near ours cover 35% of the lot or less. This one is at, I believe, 40%, not including the covered patio, which is going to make that number a lot larger. I believe Larkspur currently allows up to 40% lot coverage, but it should not be a target. Please require a reduction in size, mass, and bulk of the proposed project. Thank you very much.

Next. My name's Peter Andruskevich. I live at 28 Villa La Brisa in the neighborhood. I've reviewed the plans from Josh and want to speak out in support of the project. I think it is similar in design to the house two over, and I appreciate the changes that have been made to reduce the size.

Anybody else? Yes, ma'am.

Hi, I'm Jeannie Felton, and I live at 322 next door to Jasmine. And I just want to say that the people who live right around this house are the most impacted by it. And even though I'm two houses away, I can see the house, the... flagpole the flags very clearly and easily and it also blocks my view in the back and I don't want to repeat what everyone has said about the massive size but yes it is and I think I've lived on Revere Circle for almost 30 years, and it's an amazing neighborhood. We love living there. All of us do. And it does have a certain charm and atmosphere that we're afraid that all of these really massive homes going there for the size of the lot – really takes away from the neighborhood that we've come to know and love. So I just wanted to share that perspective as well. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Yes, ma'am.

Hi, I'm Sheila Markowitz. I've lived at 340, which is right next to Josh's proposed home for 17 years. And I have a concern in that the lot, the house being enlarged, the lot is going to now have less permeable land, which means water displacement is going to take place when the floods come in. And obviously, it's going to have to go somewhere. And it's interesting that it's not addressed in such a floodplain that we live in regarding the effect it has on other people's homes, what you do on your lot. So that's a concern. There's also the concern that Jasmine is losing her Mount Tam view. which sure you can say aesthetically sucks, but it also means the value of her property goes down because that's a huge selling point on Riviera Circle, Mount Tam. It's beautiful. We can see it. It's one of the reasons we buy the homes there. So those are just a couple of the issues that I had with it. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Anybody else want to speak? All right. Yep, we have one more. No, it's okay. Take your time.

I'm Ken Markowitz, Sheila's husband. I've been there 27 years to her 17. It's really been a long time, wonderful place to be, wonderful place for my son to grow up. He went to all of the local schools, including Salutatorian at Redwood High. The impact isn't just in what's being built, it's the noise and the trauma of people like me who are very much unable to get around and certainly not quickly on recovering from pancreatic cancer. One of the things that I'm supposed to do is get a lot of sun and hang out out on my deck. The pushback of the footprint of that house, this proposed build, makes it so that the upper story especially, from all three of the rooms. I keep talking about two bedrooms, but the big room right in the middle is an intended office where you look right down on my deck, which means there's no privacy for hanging out out there individually or with friends without being seen at any given time, night or day. That's not a pleasant thing. The noise and the inconvenience isn't a pleasant thing. I heard you talk about other bills that the Planning Commission considers with respect to parking and being around corners and whatnot. There's no alternative here. It's a straight stretch where when they did the house on the other side, in a way, it was fortunate. I was still working. I was a traveler. And most of my cases at the time were down in L.A. So I wasn't around all the time when the work was being done, but it was still incredible when the more recent build-out occurred. This is a complete demo. It's going to be a long duration with incredible amount of noise and inconvenience. I remember getting, during the course of the last build-out, three flats from nails left strewn all over the place from nail guns and whatnot. That's not acceptable. I can't even change a tire at this point. Something that I would have done routinely for my entire life. So to say there's no inconvenience or marginal inconvenience, especially if it's somebody who doesn't live on the street. I live right next door. This is not going to be a fun thing for people like me to endure. And the pushback of the footprint of that house makes this all the worse because we live to the back, to the water. You look at the front of my house, it's very nondescript except for a stained glass window reflecting Mount Tan. It's a stained glass of Mount Tan. But otherwise, it's nondescript. You don't live to the front to the street. You live to the back. And the obstruction because of the moving that house next door back toward the water and making it bigger and higher with no reduction in the size of it, none. It might be a little bit lower to the roof line, which in a minor way might help Jasmine on the other side to see Mount Tam. But in a major significant way, this thing is huge compared to what it used to be and what it was when I bought the property that I'm in and still live in. It could be a beautiful, wonderful place to raise kids, Josh's kids, wonderful kids, to go to like Neil Cummins or to go to Paul or to go to Redwood. And it doesn't need to be that big.

Okay. Well, thanks. You're a little bit over your time, but thank you so much for your comments. All right. Does anybody have any other comments?

You're on zoom. When you want to comment, please raise your hand.

Nope. All right. All right. Does anybody, Mr. Layton, does anybody have any other questions that they want to ask you before we bring it back to the commission? Sure. Why don't you come on up just because there's so many people commenting. Anybody have any specific questions for Mr. Layton?

Well, I've got a few things that I could respond to that might help. Sure. Let's see if you can do that within the three minutes. Cause I think it'd be helpful. Um, so I think, I don't want to put words in Brock's mouth, but he had suggested, I think two foot reduction. Um, but I, I don't recall, I don't, I don't want to put as far as the overall height and that's why we had found, uh, the, the 18 inches. But again, these were his, I don't want to put words in what you had said. Um, uh, maybe it's on the record. Somebody had mentioned permeability. That's absolutely addressed in this, and there's many, many checks and balances on permeability. In fact, this property, since it's a two-story now instead of a one-story, we're actually reducing the overall imperviousness of the property. And so we have to work with all the jurisdictions for that, and there's a lot more constraints. In fact, we're going to have to lighten the load by actually removing soil and then putting in lightweight concrete for the fill in order to maintain the weight of the building so it doesn't impact others. So there's a soils engineer, there's a lot of engineering involved in this that has to be done properly. So we absolutely are addressing those issues. As far as the siting of the upper story forward or back, I mean, we're sort of devil one person or the other as far as impacts. We would like to get it back a little bit so it doesn't impact the street view and then have impacts on others. We're how that as the gentleman at 328 suggested that we've got a concern for looking in his yard. So we're sort of trying to find the spot there. As far as the second story making it smaller or the overall structure being smaller, I mean, we would have to essentially take the story away to not have any impact on people's views of potential TAM. The views on the home that are to the south and east do maintain significant views, but some are taken, and that is the reality of it. I don't think we could substantively reduce the square footage to make the, those impacts go away. It's just not really possible. So those are some of the thoughts I had.

Okay.

Thank you. Okay.

All right. Let's bring it back to the commission then. Tamara.

I do not have any questions.

You do not have any questions.

Okay.

Liam. Yeah, first I want to say thanks to everybody for coming out and making your voices heard. We appreciate it. And, you know, it's the process of what we do here. So we appreciate it. So thank you all for coming out. What we're discussing today is, I guess, first of all, so the overall sort of aesthetic of the house, I think I like the design. I think the overall look of the house fits with the neighborhood. Some of the comments that we had last time were regarding sort of the size and the view impacts. I think that at the last meeting, I believe we... I recall a two-foot reduction in height that we had asked for. I think the hip roof really helps. So I guess I'm leaving the overall height. Maybe there's six inches to gain there. But the finding that we have to make is a difficult one. We're weighing the applicant's right to develop this property as he sees fit in accordance with the rules that we've agreed on in Larkspur in terms of height and floor area ratio and some of these other parameters. Overall, based on the rules that we have in place, they've met most of those rules. The one thing that we're reviewing today is the design review. The specific finding that we have to make is regarding significant and unreasonable loss or interference with these various items like privacy, light, and scenic views. I think that there's, you know, anytime a second story is built on a one-story house, there are going to be impacts to the neighbors, you know, no matter... no matter sort of where it is on the law. And there are things that the applicants can do and sort of concessions that they can make, like including a HIP proof and reducing the height to below what they're allowed to do by code. And I think that they've done those. I think, you know, they could make it a little bit shorter, but one of the reasons that it seems, I think, so massive is that they're required to build the pad, you know, the starting grade has to be, you know, three and a half feet, I think, higher than it is right now. And so that adds a lot to, you know, what it seems like from the street. But to me, that seems like something that's necessary and probably something that's going to happen house by house all throughout that neighborhood because of the flooding impacts that we saw earlier this year. So that I don't think I have a problem with. So I think overall, I mean, it's a tough one, but I think overall I can make the findings for this project. I'm sort of reserving to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say about the overall height because I think that we had requested two feet and we got 18 inches, but I'm interested to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say. So again, thank you all for coming out. We really appreciate it.

I'll also say thank you for coming out. No, it's dinner time for many people. So I think the architect has done a good job in terms of mitigating the bulk and mass of a rather large house. And Could it be smaller? It probably could if you start whittling off a foot here or a foot there, but I don't think, in fact, it would make much of a difference. I also think one of the issues with Riviera Circle in general is you have lots that include a lot of water. And so you have a little piece of land that... In theory, you have a big lot, but in reality, you don't. So these houses all look to me walking around pretty big and pretty close to each other. But I think the design takes into account as best it can the impacts to the to the neighbors and neighbors. Could you make other changes to it? Maybe. But I don't think it would really, in the final analysis, make any difference. And I like the design, so I can support the project.

I guess that leaves me. So I agree very much with Ian about the – Liam, I'm sorry. Liam, I keep calling you Liam. Liam, with the three-and-a-half-foot – increase in the base has to make a huge difference on how it appears from the bulk and massing of the house. It's just going to do that. And I agree that probably in the future, every single house on Riviera Circle in the next 25 to 50 years is going to need to do the same thing to mitigate the effects of climate change, global warming, and sea level rise. I know you guys are already putting up a huge amount of money in order to bulk up your seawalls, et cetera, to help mitigate that. But I think ultimately, water is going to go to its level. And I think that's what's going to have to happen to many of you. To address the specific concern about construction noise, I completely sympathize with you. We've had in our neighborhood a lot of construction in the last several years, and it really is annoying. However, people have the right to remodel their houses, and we can't tell people you can't have construction noise. It's just not... that's not in our purview to do that. Uh, but I do sympathize, um, with you, especially because you have been suffering from, um, cancer. I'm sorry about that. My wife is going through that now too. Um, I think the design is a good design. The only way, and I agree with Commissioner Campbell and WAG staff, that you would have to completely redesign the house to be a smaller house in order to assuage the concerns of the people who think that it's too big. I think this is unfortunately what's going to be happening on Riviera Circle. And whether the other house is an abomination, I don't know. I mean, maybe. But there's a lot of houses, if you walk around Larkspur, that have gone through this exact same thing with the exact same thing with the neighbors, you know, looking down from a second story. We remodeled our house a long time ago, our first house in Larkspur, and we cut off our neighbor's view of Mount Tam, and I feel horrible about that still. But... There is no rule in Larkspur that says you can't do that. So they've met the criteria for FAR. They met the criteria for height. So, you know, not reluctantly, but I'm sorry for those people who are impacted, but I can support this project as well. So there we have it. Can I have a motion? Are there any other comments from Citi at all? No. Okay. I have a motion.

I'll move to approve project PLN 25-047 for design review.

I move to approve project PLN 25-047 for design review. Which is it? Because the

All right, I'll do it again.

I move to approve project PLN 26-005 for design review.

I'll second.

Can I have a roll call, please?

Yes, Commissioner Wagstaff. Yes. Commissioner Hall. Yes. Commissioner Campbell. Yes. And Chair Swisher. Yes. Your motion passes four yeses, zero nos, one recusal. Your decision is subject to a 10-day appeal period. Interested parties can appeal a decision by filing the required form and fee with the city clerk prior to 5 p.m. on the 10th day. Okay.

Thank you very much for everybody who came out. All right, the next item on the agenda is 386 North Almanar Drive, APN 070-281-05. Alex Chen, applicant, Kevin and Hannah Schwaba, owner. Public hearing request for... Designer view to permit the addition of 648 square feet to the existing 2,814-square-foot single-family residence. The addition is located at the rear of the residence, includes a 130-square-foot addition at the lower level of the residence, and a 520-square-foot addition at the second story.

Can we please have the staff report? Would you like to wait until your commissioner is... Oh, yes, we have one.

Is somebody... Natasha?

I believe she's being fetched.

Is she being fetched? Okay, well, let's wait until she gets fetched.

Yeah, she's at the peso.

All right. Has everybody been to the peso since it's reopened? Yes? You did. Nice, nice. Yeah. I mean, they are far and few between our dive bars, right? 2 a.m. club, peso. That's about it. Natasha? Natasha?

It's kind of like the Watergate, right? She stuck a little piece of tape on it.

All righty. So as I said, the next item on the agenda is 386 North Almanar Drive. And the request is for the addition of a 648 square feet to the existing 2,814 single family residence. The addition is located at the rear of the residence and includes 130 square foot addition at the lower level and a 520 square foot addition at the second story. Staff report.

Let me turn on my microphone. This is PLN 26-013 for 386 North Almanar. This is all the way at the top of the Greenberry Hills. I've highlighted the lot in orange on the left there, which may be difficult to see on the overhead. And then the street view for you is on the right. So the project proposes to demolish approximately 175 square feet, an existing 175 square foot portion of the first story located at the rear of the residence and construct a new addition in the same location, which would be a total addition on the first level of 305 square feet and 520 square feet on the second level. The residence would have a total size, once this is completed, should it be approved, of 3,462 square feet. Here are the floor plans for you. This is the proposed floor plan. Unfortunately, I can pull up the existing if you wish to see it. Essentially, the existing room is kind of in between these, in the space of the office, and it's just being expanded here. It's this darker gray color is the expansion at the first floor, which contains the garage, bedrooms, and a crawl space. And then here is the second story. Again, the addition here is located at the rear, and this would expand a kitchen as well as a primary suite and a bedroom. And here are the elevations. The existing elevations are on the bottom in this case, and the proposed elevations are on the top. This is the street view. The main change here really is a pattern of window openings just above the garage. And this is the rear elevation. Again, you can see the area to be demolished on the bottom and the dashed lines and the addition as it's proposed at the top there. Again, it would mirror largely the same pattern of openings as the existing home on that elevation. And here is the east elevation, sort of face downhill. And you can see that, again, the addition is proposed at the top here.

It would match the existing roof pitch.

And then there's some reconfigured windows on the second story here. You've received five public comments on this project, all from residents in the vicinity, all in support of the project. And with that, staff recommends that the commission hold a public hearing, consider public testimony, discuss the project, and approve the project subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a class one CEQA exemption. That concludes my report and the owners. And I believe the owners are here in person. I believe the architect is available on Zoom, should you have any questions for them. Thank you.

Can we have the architect here? Oh, great. Nice. Hopefully somewhere fun.

Okay, Alex should be able to speak.

Hi. Good evening, Commissioner. This is Alex. I'm calling in Bobby. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Wonderful. Thanks. All right. Yeah, I'd like to start by thanking Alex for his input and help with the process. And also thank you for the staff report and your presentation. When we approach this project, we have three objectives. And, you know, first and most primary is to meet the functional requirements. which is to increase the house floor area for the growing family, and as well as to improve the flow of the house for a more spacious layout and just to do the whole renovation. And as far as cost saving, we strategically placed the addition at the area with minimizing grading and disturbing to the natural state of the site. And then third, while expanding, we're also keeping in mind the massing of the house for second story. We introduced the entire second floor to use horizontal siding. as opposed to stuccoing the whole second floor like part of the second floor which is what it is right now as well as to break up the roof ridge line and minimizing the building height by keeping them the height well under 30 feet max um and lastly as the staff report stated that the windows at the east elevation which are carefully placed for natural light and ventilations while not overly exposed to the surrounding and minimizing the loss in privacy. We believe that this design demonstrates restraint, careful siting, and responsive through unique topography of the area. Thank you. And I believe that my clients, Hannah and Kevin, they're also in-person and they like to speak a few words as well.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Hi.

Hi. My name is Kevin Schwabe. I live at 386 North Almanar. My wife and I moved in in June of 2020. At that time, we only had one child. We were pregnant when we moved, and our girls are now at Basich Elementary. We love it here. We want to grow. We want to stay here. We want them to go to you know go eventually go to redwood high right so um that's really what this is about is us you know wanting to stay in and we love our neighborhood we love our community and um we hope we can move forward thanks all right uh do we have any other members of the public that would like to speak yes

You can pull it down.

I'm afraid to break it.

No, you're not going to break it.

Hi.

There you go.

Oh, gosh. Take it off.

Yeah, just take it off.

Okay. Hi. So I'm going to read if that's all right. Sure. Okay. Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is Lisa Glebe and I live next door to Hannah and Kevin's house. I wanted to speak in support of their...

Sorry, I have to take my glasses off. Aging. Aging.

And I want to speak in support of their proposed backyard renovation, having reviewed the plans and discuss the project with them, I believe it is a thoughtful improvement that falls within the guidelines established by the city of Larkspur. As neighbors, we've had our own renovation project in recent years, and they were understanding and supportive throughout the process. While that alone isn't the reason for my support, it does speak to the kind of neighbors they are and the respect they have for the people around them. More importantly, I don't believe this project creates any meaningful negative impact on our neighborhood. The plans do not affect our property's privacy, views, access, or enjoyment of our home. To my knowledge, they also do not create any adverse impacts on the neighboring property on the other side. Conversely, that neighbor's house has a small outbuilding that looks directly into the backyard of Hannah and Kevin. The proposed improvements seem consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and represent a homeowner making reasonable enhancements to their property while remaining within the city's established regulations. If a project meets those standards and does not create a burden for neighboring properties, I believe it should be allowed to move forward. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am. Come on up.

All right. Thank you. I'm also okay.

Let's take it off.

Okay. Hi. Thank you for this. My name is Colita Wittenkeller, and together with my spouse, Mark Wittenkeller, we are the owners of 378 North Almanar. We are the property that is on the downslope of the Schwabas, and we share a fence. We've owned the property since 2011. We raised our daughter there, and we have no plans to ever sell. I always joke about we're never selling this house because we love it so much. We love our neighborhood. We love our neighbors. We have a lot of community in the neighborhood. We love the peaceful quietness of being on a cul-de-sac. And most importantly, we love our backyard. Our house itself is very small. It's around 1,500 square feet. But when you come out to the deck, it's like, wow, it's just beautiful. It's flat. We have a large pool. We back up to open space. It's quiet. It's really like truly our primary living area in the outside. It's our favorite place to relax, socialize, spend time together. Over the years, many of our friends, our neighbors, they've come to visit. They've enjoyed our backyard, including the Schwabas who've come over many times. Their daughters have swam. We are a very friendly, neighborly community. We also want to say that we're happy that they're going forward with this project. So I do want to just be clear about that. and that we support them in this endeavor. But the reason we're here tonight is due to we want to ensure that the privacy of our backyard space, which is our primary outdoor living area, is not intruded on by the proposed addition. As you guys know, there's a LARCS for municipal code. 18.64.055 subpart D that talks about compatibility with neighbors. And part of that says that the proposed structure or addition needs to avoid significant and unreasonable loss or interference with privacy, light, solar access, et cetera. We believe that the current plans do not meet this condition and instead create a significant and unreasonable loss or interference with the privacy in our backyard. The reason for this is threefold. The number of windows which face into our yard have increased more than 100% from two to five. The size of the windows have increased by a significant percentage from over the existing windows. And when you put the addition out, they now directly face into our backyard pool area. Title 18 also requires that the height, elevations, and placement of the site on the proposed structure or addition are compatible with the prevailing neighborhood character and scale. While we believe that the proposed addition is the way that our property lines are set up, and this is a little bit hard to explain verbally, but basically the street goes straight, and then there's a cul-de-sac, and the Schwab's house is at the beginning of the cul-de-sac, and so it's set back. So every other house in our neighborhood If they are to build or do extensions onto their property, it directly faces a roof or the side of a house. It doesn't face into a backyard. So that's what makes this unique. So we do just want to ask that the Planning Commission to ensure that our privacy is protected by requiring that the current plans be modified to reduce the number and size of the windows that are directly looking into our backyard. um to plant landscaping to block the views of our pool in our private outdoor space and to install window treatments that protect our privacy okay great thank you thank you anybody else are there any comments on zoom oh do you want to talk yes um

Commissioner Swisher, is it possible that I can have the illustrated version of the Jason scenes put up on the screen? Thanks, commissioners. My name is Mark. Kalita is my partner.

We can have you speak into the microphone just so we can capture it on the recording.

Thank you, commissioners. I also wanted to mention that the Dog Weeds are playing in Piper Park on Friday in the Larkspur Parks and Rec concert series. Don't miss it. What I wanted to do is... shows some adjacencies to describe a little bit more what my partner was describing about this unique situation about the Schwab's house built in the cul-de-sac, which brings their property further into the street. So this is 392 North Almanar, 386. And then here you can see 378. The home for 378 is in alignment essentially with all 12 of the remaining houses that go down the street. So this is a situation that only occurs at our property. And so that's why I wanted to bring this illustrated version of this so that you could see the way 392, 386, and then 378 are situated. Our house is about, 1,400 square feet smaller than 386. And we are just delighted that the Schwabas with their growing family are doing the expansion. But part of the COAs that I've drawn up relate some to constructability items, but primarily it's the privacy and sight lines that are directly into. The addition, if you can follow me here, this is a diagram only that shows the backyard. The addition is the 12th edition here, and it's about 28 feet long, and then it goes in about 4 feet, and then it continues along the back of your project. We love the expansion, and we've told them we are 100% behind them on the expansion. What happens is that the new upper floor just has really large windows that We have also talked to the applicant, Mr. Chen, about having one six foot square window in the kitchen rather than the seven foot eight or eight foot by five foot tall windows. This is just in an effort to reduce the glass line. Unfortunately, beginning my correspondence with the applicant, Mr. Chen, starting on May 17th, concluded with radio silence. So I wasn't able to communicate. I'm also an architect. and designer and permit and engineer. So I tried to speak engineering and architectural terms, and then he stopped communicating with me. In any event, what I'm just trying to do is show a little bit about what's happening with the property, why it's unique to North Almanar. Also about why the privacy in site lands are affected. The other ask on COA is that the glass line for the windows on the upper floor, is it possible that the planning principle could bring up the elevation of that sheet? Then I can describe where these windows are. I see it right. Thank you. I don't know if the commissioners can see it from there. Yeah. Okay. So we are looking at the elevation sheet called East. Mr. Chen insisted it's facing East, but it's facing South.

This window, great, no problem.

This window, problem, because it's really big. And this window immediately looks into the center of our backyard. These windows progressively, and they go further out, they look directly with sight lines into our house, not just in the pool or the backyard. My partner is very passionate about the backyard because our small house is really made better by having this outdoor space that we get to play in for six months out of the year. So I've probably taken way too much time, but what I wanted to do with the chair is to leave my list of COAs that I'd like to enter into the group. Some of those are construction mitigation measures. 340 North Almanar recently went through a large build Effectively, the contractor there, a great builder, had basically handymen to do the demolition and the work. And so anywhere where they did work that involved demolition, it was like weeks and weeks and weeks of work with very small hammers. So one of the items I'm asking as a COA from this board is that we ask to have a skid steer or larger equipment so that my family doesn't have to endure a handyman's demo hammer. with no regard for who's going to be the general contractor. Anyway, I'd like to just have that on a record. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. All right. Is there anybody else in the public who'd like to speak? Do you have anybody on Zoom?

If you're on Zoom and you'd like to comment, please raise your hand.

No hands. All right.

Oh, the architect did raise his hand. Okay, go ahead. Let's have it. You can respond.

It should be unmuted and able to speak, Alex.

Oh, okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, wonderful. So I just want to clarify a little bit of the number of windows on the east elevation. Alex, if you might bring up the east elevation on the screen, I think that would be helpful to demonstrate to the commissioners. Thank you, Alex. So we did exhibit, which is not showing on the screen, but I can read out. Basically, we did a exhibit of the area of the windows of the, first of all, the existing, which is the lower, which is shown. The first one closest to the street is 20 square feet window. And then the middle one is 25 square feet. And then the third one towards the backyard is 16 square feet window. So the total existing window area is 61, 61 square feet windows total. Whereas the proposed elevation, the first window, we reduce it down to 15, 15 square feet. And then the second window, it's the same size. It's also 15 square feet. And then the group of three windows, 12 square feet each, so 36 square feet. And then the last set of window at the kitchen is a group of 13 square feet, so 26 square feet total. So while calculating, adding up the new, and then doing the math, comparing to the existing, we actually increased by 31 square feet with the new addition. So that is a 51 square feet increase, not a hundred, I'm sorry, 51% increase, not a hundred percent increase. And we believe that, and the The amount of window increases mainly it's just for the, you know, at the kitchen area. And we, you know, we massage a little bit of the existing portion of the house. And we also raise the seal height at the dining room, the window at the dining room, the seal height is higher, actually that helps with the privacy. And as we approach the project, you know, and this is also the east elevation, and that's primarily what the view is for the house, looking out to the mountain view at the east, at the east-south elevation. So this really is, and also, you know, as you all know, the breakfast, you know, like the morning, we want to get the morning sun going to the house. So, and you know, we believe we being very sensible about placement of the windows and at the same time, we need those windows, right? Otherwise, you know, it's just not, it's just not a good design. So from an architect standpoint, I believe, This is the best design that we can come up with that will also be sensitive to the neighbor's privacy concern. So with that, I mean, that's what I'd like to comment. Thank you. Great. Thanks so much. All right.

Let's bring it back to the panel. So I guess we'll start with Brock this time.

Um, okay. Well, um, I thought this was going to be relatively straightforward, but, uh, so I guess maybe the question is for the architect is, is there a way to mitigate the window issue somewhat? And that would be raising the sill in the dining room. Um, which seems to be the one that would be most intrusive. The other one in the kitchen is the corner window. And maybe it's a matter of planting, but I can see the house really needs that light coming in, and particularly the dining room area needs something. So I'm just thinking about that at this point.

secure I'll you

All right. Yeah, well, again, thanks, everyone, for coming out and providing your input. We appreciate it. Um, I, uh, at first glance, you know, we're looking at a design review, um, from, from the front, really there's, there doesn't seem to be any impact, um, to, to, to most of the neighbors. I think it seems like the, the main sticking point, uh, seems to be the windows and, and, you know, looking at it from the side view, which I didn't get a chance to look at in person, uh, understandably, um, I can see why, given the topography and the elevation, that that would feel kind of intrusive, particularly the dining room window. I think the... The windows towards the street, there's one window there, and then there's the grouping of three, and then one additional sort of near the chimney that are proposed. Those seem to me to be pretty substantially similar to what's there right now in the existing condition that everybody has. here is, is currently living with, uh, and the condition that would be there if we, if we, you know, took no action tonight. So I think for me, this, it's, it seems like it boils down to mostly the dining room window, um, that that would be part of the new addition. Um, you know, there's, there's an existing deck there right now that, uh, seems like it also provides pretty easy viewing into the, into the neighbor's backyard, um, from somebody standing on that deck. It's, you know, putting in a wall over part of that view seems like it might actually help with privacy just because there are less vantage points of being able to see inside of, you know, into the neighbor's yard. So, you know, those are kind of my thoughts. I'm interested to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say, but it seems like there are, you know, it's an existing condition that there are some views into the neighbor's condition of the topography and Um, you know, it seems like a, like a, a reasonable, uh, ask to, to put a window, uh, where there's currently a view into the neighbor. So those are my thoughts.

You know, I also thought this was going to be fairly straightforward because I did not think it impacted anyone. Because when you view the property from the street, you can't see the back and you can't see the story poles extension and how it impacts the neighboring properties. But the Witton colors are here and they've raised an issue for them. I tend to agree with Commissioner Campbell that the kitchen windows, look substantially kind of similar. So it's really that dining room window. You know, I have something similar where I look into a neighbor's backyard and vice versa. And to be honest, I actually don't like it. So I don't want to see somebody else's backyard and see what they're doing in there. So I'm actually curious to see I mean, I don't know if there are any steps or what you're thinking to do with that window, whether you're going to put curtains on there or do something, frost it or do something, because it seems like that's the view that you want to look at. But I'm sure you don't want to look into the neighboring garden either or in neighboring backyard either. So... It does seem like maybe this is, and I don't know how much kind of we need to get involved in this, but something, whether there's some solution between the neighbors that they can come up with where you can protect the privacy next door and you don't look right into their backyard through that dining window. Yeah.

Dave Kuntz, Also, to add something to what you're saying. Dave Kuntz, it's a dining room so you're sitting down that the other houses below so you're really mostly going to be looking out straight you're not unless you walk up to the window and look look down or look look over I don't think. Dave Kuntz, I don't think you would see it particularly.

Dave Kuntz, Sure i'm camera.

I echo my fellow commissioners. I thought this was pretty straightforward until the Wittenkellers came and expressed their very valid concerns. You know, I only have a one-story house, so if I ever want to look at my neighbors, I have to peek through the fence. And my fences, I do occasionally get to look. So, I mean, I agree with... commissioner Campbell about, you know, the fact that there is the existing deck that is there, um, that's not going to essentially be replaced by an extension of the, of the, the house. Um, and you know, it's got furniture on it in this picture. So, you know, clearly it's a place that they entertain and now it's going to be enclosed and have a window. So, you know, it does feel like it would reduce some of the, the spying that could happen. Um, Yeah, I don't know what the solution is to what seemed like a relatively straightforward thing other than, you know, taller plants, trees. I don't, you know, does frosting the windows make it better?

I don't have a conversation.

Well, so these are my thoughts. I mean, again, I'll echo everybody else. I thought this was pretty straightforward. I like the design. I think it's a nice design. I think you need to have a window in the dining room so you can look out at the view. This is your view window. to look out into the distance. I agree with Brock that you're sitting down and you're not like staring at the window. I think you can mitigate this by planting on the periphery of the adjacent property so that you decrease the angle of the line of sight from that window. You could put several tall things that don't interfere with, you know, the fire regulations about keeping things close to your house. In fact, I think it would be nice landscaping there. It seems looking at those pictures that you sent that you need some taller trees landscaping on that side of the property. You could also potentially frost the bottom part of the window or you could also put those kind of Roman shades that go from the bottom up that could basically block the bottom view but still maintain the light. So I think that's something that you can work out with the neighbors. But I like the design. I think it's a good design and I wouldn't change it. So now you wanted to say something. Do you want to come back and make a comment? Yeah, we're reopening it to public comment.

Just final comments really quickly. So we actually did have a conversation with our neighbors, and we're very thoughtful. And the original design had the windowsill a lot lower. We rose it back to where it is today. So the dining room window is actually in a very similar position to where it is today. So we actually look into their pool right now, which we don't want to do. And so we actually moved the dining room window to the left. They have mature hedging. Um, that's actually blocks more of the view into their backyard. And we moved it strategically because we don't like looking at their yard either.

Yeah.

Um, so we moved it there and, um, we're going to do window shades. That's like definitely the option we off. We talked about, you know, maybe planting something. There's definitely some options there that don't require us changing the structure or the architectural plans.

Yeah.

But thank you for your time.

Thanks. All right. Very good. All right. Let us make a motion.

So can we encourage the applicants to communicate with the neighbors to find a solution or at least tell them what you've come up with, like with your Roman shades? I think that would be helpful. Great.

okay great yeah i think i guess i think just to wrap it up for the findings i think for me i can make the findings for this project because it's uh i don't i don't think that it's um you know a significant detriment to you know the um what are the exact words the the public health safety and welfare of the people um it's not you know significantly impacting the neighbors because there's already an existing deck at that location so Yeah, that's my rationale for making the findings.

Well, we're kind of close to comments at this point, I think. But we allowed the applicants. So go ahead. You can make a comment. Sure.

Thank you. So the deck is about 10 or 12 feet further east. in the parlance of Mr. Chen, it's further west. So it's quite a bit further back, but all due respect. I would like, is the applicant still on the line here? Mr. Chen, are you still on the line?

Well, I don't think so. Let's just, let's wrap this up pretty quickly.

Okay. I would definitely like the applicant to provide some obscured glass alternatives that we can see so that there is obscured glass at the very bottom of the dining room windows. So that's all I would ask to be on the conditions of approval. Not obstructing the view. This is not to obstruct the view. It's the lower third of the windows that we're going to respectfully ask that would be a conditions of approval. I'd like also the four COAs that I gave to the chair, I'd like those to be put into the city record also.

We could put that into the record. I don't know if we've had time to really adequately look at the COAs. I mean, I can read them out so that they're on the record as a spoken thing. Do you want to wrap up the public? Yeah, let's wrap up the public meeting.

Okay, no, all I ask is if that could just be entered into the city's record.

That sounds great. Let me read them so that we all understand what we're talking about. COA 1, due to significant elevation differential between 386 and 378, the proposed upper floor windows create direct application to reduce the glass exposure on the property line of upper windows by 30%. That's one COA. And I'm reading them in. We're not putting them into the proposal. I'm just letting you know this. We're reading into the record. 1.7 is very specific. 1.7-inch glazing line for the inset upper windows and downhill-facing windows. to 80 inches except for the five square foot kitchen window. COA2 Larkspur, well, this is very specific, skid steer to ensure efficient demolition of the existing house foundation and patio that 378 households supports, site recent construction on our drive with small demolition tools, extended periods of loud noise for all neighbors. Okay. And COA 3 is water management drainage. Four-inch schedule, 40 drainage is inadequate, shall be described, six-inch solid pipe drainage system. Well, this is really not within our purview from a Planning Commission standpoint. This is an engineering issue. yeah yeah i'll just put it on record yeah we'll put the document into the record okay um all right thank you um all right so uh can we have a motion natasha um i i actually would move approval of um pln 26013 um as presented

And, you know, the neighbors can work out whatever, but I don't want to add in conditions of frosting windows 18 inches up or anything like that.

So do you want to make a motion, Brocknell? I did. Okay, great. Anybody want to second that?

Do you want to specify as presented in the staff report?

Yes, as presented in the staff report.

I'll second.

Okay, great. Seconded.

I second.

Yeah, let's have a roll call vote. Commissioner Hall? Yes. Commissioner Chalmers? Yes. Commissioner Wagstaff? Yes. Commissioner Campbell? Yes. Chair Swisher? Yes. Okay, your motion passes. Five yeses, zero noes. It 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 before 5 p.m. on that day.

Thank you. All right. Next. Yeah. Mm-hmm. All right, let's see. See, the next application is 25 Onyx Court, APN 021085-68, Wanchosi Isidoro Jr. applicant, Armand, owner. This is a public hearing request for design review to permit the construction of a new covered porch and enlarged bay window on the front elevation of the residence and a new roof deck above the existing ADU. There was an FAR exception to permit a property with a floor ratio of 3.362, 2,869 square feet, where 0.09, 712 square feet is allowed. The current FAR is 0.302 or 2,395 square feet. The additional floor area is created by converting an existing crawl space into an office and expanding a bay window. Can we have the staff report, please?

uh yes let me just a moment here right here okay Okay, good evening commissioners. As you've just read the item before you is PLN 26-009 for 25 Onyx Court. This is located in Madrone Canyon.

Again, I've highlighted it for you in orange here on the screen.

And then it's difficult to get a street view. So there's a 3D view of the property for you on the right. The project seeks a design review entitlement and a floor area ratio exception. The project would result in the construction of a new covered porch, which you can see on the site plan here in this kind of lighter gray box at the bottom, an enlarged bay window, which is in this darker gray just to its right, and a new roof deck above the existing ADU, which is shown here in this white box just behind the car deck. Not pictured on the site plan because it's not really a change to the footprint is the conversion of interior space, which has necessitated this floor area ratio exception. So here are the floor plans for you. This is the lowest level. This is the area where there's garden storage or crawl space that's going to be improved and turned into a 294-square-foot office. The proposed floor plan is on the left, existing on the right. This is the middle level of the home. And again, as you can see on the existing, there's a large kind of crawl space area here that is going to be improved and shrunk down, which also creates additional floor area. And then this is the upper level. The only real change here is, again, the covered porch, which is just right out front here with a post to hold it up. And then a large bay window that goes from, you know, it's being squared off, essentially. This does increase the floor area beyond what is allowed due to the slope of the lot. It all comes from that bay window and the digging out of these crawl spaces. There is no additional addition that's creating this floor area. Okay. Here are the elevations for you. This is all existing. So on the top right here, this area with kind of the lattice siding, that is where that garden storage crawl space is on the bottom that would be improved. And I'll have the proposed for you in just a moment. And then just below that elevation is the front elevation, what you can see from the street, with the existing bay window and existing entrance, which does not have a covering on it currently. The only other thing I'll note in here, it doesn't require approval of an entitlement, but they are going to be moving some earth, not enough to trigger a slope use permit, but they are going to fill in this area to the north side of the front facade in order to create a more level entrance. Here are the proposed elevations, and I can flip back and forth between them if you'd like. Again, here's the new bay window on the bottom right, new covered porch, and the area to be filled here shown in kind of a darker gray.

And then the proposed office area is shown here just above that front elevation.

And then you can see the outline. Let me zoom in here. This would be the outline of the roof deck above the existing ADU. And the ADU beneath it is shown in this kind of dotted line here. You've received no public comments so far on the project. So with that, staff recommends that the commission hold a public hearing, consider public testimony, discuss the project, and approve it subject to findings, conditions of approval, and a Class 1 CEQA exemption. That concludes my report. The owner and the architect are both joining us via Zoom today if you'd like to hear from them.

Great. Do we have any questions?

Can we talk about the staff report? No?

Good. All right. Who would like to speak first?

OK. The owner has raised his hand. So Armand, you should be able to unmute and speak. All right. Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioners.

Yeah, I'm Armand Ruiz. I'm the owner of 25 Onyx Court. And thank you, Alex, as well for the guidance with the project. This is where we live with my family since 2019 when we bought the property. And yeah, our goal here, we've been planning this remodel for a few years. The house is pretty old. And our goal is to optimize the existing space with, as Alex mentioned, the exception of that front porch and the big window. So yeah, we're here with Juancho, the architect, to answer any technical questions you might have. Thank you.

OK. And we have the owner.

That was the owner. The architect has raised his hand. OK. Juancho, you should be able to unmute and speak.

Commissioners, thank you, Alex. My name is Juan José Isidoro, Jr. I'm the architect. Actually, Alex's presentation is pretty clear and concise and complete. The only thing I wanted to add is that about the mass and bulk or the increase in the so-called increase in the mass and bulk of the existing building, there's an existing Oriole bay window, a suspended bay window that's not supported on the ground on the bottom. And the existing bay window is only eight square feet. And we're actually removing that, making a rectangular bay window. And that increases to an additional eight square feet, so a total of 16 square feet new. And then in addition to that, just to the left of that bay window, we're proposing an open porch. And that's 48 square feet. We're adding a roof over it because the existing house entrance doesn't have any roof over it. So it'd be nice to have one. Other than that, just like Alex said, most of the increase is within the existing building envelope. And that's about it. I'm here just in case you have any questions for me.

Do we have any questions for the owner? Okay. Do we have any public comments? Good.

Good evening, Council Members. My name is Mar Pesetti, and I live at 21 Onyx Street, and my backyard faces the rear property of 25 Onyx Court. I've lived in my home almost my entire life, Unfortunately, the ongoing developments at 25 Onyx Court have completely destroyed the quiet enjoyment of our neighborhood. Because of the local topography of our home sits below theirs, meaning sound travels downwards and amplifies. The construction noise has been near continuous for the last several years. First came the ADU. When the neighbors expressed concern, the owners assured us in writing that it was for their aging parents, while telling other neighbors it was going to be a home office. Instead, it has been used as a consistent short-term Airbnb rental. The influx of rotating guests combined with ongoing unneighborly disruptions, including me having to regularly clear their children's toys and dog toys from my own yard, has rendered my backyard completely unusable. The space no longer offers privacy or peace. The ADU already features a large window that looks directly into my guest bedroom, forcing us to keep our shades permanently drawn. Now the owners are asking for a variance FAR exception to add a deck to this short-term rental and convert the storage space into an additional room with a private entrance. The new addition would feature a window looking directly into my guest bathroom and master bedroom. Furthermore, given the history of this property, there is a legitimate concern that the new space equipped with its own private entrance will simply become a second short-term rental unit. This is entirely unnecessary given that the owners just finished remodeling their main home that includes a study and a den. Their home is already large enough, granting an additional floor area ratio to this property will cause severe irreversible impacts on the property, quiet enjoyment, and quality of life for the surrounding neighbors. I strongly urge the council to deny this request and protect the character of our neighborhood. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other comments? Yes, ma'am. Why not?

Hi. I'm a terrible public speaker. I apologize in advance.

Hi, my name is Lauren and I live next to 25 Onyx. I'm asking the Commission to deny the FAR exception and deny the roof deck. The property already exceeds the current FAR limit and the applicants have already received an FAR exception with their ADO that was approved. Now they're asking for the additional square footage and a roof deck on top of the prior exception. This matters because they asked the city for special approval, but this is not something that... Sorry. The commission has decided... I apologize. I'm sorry. I'm not good at this. I'm terrible at reading in public. When the original ADU was proposed, the neighbors had the opportunity to object because it was also requiring an exception. But there was no meaningful neighborhood objection at the time because the applicants went door to door and reassured people with explanations that didn't match what actually happened. We were told that it was going to be a home office that was built under the existing carport. Another neighbor was told it was for elderly parents. Another neighbor was told it was for live-in childcare. And there was a written note that said the ADU would be accommodating their parents. Had the neighbors all known that the ADU would become a continuously occupied rental with weekly turnover, privacy loss, light impact, there absolutely would have been a stronger objection to the original FAR request. And that is not speculation. The ADU became an Airbnb rental. The city has already investigated it, the property, and cited and fined the owners. Since then, the Airbnb listing may say 30-day minimums. And when neighbors ask the occupants how long they're staying, they very quickly say 30 days. But from what we have observed, and it's very easy to observe since it's four feet from our property, that many of these people are not staying 30 days and the majority are not. There's a continued restation of occupants and visitors, often only there for short periods of time when the new arrivals. So from the neighbor's perspective, this behavior is not... there has not been any meaningful change. It still functions like a revolving rental with not stable housing. The existing ADU has already created real impact and a large plum tree that previously created privacy between our properties was removed. The ADU windows look directly into neighboring yards in our home. The structure blocks light into our garden and the ADU entrance has provided removed privacy from our outdoor living area where occupants and visitors come and go. The proposed roof deck would make that much worse. Right now, the entrance is an intermittent privacy problem. A roof deck turns that into an elevated outdoor living area where people would gather and look down into our neighboring yards, extending that. This is not a minor design detail. It's become a new outdoor amenity that directly worsens the privacy impact neighbors are already living under. It's also unnecessary. This property already has outdoor space. The main house already has a new balcony. They do not need another elevated outdoor space over their ADU, especially when the existing ADU has already created privacy, light, and rental use impacts. I understand this hearing is not about the undoing of the ADU, but the history matters because of what they're asking for now is more. They've already received one exception. The result of the exception has not been what neighbors were told it would be, and the impact was not very clear. This should not compound that first exception by approving another one. Nothing about this feels respectful to the neighborhood or the neighbors and the people already living there that are impacted. And additionally, more floor area does not solve the overbuilding problem. Adding the roof deck does not solve the privacy problem. It makes it worse. So I ask that you please deny the fair exception and deny the roof deck.

Thank you. You're quite good at public speaking, if I must say so.

I can't read. It's like I do this. No, you're extremely good.

All right. Next. Hi, my name is Derek Brown. I live on Onyx Street. I have nothing prepared, so I can't mess it up reading it. My comment is that we have clearly observed loud music, but also noise coming from the property. Didn't know that it was rental because we don't have direct access to that. Learning it and you can look at it on Airbnb right now. You can look at the history and there are a lot of people that are saying they were there for a very short time. clearly not an acceptable thing to do here. And now that I know sort of connecting those dots, like, okay, wait a second. Now they want a roof deck. They want more open area. It's a very quiet area where we are, extremely quiet. And this breaks that down pretty dramatically. So again, certainly encouraging the folks here and supporting the nullification or rejection of this, whatever the right terminology is. It's not good for the neighborhood.

Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak? All right.

Anybody on Zoom? You do have one hand raised on Zoom. It's a phone number ending in 1402 that should be able to unmute. Speak now.

James Holmes, Larkspur. I question the roof deck. In general, roof decks are features that are ill-suited to an area like Onyx Court with small lots, steep slopes, houses almost on top of one another, and in the canyon where noise reverberates. Roof decks supersize the impact of second stories. They really belong on large lots. For good reason, they're scarce in Larkspur and in several cases the Commission has encouraged their removal. Now, it's true that this roof deck is essentially at the same height as two other decks on the house, but that fact cuts both ways. The applicant's property already has ample facilities for outdoor enjoyment, big decks on both the main floor and the bedroom floor. By contrast, this roof deck which isn't even actually directly connected to the house, is a potential interference of acquired enjoyment of the adjoining properties and other nearby houses. The staff report says that privacy impacts are mitigated by vegetation, but customarily the commission has not relied on vegetation for screening because it can be cut, and there's not a lot of vegetation between the deck and the adjoining house. Furthermore, Roof decks project noise in all directions. Notably, the one neighbor supporting this project is on the opposite side of the house from the roof deck. I certainly wouldn't want a roof deck directly next to my house, and I suspect others wouldn't as well. This roof deck at this location is both unnecessary and poses potential privacy problems as a noise nuisance and is not conducive to the general welfare, hence the relevant Findings relating to unreasonable impact and general welfare are not met here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Holmes. All right. Anybody else?

We have no more hands raised on Zoom.

Could we please bring it back to the Commission? The owner did raise his hand if you would like to hear from him. Sure. One comment. Go ahead.

Yeah, just one quick comment regarding the Airbnb. I just want to clarify, we made an early mistake. And as soon as we received the warning from the city, we corrected it. We fully understand the rules and we have complying on the 30-day minimum rule. And we have the leases to share if you have any questions. And other than that, we are happy to work with you on any, we have flexibility on the design.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, let's bring it back to the commission. Let's see, where do we want to start this time? How about Tamara?

I think that Mr. Holmes makes a very valid point about them already having plenty of decks on the back of the house. I understand that I think it technically meets the findings for design review, but I think that the neighbors have pointed out that it does not meet the findings, at least in my opinion, for the design.

They're asking for an FAR exception.

Yeah. And that's all we have is design review and FAR exception. Okay. I'm stumped.

You're stumped. Okay. Natasha? Natasha?

So when I was reading this, I was concerned about sort of the creep effect that the applicants had come in for one application and then they'd now come in for another one. And I think this is the third time they've come in and whether if we saw them all at the same time, it would be excessive or not. And I called into staff to ask about that and was sort of reassured that it wasn't that, that isn't the case. I have to admit that if I hadn't heard all the neighbors' comments and I had just seen this on the face of it and not knowing everything I have heard today, I probably would have approved it. Um, I really don't like hearing what's happening though in the ATU. Um, I don't think that's in our purview though, and that's a city issue. Um, but it's been, I mean, I do see that the deck is not connected to the main house. Um, so I'm curious as to why that has to be added there given there's so much additional space outside. Um, It's more tricky than, I agree with Commissioner Hull, it's become a little bit more tricky than when I started. But I also go back to that, my original thought of they've come in a few times or at least a couple times. And I'm not sure where that sort of goes from here.

If you'd like, I can just briefly go over the history of submittals, so everyone is aware.

Would that be helpful for the Commission? I mean, I already had this call already.

Yeah, so the applicant, I believe, initially applied, I think it was 2021, 2020, somewhere, you know, five years ago or so, for an application that did come before the Commission. That was related to the creation of this ADU under the parking deck. They were scheduled to come before you maybe about a year ago, somewhere in the recent history, and they withdrew that at the last minute. So this would be the second application. And really, that first application, if it came in today, it would all fall under the state law for ADU. So it wouldn't have been a hearing.

And I would say, I mean, I think one of the reasons why we initially, when I looked at this and I thought, well, this is one of those really steep lots, so it's really hard to make it a fair FAR requirement. And we as a commission have been looking into this to try and make this more fair for homeowners that are on these really steep lots because they don't get to build and they have to get an FAR exception to build something that makes sense. The question then is, where do you draw that line? And I don't necessarily have an answer right now, but it seems like it maybe wasn't exactly where I thought it was at the beginning of this meeting.

Okay, Liam.

Yeah, so as Commissioner Chalmers just mentioned, we've struggled with the FAR on hillside lots here. I won't go into it, but there's lots of videos on YouTube of us talking about it from up here. But with that said, I mean, first of all, I don't think an allowed floor area of 700 square feet is appropriate for this site. And I think most people in Larkspur would agree. But... Really, the additional floor area for this application comes from enclosing a crawl space, which I think is, frankly, a pretty good way of getting floor area without severely impacting neighbors. As we've seen today, it's much less impactful than going up, certainly. And also from the bay window. and the porch, which are also, I think, pretty minor additions. So I think I can make the findings for the floor area ratio exception based on our past discussions. And I am looking forward to the day when we have a firm limit on floor area ratio and we don't have to make exceptions like that anymore. So I guess it goes back to the design review. As I said before, the porch and the bay window, I think those are reasonable additions to the main house. So for me, it comes down to the roof deck portion of the application. I agree with the folks that have spoken already. you know, if I hadn't heard everyone's concerns here about what was going on at the property, you know, it seems like a, you know, they're not building another story, so the impacts might not be so great. But, you know, I agree with Mr. Holmes that, you know, I wouldn't particularly want a roof deck, uh, next to my property. So, um, you know, I wonder if there's a way that we can address some of the concerns. Um, and, and also wanted to add that some of the items brought up tonight are not really within the planning commissions purview, uh, for example, like short-term rentals or neighbor noise or, um, you know, construction noise or, you know, people putting their belongings in your yard, stuff like that. That's not something that we're at liberty to consider. It sort of helps bring context, I guess. But, you know, whether or not we... regardless of our action tonight, those sorts of issues aren't, are something that the city is, is, uh, responsible for, for dealing with. And I'm sure your communication with the city is appreciated. Um, but it's not really within the purview of the planning commission's decision for tonight. So just wanted to sort of put it out there.

Um, I agree basically with everything that was just said. And, um, I think this is another one where I thought this was going to be relatively straightforward and simple. And in reality, I think it still is. I think capturing space is a worthwhile thing to do, and it doesn't actually change anything visually, really. So I think I can make the findings for the expansion of the floor area. In terms of the deck, I can see where potentially you could party and it could be noisy to the neighbors in the area, but that's not something we're in control of. So my initial thought, again, was that the deck is okay, and it's a nice addition to the ADU area. So in the final analysis, I'd probably approve both.

Okay. Well, I am concerned about, as a neighbor and a Larkspur citizen about the fact that there has been short-term rentals. Again, it's not something the planning commission is, you know, that's not our purview. It's the city's purview. And I think that the city needs to investigate that and that they need to be sure that that no longer occurs because it is a significant decrease in the value of property of your neighbors. And it's not a nice thing to do, especially since Larkspur rules don't allow it. again I agree I think increasing the square footage by digging out the crawl space to enlarge the office is fine and the same thing I have no problem with the bay window I do have a problem with the roof deck I don't think it's needed I agree with Brock, that it's nice when you can have it. But in this particular case, I think it does deprive the neighbors of enjoyment of their land. And it's like directly over them because it's a very, I've been out to that site, it's a very steep slope and you look straight into the neighbors. So I would call for a modification to not allow a roof deck over the ADU, but approve the FAR.

I would actually agree with that. The other thought I had was whether we wanted to, but I don't think we can do this. I'm just sort of thinking out loud, is continue it to allow the city to look into whether there's anything going on with the ADU and then have them come back. And maybe if they want to modify the plan to take out the roof deck. That's another just way of looking at it.

Yeah, go ahead. You were saying?

We do have a hand raised online from the architect if you want to take that. Sure.

Go ahead. Hello again, commissioners. I just was chatting with the owner about that roof deck. So we're willing for a condition of approval to remove that roof deck above the ADU. It seems like it's more focused on this in this meaning on that deck than the actual uh you know uh changes or you know proposal to the main house so we'd like to get rid of that and make that as a condition to remove the roof deck and that's okay with the owner okay that's great thank you thank you all right um so um any further discussion

I mean, can we make a recommendation to have the city look into?

Well, we look into it no matter what.

You'll look into the ADO.

We'll hear about this. Yeah.

Okay.

There's no need for a condition that's already prohibited by code.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

All right. Well, let's have a, whose turn is it to make a?

I can make a motion.

Natasha, go ahead.

Actually, I haven't got the paper.

I'll go for it. Okay. I move to approve project PLN 26-009 subject to the findings and conditions of approval, including removal of the 325 square foot roof deck over the ADU.

I'll second. Okay. Roll call. Commissioner Wagstaff. Yes. Commissioner Campbell. Yes. Commissioner Chalmers. Yes. Commissioner Hall. Yes. And Chair Swisher. Yes. Your motion passes. Five yeses and zero noes. Your decision can be appealed. Interested parties can appeal this by filing the required form and fee with the city clerk before the conclusion of the 10-day appeal period. Okay. Okay.

All right. The next item is business items. We have to approve the May 26th. If you want to, you're welcome to stay or you can leave, whatever you prefer. May 26th, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.

Yeah, I'll make a motion too. And the minutes are so simple now. You're just relying on the video. Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of May 26.

I'll second.

All right. I think we can do this by acclamation. Everybody agree? Yes. Okay. All right. Do we have any planning commissioner reports?

When's the next meeting?

When is the next meeting?

It's all a surprise now.

We're having three more meetings in June.

Yeah, I mean, I guess could we poll you for... I'm still investigating if we will have enough projects for an agenda, but could I poll you for June 23rd if people are available or not?

What day? June 23rd?

June 23rd.

No.

I'm available.

I can do it. Thank you.

Cheers. Yeah, I'm available.

What do you have on the... Is it a lot?

I don't think it will be a lot. At this time, I can think of maybe one thing.

For some reason, I didn't have that on my... I had...

Okay.

We have four out of five.

Who can't make it? Me. Me.

My wedding anniversary.

Your wedding anniversary? I'm going to be married to you. You want to get married to me?

You'd regret that. It sounds like we have a quorum for the 23rd. I do also want to check, while you have your phones out, July 21st. This would be an off-site meeting at the Krebs conference room.

Why? What's happening? It's like... Oh, no. Oh, it's the. Yeah. Oh. Oh, right. OK.

So we're polling you because we we may be holding a special meeting on Tuesday, July 21st. Yeah, and it would be off-site. It's called the Krebs Center, right?

Yeah, it's at Redwood.

Krebs Conference Room. And it would be either on the 21st, which is Tuesday, the 21st of July, or it would be your regular August 11th meeting. But we may need to have a special meeting on the 21st for it, depending on room availability and other factors. And we're just polling you to see if you're available on the 21st, if we do have a special meeting at that location.

I can do the 21st, but I'm not in town. We'll take a vacation that week.

So nobody will be here that week or just to... Oh, on August 11th you won't be here.

Personally, I'm not there, but I will be available for the July 1st.

July 21st. Okay, so everyone would be available if we had a special meeting on July 21st?

Okay.

That's very helpful.

No.

Well, I know you're not going to.

So who, oh, we don't know.

No, they're going to pick somebody next week.

I wish I'd watched it. I watched it. It was pretty good. I could go and actually see it, but I didn't know. Yeah, you can watch it. Yeah, I know, but yeah. It was only three applicants.

Yeah, it was only like 40 minutes.

All right, Jeff.

Yeah, we can move on. All right, very good. All right. So the next item on the agenda is adjournment.

I move to adjourn this meeting. I'll second. I'll second.

And by acclamation, we're adjourned. I hit the thing. Okay.