Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Excellent.

Here we go. And we have an echo. I don't like echoes. All right.

Nope.

Just turn your laptop audio off. All right. There we go. Awesome. all right welcome to the uh regular meeting of the larkspur planning commission of tuesday may 12 2026 uh in lovely larkspur city council chambers um so first we have a roll call

Commissioner Hull?

Here.

Commissioner Chalmers?

Here.

Commissioner Wagstaff?

Here.

Vice Chair Campbell? Here. Chair Swisher?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Excellent. Thank you. Are there any public comments on matters that are not currently on the agenda? This is a time for anybody who wants to discuss any matters that are not currently on the agenda to speak now or forever hold your peace. All right seeing none. Can we have any community development directors reports.

Members of the planning commission. We. Just kind of an update general update in front of all of you is a flyer for the next planning Commissioner training it's scheduled for Monday June 1 and there's a schedule and a registration link for you. This is hosted by the Marin county housing working group, and I hope you all are able to attend. And then also, we had a special city council meeting last Wednesday, and among the items on the agenda included budget presentations, so the library and recreation department gave a budget presentation, and as well as administration, and the next council meeting will be community development and public works for budget presentations.

And with that, that concludes my report.

All right. Excellent. Thank you. All right. Then we will go on to the public hearings. The first item on the agenda is for 8 William Avenue, APN 020271-28. Eric Layton is the applicant and Sean Downton is the owner. And this is a request for a design review to permit construction of a new 660 square foot attached garage with a 330 square foot second story loft. And can we have the report?

Yes, just a second here to share my screen. Okay, yes, good evening. The item before you, as we just mentioned, is PLN 25-047 for 8 William Avenue. That is just south of here. The property exists on the corner of William and Holcomb with the multi-use path immediately to the east. And there's a street view shot of the residence there on the right for you. The project seeks to demolish an existing detached garage and propose a new 660 square foot attached garage with a 330 square foot second story loft. There's also an ADU shown on the plans. However, that's provided for context only. It meets the state requirements for a ministerial review. And then here's the floor plan. The garage is going to be on the northern portion of the residence attached here. On the right is the floor plan of the actual garage. It's got space for two cars. And then it's easier to see on this screen. But then the loft occupies what would be the western half of the second floor of the garage, which is what I'm circling here. And here are the elevations for you. This is the rear of the garage. This would be what you would see from Holcomb. And then here are the two side elevations. So right in the foreground is the garage, and then the proposed ADU is shown here in the background on the left-hand side. And then if you can see these kind of dashed lines, that indicates the floor level of the loft that's proposed. And then again, just to kind of show you the loft, this is a section drawing provided by the architect where it's a little more obvious where the amount of space the loft occupies. You've received no public comments on this project, at least ahead of this meeting. So that concludes my report and staff recommends that you hold a public hearing consider public testimony discuss and approve the project subject to findings conditions of approval and a class one sequel exemption. That concludes my report and happy to answer any questions and the project architect is here as well, thank you.

Any questions before we proceed to the architect. All right.

Architect, please.

Good evening. Eric Layton, architect. We've been working on this project for a few years and had sort of piecemealed it. It was a garage addition that Sean, the owner, had wanted to do as well as an ADU. And just got delayed due to his own concerns about his life. Whatever, he had a busy job. But it's all come together. And so I spoke with Alex and we worked quite a bit on finding the best way to make the application. So we opted for the combined application with the garage and the ADU, which is convenient. It definitely simplifies, I think, your process as well as ours for bidding and construction. The garage is a... a good size garage, but with a loft above, but still not terribly tall and, uh, fairly well set back from the neighbors. It's well screened and, um, uh, from existing vegetation. And there's another parallel garage to it. And, uh, so I think the garage itself is, is a reasonable application without very negative impacts on anybody. It's also set back 20 feet from, uh, from Holcomb so that, uh, there's good visibility and, and well set back. So There are some trees, I think somebody had asked about the diameter of the existing vegetation that would be needed to be removed for the ADU. There's a birch tree and a magnolia. The birch has got probably a 12-inch sump at maybe two feet up and a 10-inch, and as well as maybe another eight-inch. However, it is probably within five feet of the building and probably doesn't conform to the vegetation requirements. Actually, is this in the...

will we?

I don't actually know, but it's very close to the building and it's not a native, neither is the magnolia. So I don't like to see trees removed necessarily, but in this case, we'll have to plant more. So that is probably the extent of my presentation and I could leave some time open for questions. I know we're a little bit behind.

Do I have any questions from

So I just wanted to ask, so it sounds like you are going to remove a couple of trees between your house and the house next door in Holcomb.

Actually, so I'm the architect. Sean is the owner. And unfortunately, he couldn't make it. Both his kids had NCIS lacrosse matches. But I can answer that question. So specifically, there are... three trees that would need to be removed for the ADU. And I don't know whether that's of issue or not. None of them are heritage and they're all less than 12 inches or less in diameter. So that's the ADU trees. There are no required... Well, there's one tree required for the garage and it is... probably just too close to the structure to be safely left and still conform to fire guidelines. But that, again, is not a native, and there's still plenty of other screening between the structures.

Okay. Okay, thank you for clarifying.

Yeah. And I had the same question relative to that one tree, and I wasn't sure, maybe this is a question for... One of the people there is whether an ADU by its own right negates the tree issues. In any case, it didn't show up in the drawing. So I also looked at that tree, which is a pretty big tree.

Yeah. So the birch, yeah, the birch is a 12 inch and a 10 inch. yeah but again non-native uh that tree is probably closing on its lifespan i would say that the magnolia could keep going um i think you're probably right about lifespan but anyway i think it's fine okay okay right um i don't have any questions is uh any member of the public want to make a comment

Yes, sir. Just approach. Come on up and say who you are and what your question is.

Hi. My name is Rick Adler, and I live next door at 12 William Avenue. I lived there for 53 years. I've owned it for 50. And when I first came to 12 William, 8 William was an empty lot and then I watched the houses get built and get expanded every time he changed hands and my concern is um for the this project will have a lot of contractors subcontractors employees and I would ask you to require that they park only on william east of the walking path and on holcomb um on the walking path side of holcomb because william avenue is a a um crowded all the parking spaces are taken up by the owners of the homes and it's not wide enough for two cars to go by by itself, and it's a major thoroughfare of larks where hundreds of people walk by every day, literally, and hundreds of cars drive by every day. It's the only path to get to Redwood High School and the gardens neighborhood. And so I'm asking that you require that the employees and contractors working on this house for several months park only in those two areas where no one else really parks. And that because... Any of those extra people parking on William Avenue between the Walking Path and Magnolia will create gridlock. and so i hope we can make sure that they do because be you know be very disruptive for the parking and also that any dumpsters or heavy equipment that's left at the site be on holcomb and not on william and thank you very much right thank you sir

I mean, I probably remember the days back when William Avenue was going to be considered to be a throughfare to Highway 101. There was a period of time. Do you remember that, when they were debating whether they were going to go through the marshland all the way to 101 for William as one of the thoroughfares from Larkspur? That would have been incredibly... Can you imagine that traffic? I used to live on William, so this was something which was near and dear to my heart. Yeah. Yeah. yeah yeah yeah yeah all right um any other any other comments if you're on zoom and you want to comment please raise your hand there's no hands great all right let's bring it back to uh the commission then um why don't we start with commissioner hall

We're not really having to review the ADU, so I'm just going to focus on the garage, and I can make the findings for the replacement garage and loft.

Yeah, I mean, but the ADU is out of all scope, so... And so I can also make the findings for the garage and the loft. I think it's quite well hidden and far from the street. I do have a question, though, is given the request from the neighbor, can we accommodate that request?

We actually accommodate that request.

with multiple projects around town. If they have to operate in the public right-of-way, they will be required to get an encroachment permit, and we can put conditions on that encroachment permit. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

I think what was a little unusual was I think he was trying to shift everything from one side of William to the other side of William.

Yeah, we'll review the situation and see what the conditions are so we can see what we can do.

Just the fact that he made the effort to come tonight is pretty good. Okay. Thank you.

Brock? Yeah, I think it's a fine design and I'm happy that They'll plant other trees. In terms of parking, I'll be amazed if you can actually enforce any sort of parking because we have a giant house being built on Diane and being able to park on the street is impossible. And that just seems to be the way it is.

Liam?

Yeah, in terms of the garage, I think I can make the findings through the design review. Yeah, I guess we've covered the parking and everything. I don't think it's the city's job to enforce where contractors are using legal public parking on the side of a road. But the other thing that... I noticed is that most of the work is being done on Holcomb. So I'd imagine that most deliveries and activity will be on that side instead of on William. So that problem may not be as big as it could be. But I can make the findings.

I agree with the rest of the commission. I think it's a really nice design. You did a great job. And it looks like it'll be a really nice project when it's done. So I can make the findings. All right, so can we have a proposal?

I move to approve project number PLN25-047, APN02027128.

I can second. Roll call.

Commissioner Wagstaff? Yes. Commissioner Hall? Yes. Commissioner Chalmers? Yes. Yes. Vice Chair Campbell.

Yes. And Chair Swisher.

Yes. Motion passes. Five yeses, zero noes. The decision 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 within that 10-day appeal period. Thank you.

Okay. And to take into account the concern of the neighbor, we'll make sure that the parking is going to be per the requirements of the city of Larkspur for public parking. Great. Thank you. All right, next on the agenda, we have... We have a public request design review for 334 Riviera Circle, APN 022-222-04, Eric Layton applicant, Josh Ruffiner owners. It's a request for demolition of an existing 2,586 square foot, one-story single family residence to be replaced with a new 4,526 square foot, two-story single family residence. Residents. Can we have the staff report? Wait. Oh, wait.

So I live in the neighborhood. So unfortunately, I cannot participate in this matter. So hi and bye.

Bye. See you later.

See you later. So can I sit in the back or do I have to leave completely?

I think you have to leave.

I have to leave completely.

Yeah.

I'll go eat lunch on Zoom.

Go eat the Chinese food. Yeah. All right. We will. All right. So anyway, can we please have the staff report?

Yeah. So good evening again. This is PLN 26-005 for 334 Riviera Circle. This is in the Larkspur Marina and the overhead shot on the right, or excuse me, on the left shows that it's one of the properties that rears upon the court of Madera Creek and the existing residence is shown on the right there, which again is proposed to be demolished under this application. So this application seeks for the Planning Commission to approve a design review entitlement in order to demolish the existing residence and construct a new 4,526-square-foot, two-story, single-family residence. The site plan is shown on the left. Therefore, you would occupy the center of the lot. There is no work proposed at the rear as you get towards the creek. So it would all just involve demolition. There's an existing pool and some retaining walls in the house itself. And here are the floor plans. This is the first floor, which includes the garage, a bedroom, and living areas, as well as a rear patio. And here's the second floor, which contains the bedrooms and bathrooms. And then a deck, which would face to the rear onto Corta Madera Creek. And then here are the elevations. The Riviera Circle elevation, what you would see standing on Riviera Circle is the elevation on the bottom of this slide, and then the elevation at the top is what you would see if you were looking at the rear of the residence. And then here are the east and west elevations. And I did just provide a section drawing here for you as well. There's a 10-foot plate height on the lower level, and I believe it's a 9-foot on the second. And you have received two public comments prior to this meeting. They are both from neighbors who live fairly adjacent to this residence, both with concerns about the bulk and mass and height of the proposed structure. So the architect is aware of that and has some potential measures to alleviate that, which he can discuss with you, which includes replacing the gabled ends with hip roofs, slightly lowering the height of the residence and so forth. The one thing I do kind of want to bring up here just to provide a little bit more context is this residence is in the flood zone. So they are required to elevate the foundation above that. So that does create at least some of the height that we're seeing here. But with that, I'm going to just keep my presentation brief here. Staff recommends that the commission hold a public hearing, consider public testimony, discuss and approve the project subject to findings, conditions of approval and a class three CEQA exemption.

Thank you. Any questions from the Commission regarding the staff report? I did have one. Buck, did you have one before I started?

I did. So relative to other houses on that street, what's the floor height for the first floor? How much higher is it is my question.

I don't know that I have that in front of me right this second, but I can look in our records and see if I can find it. They might know. But I'll see what I can dig up while we're discussing it.

I just had a question on page two of the staff report, which would seem to contradict one of the letters that came in, where it starts down three-quarters of the page. A structure will not unreasonably interfere with light or solar access. True, but it goes on to say, residence will not impact a prominent scenic view of Mount Tam for any adjacent properties as there is no residence to the rear of the subject property. It would seem that there is a scenic view of Mount Tam that's affected here.

Yeah, so that was written before the story polls went up. So I would say that, I think it's the residents, would that be to the east? Looking at those story polls does have an impacted view of Mount Tam. So in order to make that finding, it would be up to the commission to decide if that is a reasonable or unreasonable loss.

Got it. Okay. Just wanted to be sure we were all clear that, you know, with the story polls up, it does seem to cause a decrease in the view of the, like a significant decrease in their view of individual.

Okay. All right.

Your owner, architect, whoever would like to talk. Mr. Layton again.

My name is Josh Ruffiner. Moved here from Mill Valley. I have two boys, Kona and Leo, 11 years old, 12 years old. My wife, Shoko, Japanese. We moved into Larchboro Marina to get the great school systems and I made my rounds and I met Sean, Jasmine, Sheila, Kenny. I tried to meet with some of the other residents. I wasn't able to get in touch with them just to bring them up to speed on what was going on with the project. But this is going to be our dream home. It's something we've been looking forward to. And our kids are already registered at Hall and Neal Cummins. They're starting in August. Yeah. And so this is the house we want and we hope everyone enjoys. you know, can come on board with us and we're going to make sure that the process is smooth. I am a contractor by trade. I will be performing the work. So to that note, I mean, I'll have a lot of control over the project. I'll be able to monitor, listen to everybody's concerns if there are any during the process and make sure that keep everybody happy because we are going to be living there.

That's it. Thank you. Are you, are you living in the house now? Got it. Got it. Okay. Mr. Layton.

Thank you again for hearing this project. So Josh and I have been working on it for, I'd say, six months now. And I live in the neighborhood as well, just down the street. So I'm very familiar with the neighborhood challenges. I'm also really well connected with how we view things. I live on the same side of the creek. literally down in a similar size house, uh, slightly smaller, um, next to a very, very large house that's around 7,000 square feet. So it makes us look small, I guess. Um, the the fortunate thing about this row of homes and the orientation of the views and the impact on neighbors is that we have a big creek on one side very open space which is very nice and a broad road that that keeps us well separated there's a very modern neighborhood in that sense not nearly as um close as many other communities in Larkspur. So there is some breathing room. Um, that doesn't mean we have to have huge houses, but there are some good sized homes similar to this in size that have been approved. I would say this is on the larger side, but, um, I worked with Alex and Josh on creating initial strategies to mitigate those impacts. And first off, the new home will be set further from the street that'll allow for, number one, parking, that'll be able to actually park in front of the garage and not be able to not block the sidewalk as many homes unfortunately do in this neighborhood. For some reason, they approved a 15-foot setback for the front. So we're a bit more than that, so we can still accommodate cars in front and a good-sized garage, which is included in the overall square footage. So it sounds like a bigger house, but it's got a big garage, close to 500 square feet. The other thing we did is every – Upper level is wedding caked back, not just on the front, not just on the rear, sides too. There are some articulations that go to the outer edge at a location to the neighbor to the west, which I think is a reasonable place to not fully wedding cake back just because of the way the neighboring building is full height at its property line, two stories. And it doesn't seem to affect any of their windows. So that's where we did that for the benefit of this floor plan. But otherwise, it's wet and caked back all around. Structurally, that's challenging. We have to put beams underneath every wall to do that. So it costs more to do that. But in this instance, it's well worth it. The lower roof pitch is as a modest amount, slopes back at three and 12. And the upper roof pitch is five and 12, I believe, might be four and a half. We are under the maximum height limit, obviously, and so we're not asking for any exceptions there or FAR exceptions or variances in any way. The height, as Alex mentioned, we start at 12 feet. The FEMA maximum is 10 feet. The floodplain is 10 feet. So you have to be a foot above that officially if you build something new. So that would be 11 feet. We just had a flood. I'm sure you saw the wonderful news of our neighborhood completely inundated. So my house we built 16, 17 years ago. I had intended to put it at 12 feet as well, but I ended up at 11 because of these same discussions. I regret that because the water was 10 inches from the bottom of our floor joists, which is absurd for a new house to be that close to being flooded. This house, I think it's appropriate for any other house in this neighborhood should consider being at a minimum 12 feet, even though the requirement for FEMA says 11, but they're just behind. They're a giant bureaucracy and global warming or whatever we want to call it, sea level rise is real. This last event, we had southern winds, you know, FEMA or NOAA says, oh, it's going to be a tide of 7.25 feet. Well, it was 8.6 because of other issues that were going on at the time, you know, water going out, southern winds, low pressure. So we need to be ahead of this a little bit. And so we're at 12 feet. And I think that's the appropriate elevation for everybody in this neighborhood. A lot of homes, most homes in our neighborhood were fortunate at 11 feet. Some were at 10, but the vast majority are at 11. But a lot of their bottom floor joists were in the water. That means their duct work, their electrical, you know, you're soaking the bottom of your building. Just not good idea. So 12 feet is where it should be. So we're already a little higher than the rest of the neighborhood. So that's a factor that we have to deal with. I think everybody recognized that. So the concerns with the folks to the southeast and their upper story, we're fortunate in that their upper story is set back from us. It's a beautiful building, beautiful gardens.

I look at it every day when I go back. My wife enjoys it.

We love seeing the birds. And so I respect the fact that they have a beautiful space in that area that you're able to write from. You have windows on three sides facing the water to the true west and to the southwest. I looked very closely as I came to the meeting tonight. And looked at your views from those windows. And I understand that the windows that are facing the street also look clearly at TAM. And I think there are some vegetation obstructions for that. And there's obviously there's windows that face directly at this new home. And there's windows all across. And I noticed your photo was from the far right, which is the one that's most affected by the view to TAM. And I see that. However, as you move halfway or even a little bit to the left, you do have TAM views from the other windows. And I, I understand that that is a taking and I, and I. Don't think there's anything I can do about it other than not having an upper story. And I don't think that's the right answer. This design is set back from a way this way and a way that way from the street. So what we would like to do, though, is that since we designed it and we saw the story poles go up, I think it does make sense. And if Alex could put up the imagery, I would say start with a roof plan, if you don't mind.

What's that?

Oh, yeah. That's A1.0. And while Alex is pulling that up, you'll see that there's gable ends fore and aft towards the street. And I'll just poke up here. So these ridges here.

and here and here, they don't have to be gable ends. I felt like it would give it more of a street presence. But they do take away from, if you look this way, where Sam is sort of out here, tipping that down for residents here does have an impact, a positive impact.

It also just sort of makes it look a little lower slung. The gable ends are up and hip is a little lower. So I think that helps. The other thing that Josh and I spoke about was just lowering the floor-to-floor by six inches. I think that's reasonable, and it's a concession that he can make right off the bat. So I think between those two, it might be enough to ameliorate the concerns of bulk and mass, and I think it's a fair concession.

do you do you mind pulling up that other little sketch that i did that we can compare yeah so these are this was something i put together quickly but instead of a full triangle that's the hip version correct yep yeah and so it just brings it down so when you're viewing from the street you see this instead of trying so it's

it has a pretty big impact on the overall volume.

But as I mentioned, we're waiting to get back on all these sides to pull back on all sides.

So I think those were the main concerns. Steve, you had concerns just bulk and mass, so that addresses that. Did you have any other questions?

Hipping the roof wouldn't lower the ridgeline. It would just lower, you know, take out some volume.

Yeah, it lowers the overall look and feel of it. It affects the sun, so if you have a shadow, all in all. But we're also talking about lowering the whole top plate by six inches. So floor to floor.

Not trying to design your house, but my question was why you couldn't lower – so those are pretty high plates, nine and ten feet at the bottom and nine on the top. If you lowered the top to eight feet and then volume the ceilings, you'd get a pretty spacious feeling room up there anyway. Yeah. 10 feet is a tall wall. And it could make a couple of feet would make a big difference.

Yeah, that's a good question. And I, I'll address that. So, so downstairs we have, if you wouldn't mind going to the floor plan, we're going for a fairly open lower floor plan. There's open spaces between them. And so this is open from here.

And I live in a house that's similar in,

sort of openness uh not quite as open as this but um i found that we thought about 10 feet i put it at six or nine foot six on our lower level because the lower level has a as a flat ceiling and it just it's a so if you have a room that's 10 by 10 and you have an eight foot ceiling it feels about right or even seven six you the bigger the room gets the lower it feels as you get wider and so I'm concerned about that. So that's why we stuck with 9.6. We're at 10 foot now, but we would go to 9.6. So that's the lower level. On the upper level, we're at 9, and the vault... We've vaulted the primary bedroom and we can vault some of the other rooms, but they're smaller. So it doesn't really make sense. But bottom line is it is the desire of the owner to have those ceilings. And it's something that's pretty important to him. And that's been in the program all along. So I'm just committing to a formula that fits their needs. And it's still, there are some homes in the neighborhood that are as tall floor to floor just down the street that are very bulky that don't have any setback don't no no layering no wet you know no wedding cake back and um and it's it's not pleasant so i think this home by sloping the roofs and hipping them i do believe that it's less impactful than some homes in the neighborhood

Sorry. I see no other questions from the commission. Thank you. Let's have public comment.

Okay. And I'm happy to answer more questions later. Sure. If something come up. Thanks. Thanks very much for presenting.

All right. Who would like to speak? Come on up and just introduce yourself. Tell us where you live.

Good evening. My name is Jasmine Darsnick, and I live at 328 Riviera Circle. That's the house to the southeast. My mother, Hishmet Darsnick, is the owner of the home. She's sitting right here. My mother has Alzheimer's, so I'm here to speak on her behalf and mine. We all live in the home. First, I want to thank you for this chance to speak with you. My name is Jasmine Dorsnick. As I said, my family has lived in this home for 30 years. My parents were immigrants. They ran a motel in Corte Madera next to Marin Joe's. If you know, you know, they worked really hard and this is the home that they bought and the place where they meant to live out their lives. My father died about 25 years ago. My mother is still alive. About 13 years ago, I moved back from the East Coast where I was working as a professor to take care of my mother. She had the beginnings. We didn't know what it was, but it was Alzheimer's disease. And I decided to come home and become her primary caregiver. We live in the home with my mother, my husband, and my disabled son. This isn't just a building to us, it's our home of many decades. And it's been a refuge to us. This has been distressing because the first we heard about this building was 10 days ago. The first notice we got was a week ago. 10 days ago is when the flags went up and we have had 10 days to think about what's going on. So if I'm a little discombobulated, that's part of the reason. It's coming on pretty fast. So I won't take lots of your time. I have a longer statement that I submitted. I think you have it with photographs. And Mr. Othen, if you have the photographs, I shared others that perhaps you can cast up on the screen. So I want to say that I'm not opposed to the building of another home or the destruction, well, excuse me, the demolition of the home next door or the building of another. It's really about the mass of the house, the loss of our views, the loss of our privacy. In the letters that the architects submitted, there was no word at all about the impact to the views. In fact, it was stated that there are no views to the west or the east, that the views are primarily to the north and south, and that there were no windows. And those things are not true. The room that's most impacted, and if you can, this is a picture from inside the room. This is a bedroom. Both of the rooms upstairs are bedrooms. I don't have plans to the whole house, but our house, like many of the houses on Riviera Circle, It's only built up on one side. So it's the one room that is further to the street is this one. It's a bedroom here. And that room, maybe if you could show more photographs. We didn't build the house ourselves. But the house was built, this is the room, that room was built for that view. It's Mount Tam. It was a big selling point to my parents when they purchased the house. It's bright, and I apologize, I couldn't get a better picture, but... really from any aspect from the bedroom you if you walk yes toward the left side of the very far left of the room you would you would get about maybe a fifth of the mountain maybe a fourth of the mountain would be left But from, you can see the flags right there. What's right now open, bright, private, opens onto a view of Mount Tam would just become a wall of buildings that look right into our bedroom. So as I said, I have a longer narrative. I hope you have a chance to read it. Maybe let's look at a couple more of the photographs. Keep going. That's the same from upstairs. This is from our garden. There are a couple of steps, and then we face the creek. But if you look at that photograph, it's almost like it's got the mountain like a bullseye. right there, swallows the whole thing. So just really quickly, because I know we need to move on to other people speaking, but I wanted to reiterate a couple of points. This is a room where we sleep, where I write. I'm a novelist. And I also care for my mother. I work at home, so the environment matters a lot. My mother, as I've noted a couple times now, has Alzheimer's disease. She's elderly, and this is a huge disruption of our lives. I've worked really hard to keep a stable and calm home for her these last 13 years, and it's really unfortunate that I see that potentially compromised right now. Part of what makes this neighborhood special still is that there is some breathing room. We're not right up on top of each other. This would be, I think, if not the largest, one of the largest homes. I don't know if those other homes cut off the views of their neighbors, but this home that's being proposed would cut off our view, a really special one to us. So the neighborhood and its quality of life, the sense of openness and expansiveness to the surrounding hills is being potentially compromised here. And so, again, I'm not opposed to building even a second two-story building, two-story home. But if you look at the pictures from maybe a couple more, one of my neighbors took a couple pictures from outside. It dwarfs every house on that neighborhood, even a big house. Our house is 3,700 square feet, so it's not a small house. But this makes my house look like... It's modest. So I'm respectfully asking that the commission review these plans and ask for a substantial reduction in the massing and also consider the impact that this has to our privacy, our views, and also the quality of life in our home. Thank you very much.

Any questions for Professor Darsnick? No, I mean, does any, well, we can ask questions, sure.

I think so.

We can. Whatever. Thank you very much, Professor. Thank you. Anybody else would like to speak? Yes, sir.

May I hand you these?

Sure.

Steve Horne, it's okay we'll share.

Steve Horne, Oh yeah there sure sure that would be.

Steve Horne, yeah good commissioners, my name is Steve horn. I've lived at 321 Riviera Circle with my husband Kent Schwartz for 16 years. Over that time, we've welcomed new families with children to the circle. Single-story homes in our neighborhood are a vanishing staple that make impossible for the elderly and those with physical limitations to live here. The proposed project dwarfs the two-story homes on either side of 334 Riviera Circle, not to mention the majority of homes on Riviera Circle. Please consider reducing the overall height and bulk of the proposed 4,526 square foot project. Here are some photos that I gave you that just show the story poles. And I want to throw back that Eric's a real good guy. He's mentioned one particular house next door to him that's a giant thing. When it was approved, the man owned two lots adjacent. And the guy said, I'm not going to build on both lots. I'm going to put it all on this one lot. So it's much larger than... anything else in the neighborhood. I don't think it's something to hang your hat on as a regular house. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Mr. Hart. Anyone else like to speak? Yes, sir.

Hi, my name is Ken Markowitz, and I own the house on the other side of where Josh is planning to build. My address is 340 Riviera Circle. I moved there and bought the house in 1999, so it's about going on 27 years. I love being there. My wife, who wasn't my wife at the time, has been with me for, what, 17 years at least now. We love the place. I already lived through one really extraordinarily bad experience with the circumstances of that house. I was a trial lawyer my entire career until I was forced to abruptly stop work. I was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. at first they told me I had three months to live. I've outlived that now by over six years. So, uh, I feel very blessed and I want to be in my home for at least another six and maybe more than that. I'm not the kind of person that's against people building on their property and upgrading and, you know, doing the best for themselves, but I am against, uh, unduly interfering with a neighborhood character and a vibe that I'm sure some of you, if not all of you, can appreciate being in Larkspur. This town is an amazing place. My son graduated salutatorian from Redwood High. He was number two in his class. He went to Neil Cummins and then to Hall and then to Redwood. It's an amazing place. to raise a family. And I don't fault the current owner at all for wanting to raise his two sons here either. But what we're talking about is real simple. It's about preserving something that matters to a lot of us, if not all of us. And what we're talking about is not changing the dynamic My house, I never considered a small house. It's almost 2,900 square feet stuck on the outside. If you drive by on Riviera, and I'm on the creek side right next to it, there's a stained glass in my front window. As you look at the house, it'd be to the right, right in the front. And what's the stained glass of? It's of Mount Tan. The unfortunate thing that happened to me is because I was a trial lawyer, I tried a lot of cases out of town. I happened to be in one. At the time, the house on my other side, which is 346 Riviera Circle, rushed through somehow. And I don't really know the entire history of how they did it. It was the woman's mother who owned the place originally, and then the woman who followed her, Rita Shakin, who was a dear friend of ours, a good neighbor. But she was with a builder named Leo, and he threw up story poles when I was gone for over three months in L.A., Never knew about it. Never got noticed where I was, even though I had a very prominent practice in San Francisco. My office would forward anything and everything imaginable that was important in my life. Never even heard about it. by the time I came back, realized what was going on, it was already in process of being built. And lo and behold, it's totally eradicated my view of mountain. Totally. It was one of the most beautiful reasons that I love living there because it really is a spiritual place. You've all hiked up there. I'm sure when I wasn't using this, I did a lot. And, uh, You know, those kind of things matter, and yet it happened to me, so I can appreciate what Jasmine was talking about, and I can appreciate the fact that we want to have a certain consistency. You know, it's not like, oh, I was here first. It's more about we were all here together, and we didn't opt into certain things. You know, to say there's a 7,000-square-foot house on the block, that's exactly what he was just talking about, I used to call it the Hermosa Beach surfer's house kind of thing where 13 guys would live in it for a surf crash pad instead of a home. It's huge. There are some nice features about it, I'm sure. I knew the people who lived there too. The fact of the matter is certain things don't belong. That was one of them. It has been historically. It's one thing to try to get rid of something that's an eyesore and that doesn't belong or that's hazardous or whatever. But it's a whole other thing to regulate what's to come. And that's your job. And I admire you for taking on this kind of job for a town like ours. And I thank you for that. I want to bring up something that hasn't been mentioned at all. And I didn't get much notice of this. I mean, I got the same as everybody. Josh came and knocked on the door very friendly, gave me an opportunity to talk to him, showed me his plans. I expressed certain reservations to him. I wanted to look at what it was all about more. When I got out on the street and saw those story poles, I was like, holy cow, you know what I mean? I'm now wedged between two monstrosities in the sense of looking at size comparison. Not monstrosities in terms of the quality of the architecture or the, you know, all that. But we're not on... three quarter or one and a half quarter acre lots. You know, we have, you know, mine happens to be the biggest, widest lot on the whole creek side of Riviera Circle on the straightaway. It's two or three feet wider than the others. And I believe there's one other in the marina that's the same as my lot. But even with that, the setbacks aren't that much. When you're next to a house that's that big, And that massive, it feels like, you know, you're almost like you can't see the sky walking between them almost if you let it get too close. And the thing that hasn't been mentioned is that along with the blocking out of my entire view of Mount Tam, which saddened me a lot to this day, What happened was much worse in terms of creating a real problem, and that was with flooding between the two homes, the sides of the house. On Riviera Circle, we obviously get king tides usually January, early January, you know, that time of year. It's predictable, but there has never been the kind of situation until they... we did the new owners who now own the place came in and unbeknownst to me, we did their whole decking. And I don't know if they did it all on existing piers or something else, but this last year, coupled with the monstrous storms that we've had was unbearable. And I'm concerned that if I'm wedged between two much more massive, buildings with new architecture and new building going on to the water line or into the water line. We got to do something to coordinate this because I don't want to be the flooded out guy in the middle. My home's worth a lot to me, to our community, and I think it should be taken into consideration. And this is a problem that's not going to go away. Sea levels are rising. We all know that, okay? But we can do something to make them safer. And no one should be able to tell me I was forced to retire and I no longer have an income. I went from a very substantial good income to zero. I shut down the business because I was told I had to. I kept all of my employees on for a minimum of six months because I didn't want to let anybody go and suffer for the fact that I was sick. But I paid off all my leases in San Francisco and everything that I had to. But what it left me with is Social Security and what I had managed to squirrel away for retirement. So I can't afford at this point to raise the level of my house foot 18 inches, two feet to accommodate new buildings. I want that to be considered, please. And you guys are or know the experts in that regard. And your architect, who does live on the street, he's a good guy, but he needs to take that into consideration. I'm not living in a place that he just built. I'm living in a place that was custom built 50 years ago.

I don't need to cut you off, but we do have a three-minute limit on.

I didn't know that. All right.

It's okay.

I'm asking you to please take that into consideration as well. I think Josh is very willing to, from the vibe I get from him, work on it together, and I'm encouraged by that. But I just want you guys to be aware of what happens when these things are being considered and maybe what can be done, if anything, proactively so it doesn't exacerbate an existing problem.

Well, great. Thanks, man. Thank you so much for coming up and talking. Any other comments?

Anything else?

Do we have any comments on Zoom?

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

No. All right. Let's bring it back then to the Planning Commission. So I guess we'll start with the other side, Brock, this time.

Okay. Um, I, I basically liked the house. I think, I think they've done a nice job architecturally. Um, I think the house could be a smaller and less impactful, um, doing a couple of things i understand keeping the main floor height up a bit having walked around during the last king tide but i think i think eight foot plates upstairs with volume ceilings and nine foot plates downstairs are are pretty adequate for a new house and i think the house in looking at the The overall floor plan, they're all really big rooms, big bedrooms, even the secondary bedrooms are quite large. So, I think it could be reduced in size a bit. I think you're going to impact the neighbors no matter what. And I think that's just a reality of where Riviera Circle is and how those houses were set up. So that's my thoughts for the moment anyway.

Yeah. Yeah. I walk up and down the path. I live in Green Bay, so I kind of see it from the other side of a lot of people who might drive by. What sort of stuck out to me, and I think where some of these issues may be coming from, is the fact that you have to raise the grade three and a half feet. Well, two and a half feet, and I don't dispute that raising it three and a half feet is a bad idea, I guess. But that does sort of put your first floor plate at about a floor and a half for most of the surrounding houses. So it looks big from the creek side and also from the street side. Okay. I think the hip roof, I think, you know, looking at some of the photos that we got that were submitted, I think the hip roof would help sort of, you know, leave a little bit more view. But I agree with Rock that, you know, there is going to be some impact to building a second story to your neighbor's. And so it's our job to figure out what is, I guess, reasonable is the word. I'm not an architect, so I tend to think that a 10-foot plate is... Is pretty tall and if there are some other methods to sort of lower the overall height, while keeping an open feel by you know the way that the ceilings are constructed. I would be in favor of that. But. Yeah, I mean, those are kind of my thoughts. The overall design of the house I don't really have an issue with. I think it looks nice. But if there's some way that we can take into consideration the neighbors and concerns, I think that would go a long way. Because after all, you're going to live there. These people are your neighbors and all that. So I think there's a balance to be struck there. Oh, and one more thing I I appreciate this project because you're not asking for a floor area ratio exception, as with many of our other projects, so I do appreciate that.

Mr hell.

I echo the comments of my fellow commissioners. I do think it's too high. And I'm not an architect, I'm a CPA. So I defer to experts like Mr. Wagstaff, Commissioner Wagstaff, on how to, you know, ways to make it shorter. But I do think that when I looked at the drawings when I got them before I actually drove out there, I was like, oh, this is beautiful. It's a lovely design. I didn't think there would be any issues with it. And then I got there and saw the storyboards and went, well, wow, those are really, really, really high. They're higher than I expected them to be. And I was surprised at how high they were compared to the properties on either side. And I knew at that point we were going to have issues. So I'm not surprised that the neighbors are here with concerns. And so I would just say, you know, you've got to come up with a way to make it More in line with the other properties. I agree with my commissioners. The neighbors are going to lose something. It's going to impact them no matter what. You go from one story to two story. But losing the pool in the back and filling in more in the back hopefully will make less of an impact by having so much more bulk in the back than there is right now. So I look forward to seeing a revised design.

All right, since everybody says that they're not an architect, I'm not an architect either. I'm an anesthesiologist. So, you know, what can I say? But that being said, I think of... Exactly right. You know, I think of the Rolling Stones song, you can't always get what you want, but if you try hard, you can get what you need. In this particular situation, I think that This neighborhood is such that this would be kind of a sore thumb as currently designed relative to the other in any other place. Let's say if you had a big lot, et cetera, this house was beautiful and you don't apply for a variance. You're not asking for an exception. The floor height is all within standard code, et cetera, et cetera. And you fully have a right to put a second story on your house. The issue is how to mitigate that in such a way as to keep everybody happy. And I think that, You know, I know it's expensive and et cetera, but I think you do need to go back, you know, and maybe in 50 years from now, everybody's going to be building houses that are this tall because of climate change. But I think currently now in this environment that we have to take into account the fact that it does significantly impact your neighbor in terms of their views and in terms of bulk and in terms of the mass relative to the neighborhood. Even though, yes, there is that 7,000 square foot house in Riviera Circle, it's not next to these particular neighbors. So I would favor going back to the drawing board a little bit and reducing the plate heights on the second floor. I appreciate that you did the modification from a gable to a hip, but that's not going to really cut it as far as making it more compatible with the neighborhood. So that would be my recommendation is to go back and do that.

So yeah, I guess you're sort of operating at a disadvantage because you have to raise the grade. And the houses around you have not yet had to do that. And I would guess in 50 years, you'll be the one here saying, we only had to raise our house to 12 feet, and everyone else is going up to 15 or 16. But, yeah, there are things you can do.

Do we want to provide, like, it sounds like we're sort of leaning towards continuing this. Do we want to provide some specifics? Yeah, I think we need to. I mean, it's our responsibility to provide some guidance if we're not going to approve it. So, Brock?

Yeah. So just, again, to repeat, I like the house, but I think there are things that could be done to mitigate somewhat the impact. The way Riviera Circle is set up is going to impact the neighbors on either side. That's just a reality. And I think we all know that. And they do too. But I think there are things you could do to make it maybe a little bit smaller and a little bit lower. And I think you could drop it a couple feet without having to... change much. And if you had eight-foot plates upstairs and nine-foot plates downstairs, that's two feet there. And you can still have the feeling of volume. It's just you have to play with it a little bit. But I don't think it's far off from my perspective. Okay.

So how do we proceed?

I have time. Well, so it sounds like the commission would like to have the plans modified and return to you. So I would suggest somebody make a motion, which includes your direction, and you take a vote.

Okay, I'll let Brock make that motion as the architect.

It would help everyone in the room if you had specific details as to what you're looking for when it comes back to you.

Okay.

Okay, well,

I think two feet and a hipped roof would do a lot.

I'm not making a motion, though. I'm just commenting. Let Brock make the best motion.

I would move continuance, I guess, of... of PLN 25047, 334 Riviera Circle, and asking that we try to reduce the height a little bit, maybe two feet if you can. And if you can reduce the mass a little bit, I think that would be helpful too. And I don't think you're far off. That's just...

I'll second the continuance.

Can we have a vote?

Vice Chair Campbell? Yes. Commissioner Wagstaff? Yes. Commissioner Hall? Yes. And Chair Swisher? Yes. Okay, the motion passes four yeses with one recusal.

Thank you. Thank you all for your time this evening. Thank you.

Yeah, let's get Natasha. Let's let her sit there. I guess she's on food coma.

Did she?

All right. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

All right.

The next item on the agenda on business items is the discussion of – well, I'll wait a second until it clears out so we have some time.

Okay.

All right, next item is business items and subheading A is the floor area ratio discussion.

All right. Alex, discuss. I will keep my comments here brief for you. I'm sure we're all keenly aware of the floor area discussions we've been having.

We are very aware of it.

The recent past. Yes, this staff report is just a follow-up on the one you heard a few months ago that does a little bit of a deeper dive onto, as you discussed at your last meeting, potentially borrowing the floor area regulations used by the town of Corte Madera So this provides a look at that and how past projects would comply with those limits with some items to consider there as to whether or not it truly is an apples to apples comparison. If we're if we're discussing quarter Madeira, just given slightly smaller lots or lots, which are. less steep on average. And then the other section here is just, as we kind of discussed at your last meeting, is there is a potential to remove floor area from, or remove it as a development standard. And so there is a table in the staff report that it looks at the same projects that were reviewed against Corta Madera's limits. And these are all projects that you've entitled in the last year that had a floor area exception. The difference with this no FAR set is that well, there is no FAR to provide a cap on the size of a residence. Instead, it's done by reviewing the building envelope, which is the lot size that's left after you remove the setback areas from the equation, so to speak, and then essentially doubling your allowed lot coverage of 40% to simulate a two-story home, because that's on average what you get. I think, you know, as I mentioned in the staff report, it is possible to get a three-story home and a 30-foot height limit. I think we have yet to see one, though, at this point. So that second table just kind of shows what home sizes would look like on various size lots without FAR. It does still show you what the FAR would be as a little bit of extra context, but it would just, as I've mentioned, it would be regulating the development without using that as a standard.

All right.

There are a few questions to get your discussion started this evening, which is A, should certain structures like garages or small accessory structures be exempted from an FAR calculation if you do choose to pursue a different FAR? Should there be an exemption for subgrade spaces, which there is currently? Should it remain? Should it be modified? Should there be any Should the slope formula be modified instead of removed to make it a little bit easier to get a, I think what we would all agree is a more realistic floor area for these sloped lots? And should there be an exception process at all moving forward, which I think we've talked about before. So that concludes my report. Happy to answer any questions that you have.

You know, what I found really interesting is looking at this report on page two, the The comparison of what would happen in Corte Madera versus what happens in Larkspur. And basically, it looks like Corte Madera has got far more reasonable FAR regulations than Larkspur does. And I can understand why that's the case for historical reasons. And the fact that Larkspur does have bigger lots and that Larkspur tends to have more sloped lots than Corte Madera. It's just the nature of our geography in Larkspur. But it's not that much different. Right. And what's that? Well, East corner of Madeira. That is true. There is East corner, but there's also parts of Larkspur, which are, you know, like around that are flat relatively, you know, Montecito drive. Yeah. Montecito, et cetera. Yeah. So yeah, Riviera landfill. So yeah, I mean, I think that rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater and just completely redesign it, I think possibly just adopting similar to what Corte Madera has would go a long way. I mean, if you look at that, that's 80% of what would have been compliance with Corte Madera versus Larkspur. So, you know, because otherwise, then we start getting into the weeds of like, should we do subterranean things? Should we change the slope? Blah, blah, blah. I mean, and again, we're the Twin Cities. It seems reasonable that we have similar, if not identical, FAR. That's how I would go at this personally.

Corto Madera does not have slope ordinance. It doesn't at all, right. I don't, I've never seen the purpose with modern construction for the slope ordinance. Exactly. Exactly.

For the FAR.

For the FAR. Yeah, where you get down to 0.05 FAR.

That's crazy. I think we can all agree that the Larkspur one isn't working, right? It doesn't work. Well, because we have to constantly have acceptance from experience.

Yeah, exactly. Why was there or why is there currently regulations around subterranean? I mean, why is there a limit on that? Like, why is that discounted or not included?

You know, I don't think I've ever specifically looked up the history of when that was added to the municipal code.

Can I hazard a guess? And the architect can weigh in. But I think it was because subterranean structures don't, you know, areas don't have the same architectural problems that building above the grade has in terms of the ability of those buildings not to slide down a hill. various things like that. I mean, I think that the FAR in Larkspur for slope ordinance was because it was actually pretty damn dangerous to build houses on stilts. And that's why if you go back up into the canyons, I mean, there are some places there that I would not want to live in an earthquake because they look like they'll tumble right down the hill. But I think modern construction, like I said, when we did our house, we had to put something like 30 60 foot piers into the ground for like a ridiculously low slope and it costs like so much money it's not even funny uh and for nothing for no increased safety and another thing is that basements don't have the same like my interpretation is that they don't have the same visual impact so like on a flat lot you could have two stories and if they're both above ground

It's a different impact than if one's below ground and one's above ground. That makes sense.

I only raise it because there was one of the houses that came through, like Monte Vista, that had a huge basement area that was... which was just enormous that I think is livable now, but at the time it was all completely discounted. So I'm not sure if that matters or maybe it doesn't matter. It's this extra free space that we shouldn't care about or we should care about. I'm just raising it as a question.

I don't think we should care about it. I think, again, as Brock said, it's a visual thing. We're looking at bulk and mass. If it's below ground, I mean, like Trump building his bunker underneath the ballroom area, I mean, you know. I don't know.

I've got a question maybe for staff. We sort of briefly discussed not having an FAR, other options at some of our previous meetings. You know, we deal with this sort of from one angle and you guys deal with this from another angle. And I'm curious to hear your thoughts as people who do this every day as opposed to a few days a month. Come on, say it.

I would say that from my perspective, the idea... I think right now what we run into a lot of conversations I have with people at the counter when they're talking about what they're thinking about in terms of their projects is I have to tell them, you know, when they're talking about total FARs, to tell them, well, your finding is about bulk and mass and... parking issues and and that's about it that's you know and as to what the planning commission decides um is an appropriate size residence for that lot you know i can't really inform them of that in the moment so there is a certain ambiguity that happens whenever i have these conversations with people so the idea of just removing it entirely and giving them a very definite you know it's strictly based on essentially on your lot size and lot dimensions um I think would bring more clarity to your average applicant ahead of time.

Yeah, I would say that's my... Would we have a... Sorry. Well, Corte Madera has a cap on FAR. I mean, on what you're allowed. Does it not?

Yeah.

Well, Corte Madera has... 6,000 square feet, something like that. I don't know.

They just do a point as I'll double check their regulations. I think from what I recall, it's all still based on lot size and then depending on, you know, lots of a certain size, get an extra like a flat amount of floor area in addition to a certain percentage. I don't recall if there is a cap on it, though. I will look at the staff.

It seems like, that's a good question, but it seems like having a floor area ratio, so getting rid of it seems like one option and using other tools in our toolbox to help people make informed decisions and guide our decisions and everything. But it seems like having a, if you were to keep a floor area ratio, having one that makes sense and that we can you know, that makes sense to approve or deny projects on would have a similar outcome, right? And, you know, if 80% or this is 10 projects, 80% of our projects are in compliance and these two aren't, uh, you know, if somebody comes in and they're, they're over, they're not in compliance, you know, we could more reasonably tell them the planning commission may not approve that, or, you know, you could use our, our decisions or whatever, but rather than somebody coming in and saying, well, I want to build a 3000 square foot house, but they're allowed floor areas like 700 square feet. So it seems like it would have a similar impact, but we keep one rule.

You two were the ones that did all the research. I mean, what do you both think?

Well, basically, I think Cora Madera has done it pretty well. And I, you know, I think that's a simple system. And whether you put a cap on the overall size of a house, that's – and I think they do, but I can't really remember.

I'll just intervene here really quickly to say that they do have a maximum floor area, but it's essentially if you just follow their – Their formula of 10% of your lot size plus, I think, 2,300 square feet. It just outputs whatever that...

But if you have a two-acre site, do you get an 85,000-square-foot house?

You get 0.4 for every lot above 10,000 square feet. But there is nothing in here that says... In that case, there's a flat cap. It says that the town may reduce... your maximum allowed FAR if it's subject to design review. But it doesn't say in no case. That would definitely be in there.

Do you agree with that?

Yeah, generally. My goal going into this was to find a set of rules. I don't have the experience that Brock has working in other jurisdictions, but my goal was to find a set of rules that we could be confident that applied to our projects or our projects coming before us and that we could more easily make a decision of when to give an exception, I guess, because So the rules as they're written are just so ridiculously low that we're always giving exceptions. And so my goal was to find something that is more reasonable that when we give an exception, you know, it better be for a really good reason. Otherwise, the house is too big for the lot.

But it sounds like you, Jeff and Brock have think similarly that we should follow Corda Madera. I was wondering if. Yeah, no, it's really close to it. But do you think it's the same?

Yeah, I think that the court of Madera rules do a pretty reasonable job of, of mirroring our houses here. I haven't, to be fair, haven't really explored in depth that not having an FAR, it sort of gets a little bit easier, or it gets a little more a little harder to look at the projects and data.

Are there any Marin communities that have no FAR? You mean like Belvedere?

I don't think there are.

I think that's crazy not to have something that they are.

Maybe it's the next commission. So just following then, so we've got three members here. Sorry, I know you're still here.

I got you in the ending.

Is there any reason that staff thinks following Court of Madeira would not be a good idea? The only thing I'm raising, and I'm not saying I agree or I disagree, is Jeff started by saying, well, we're twin cities, we're exactly the same. But I don't think we are, because I think Larkspur has definitely more hills and Cordova definitely has more flats. So there was some logic to having these FAR numbers lower, but it's definitely a lot of good reasons to why that should change.

Well, there's a historic reason why it was that, but that reason does no longer apply.

Right, right. But it doesn't mean we blindly follow Cordomodera.

Maybe we do whatever works. Did I say blindly? I said it's blindly is understanding what current construction things is not blindly.

I'm not questioning whether you're wrong or right. I'm just asking. I know you like to think you're always right, but I...

There's a difference between knowing...

What I'm trying to find out is, are we thinking about it the right way? Are there anything that we haven't thought about? I'm looking at it as an attorney. Is there anything that we haven't thought about? And that would be dangerous or not a good idea if we followed Corte Madera. Or should we adjust something before we agreed to that or go down that path?

And your answer is binding. So whatever you know.

No, no.

I mean, we certainly can prepare an ordinance reflective of Corte Madera. And you've certainly I mean, it works. And, you know, we know that if we did that, it would work. Would it be perfect? I don't know if you can hit perfect, but we can certainly. I think you've given us enough to craft an ordinance, I think, for FAR that we could bring back to you and you could continue the conversation. Because you're not going to solve everything at this stage once you have something in front of you You know, people typically planners will have like test cases and they'll show examples and just like any code, you have to test it. Right. And and so and then you you may have more things to say or maybe have more suggestions. But there's really no wrong answer and there's no wrong way when you know what your goal is. And I think we have a pretty clear answer. direction from you as to what the goal is.

And we want to make sure that we still have some control over what we're looking at. So just because somebody is only at 0.4%, design review can be important. There was a period of just regale you with the past, but there was a period of time when Larkspur took away the whole design review process. And long as you adhered to what was allowed, it was OK. And I did a house in Heather Gardens that so point four was the max you could do. But you could also do a lot of rooms that didn't have seven foot heights, you know, and you could get so you could get a house that was in the point four, but but was a really big house. So anyway, it's we need to know where the design review process really is important and how it affects neighbors and all that.

Well, I think we saw. Today, it seems like even houses that do comply with our FAR rules would still come before design review, right? I mean, second story additions.

Well, I would just jump in and say there is an exemption from design review for one story homes that are less than 20 feet high and don't need any other entitlements. So that would be something where somebody could propose.

What if it's like a really unattractive? Well, what happens then? Right.

The state has directed all cities to use objective design criteria when approving single family or any kind of residential. home, whether you're multifamily or single family. So our level of discretion on individual homes is extremely limited. And we have to stay within the bounds of the code in an objective way. And so if you make a condition of approval saying your house needs to be two feet less or fill in the blank, it has to be an objective criteria. It cannot be subjective. And so that is the fine line that this planning commission walks. And so I would caution about I would caution your interest in discretion in, you know, in regards to state law, because there's only so much we can do. We have to have objective standards. FAR is, you know, writing this ordinance is going to be an objective standard. So, you know, we can't just keep things open for discretionary criteria. It has to be objective. And that's not allowed anymore. We have to be objective with our criteria. We have to make findings as to why. And it has to have a connection to health and safety.

And who drafts it? Do you send it to the city council, the city councillors and the lawyer? Or do you guys do it first?

We would do it ourselves. Yeah. I mean, we might, we're doing... We have an RFQ out right now, and we have some responses back for planning consultants, which we might use if we don't. Because it's just Alex and I and Matthew, and that's the entire department right now. And that's all we got. And that's why it's, you know, we haven't been back here since January. So we are pretty tight with our capacity. But it is something that we can hypothetically do ourselves. We may contract it out. We'll have to see how our bandwidth goes. But I think it's entirely, just to get to the point, you know, it's entirely feasible to have an ordinance come back to you, a draft that reflects Court of Madera. And I think we could certainly input, you know, the Larkspur characteristics that you've talked about into that draft ordinance, and then we can talk about it from there. Yeah, I think it'd be great.

I would just like to throw one, because it seems so fun to throw another wrench into this problem, would be if we could discuss maybe the exception process, if you're still wanting to have that in findings. Because I can foresee people still coming and saying, well, if this path exists, I'm going to apply for the exception. And right now, you're only really talking about bulk and mass. So if there's something else you wanted to include...

Yeah, that would be very helpful for us before we craft an ordinance is what the parameters of an exception would be. Because that's what we get every day. People are always pushing.

You mean to broaden it or to clarify it?

No, to clarify. To clarify. Right now, you know, it's, yeah, to set out what your, essentially what your criteria would be for approving an exception under these new regulations should someone apply.

Well, I think people should always have the right to apply for an exception. They can try. Yes. point of a commission is to look at the exception and see whether or not we agree or whether it's reasonable or whatever. But I think if you put too much of a blanket restriction on people applying for exceptions, you're kind of living in a totalitarian state.

You know, you can make a case if you had a 40-foot wide lot that was 200 feet long, you may want to have side yard setbacks that don't...

We do have limits. I mean, the general plan is going to be your limit. So, I mean, you would have to amend our general plan hypothetically if you wanted to go beyond those limits. I mean, that's the ultimate exception is when you rewrite everything.

Well, I think exceptions would be sort of the edge cases for me anyway, right? I mean, right now we give exceptions for everything, but it seems like it would be a really small lot or something like that.

We're such a steep slope. I mean, we've had situations like that. I mean, essentially what we're doing is we're widening the funnel instead of having a very narrow funnel right now. So you're outside the edges of the funnel when you're trying to get something done. We're just widening it and allowing more people to apply within the reasons of the thing. And then if they want to be outside the funnel, they have to give a good reason for it. But I wouldn't want to restrict that.

Are you asking what are those good reasons?

I'm asking if you want to have... Essentially, yeah. I mean, is all you're going to be looking at the bulk and mass of somebody who wants to go beyond this? Or do you want to have something about finding about lot size or your slope?

But if we want to clear... Right now, we're trying to clear up the FAR issue. Can we just get that done without opening another area? Because I feel like...

I think they're connected because I think he's asking... So hypothetically, right? Say we adopt Corto Madero's rules. And most of the projects that we see are in compliance. We're not really issuing floor area ratio exceptions anymore because most of the jobs are coming in in compliance. And somebody comes in with a lot or a house that's over the floor area ratio for quarter Madera. What would their circumstance be in which we would allow that? Is that right? So for me, it would be like, I don't even think a steep slope would be one because the slope is not a factor anymore. I think it'd be, for me, I think it'd be a small lot or you'd somehow not be able to use your lot like all your neighbors.

Or yeah, there would be some kind of like limitation of use or there would be some kind of, let's say, an easement problem or something like that, which would limit their ability to have a driveway or access.

Can you do a catch-all, like any other reason?

Don't delineate it. Don't define it.

That's what I'm saying. So just any reasonable reason has determined that there's planning commission.

That's the whole point of planning commission. That gives us ability to do all that.

And then in all of the planning commission, there's the public, you know, something that's for public. What's the language we always see in there?

Right appeal. Health, safety, and welfare. Thank you.

I don't know if that would be relevant at all. One, and then can we, what I was saying is, can we just have a catch-all at the end? It's like for any reasonable, or is that too subjective?

We'll write it accordingly, and it's going to have health, safety, and welfare. We have to have some kind of outlet for unusual circumstances. As you said, you said small lots. Yeah. Super steep slope. Super steep slope.

Easements, stuff like that.

Again, talking as a lawyer, because you can do specific circumstances, which is great because it's nice and clear, but you can never think of everything. So the alternative is you don't put any specific circumstances and you just do a kind of a general catch-all and you say sort of any reasonable reason or any reasonable reason.

You have to be objective so you won't be able to do, you know.

You could, I don't know if that's objective or subjective, but reasonable is like a known legal term. So you could come up with some kind of language around that. Or you could, I mean, you could do something quasi. You go this, you know, A, B, C, and any reasonable kind of blah, blah, blah reason. You could do that.

We'll craft something along those lines. You know.

Heritage trees are something that forces you that.

Yeah, I mean, there are criteria that. I think you've talked about. that we would include into the code for those kinds of situations. We have a pretty good idea of what those situations are. I don't know if a catch-all is necessarily, or the route. When we craft a draft, you would have a lot of clarity on this because you would see how we approach it, and you could probably be more effective with your comments to that detail.

Okay.

That helps. Yep.

And we're going to say part two, act four, scene two.

Which is the floor area ratio. You can look it up.

I'll just leave it like that.

I'm going to remember what you said. What did you say, Henry?

That should be in the minutes, right?

I think that sounds totally reasonable.

I mean, I... I think a new set of rules is, is long overdue and I'm excited to see what you come back with from there.

Yeah, I think I agree.

We've, I mean, as we, you know, since I've started, I've certainly been using the code an awful lot more. and I have a lot more insight into what the challenges are of this code, it's pretty clear that slope is a challenge. Our entire slope chapter isn't separate from FAR, and yet it's a whole separate set of criteria that affects development. So hypothetically, a homeowner could be facing these FAR exceptions and a slope use permit. because this section of the code for FAR, it's not in isolation. It's really interwoven with a lot of other codes. So I expect as we dive into this deeper, we'll probably have not just the FAR, section of the code, but maybe a few others that need to get updated. There's an awful lot of things in the zoning ordinance that need to get cleaned up. I just did two cleanups today for the next council meeting that we didn't do when we adopted the general plan in the housing element. For example, the general plan calls for these to be done, but they were in other sections of the code. We just haven't gotten around to doing them. I so that everything is internally consistent. And whenever you write an FIR code, that's one of the things we also have to do is make sure it's internally consistent with other sections of the code, because we certainly don't want to write something and find out that this other area doesn't allow that. Yeah, so I think, you know, usually the first step is for us to come up with a draft and test it and then bring it to you for comments. And it's like a bespoke suit. We have to have this thing fitted quite a few times before it's ready for primetime.

And you'll just, when you say test it, you'll come back with a staff report like this and show everything. Cool.

Excellent.

All right. Well, good. On another subject, can I ask you what your thoughts are on this planning commissioner training program?

State law is constantly changing. And it is complicated. And every year the assembly and the governor sign literally hundreds and hundreds of bills that affect Alex and I and what we do every day. And I do recommend commissioners attend as much training as they can. I need to as well. because it never ceases to amaze me, all of the different nuances and details that we have to be aware of when we do our day-to-day jobs. And objective design standards is on here, housing law, CEQA, those are all topics that are constantly changing and shifting, whether through court decisions or legislation.

So I did a three-day training when I joined the commission. I don't know if you guys did. You did one? I don't know if Yeah, and then somehow they stopped requiring it.

It was like two hours. Really? It was like an online thing. That was all I was said to do. No, you have to do that every year, I think.

No, you're talking about the one we have to do every year online. No, this was like a three. It was like lectures and conferences.

No, there was a different one that I was told to go take, and it was an online one. It wasn't like the FPPC Worlds or the Brown Blood or anything like that.

If I see an opportunity with the League of Cities or for planning commissioners, I'll keep you posted. I think each of you should at least attend it once in your tenure every so many years.

How much is this? Is it on here and I don't see it?

I don't believe there's a price.

It's free?

I'd need that.

Oh. I don't recall there being a cost, but obviously we would cover that if there is. So just give us a call.

Okay.

And if you'd like me to register you, I will do so. Just let me know.

Any of you guys going to go do this?

Sadly, I am in the operating room. Not sadly, but I am.

You too?

TBD. That's a Monday. I don't think you can bring dogs to this.

What did you say?

I don't think you can bring dogs to this.

Let me just take a quick peek.

Let's get through the rest of the agenda.

All right. The rest of the agenda is planning commissioner report. Oh, approve minutes. Let's approve the minutes for March 31st. Any objection to approving the minutes?

I was given March 10th.

Yeah, March 10th.

Oh, March 10th. Well, what is it? March 10th. You're looking. Oh, approve March 31st.

Did we approve March 10th? No. It should be March 31st. Yeah, March 31st.

No, it says March 10th.

It's March 10th and it's definitely the March 10th.

Okay, so yeah, March 10th. Approve the March 10th Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Did we already do that?

Just out of curiosity, there used to be a lot longer leaves.

Yeah, yes, we've switched to action minutes to reflect city council policy. Yay.

So are you relying on the recordings if somebody needs to go back and... Yeah. Right, okay.

Oh, good. Makes sense.

Yeah.

All right. Well, whatever, which one we're approving, let's approve it.

Do you need us to approve this or did we already?

If you've already approved March 10th. So if I've put the wrong one in there, maybe it's March.

Yeah. We'll save it till the next meeting.

I've been at the next meeting. Yeah. We'll forward it to this. Okay. Planning commissioner reports. Any reports? Anybody?

So when is the next meeting? Is it the 26th or is it?

That's a great question. I was just about to bring up to you. If by a show of hands, could you let me know if you're available for a meeting on March 26th?

March 26th.

May 26th.

Day after Memorial Day.

Yes.

Oh. I work until pretty late that day.

Okay. I'm available.

i'm available i mean i i could be here but it's i'll i'll be late we have a vice chair 26 yeah i mean it's for a 6 30 meeting what's on the agenda is that you know uh sort of depends on who's available but it's likely it's kind of from what i'm hearing we have a number of

projects that are ready in addition to... Just say I'll be here.

I'll be here.

I can make it. I'm a no. You get four, though.

That's good. June 9th still works for everybody as well after that.

Is that your last one?

Yeah. Same deal.

Oh, am I too excited? I'll come hang out and see you guys.

I'll come visit. There you go. So June 9th is fine. June 9th. Oh. It works.

Okay. More on traffic, but yeah. All right. So next is Planning Commissioner's Reports. The only report I have is that vis-a-vis the library, part of the fundraising for the library gardens that my wife's nonprofit, Refugio, there was a big fundraiser on a couple of weeks ago, and it was incredibly well attended at the Lark Theater. Gavin Newsom came as... So did Annie Lamott. She was one of the keynote people there. And it was a great, wonderful meeting. And everybody was very happy with it. And they raised adequate money to fund the garden at the Larkspur Library to the pollinator garden. So looking forward to that being completed. It's already in the process of being done, but it's going to be beautiful when it's all said and done. It'll be great. All right.

I'll throw one thing out there. For those who are, you know, if you have friends that you want to get to apply to take my seat, because my term is June 30th and I'm not renewing. It is on the city website and the due date is Wednesday, May 27th to apply. There's also an opening on Heritage Preservation Board and Rent Review Board. Okay.

Very good.

All right. Next item is vote for adjournment. Do I see any objection?

I'll move to adjourn this meeting.

All right. By acclamation, we are adjourned.

Thank you all.