Second Story Gets Cut Down After Neighbors Cry Foul Over Lost Views, Privacy

At 16 Elm Avenue, an owner's plan to demolish an existing house and build a new 2,970 sq ft two-story home with an attached 175 sq ft garage/gym ran into a wall of neighbor objections at Tuesday's Planning Commission hearing. The design needed a floor-area exception to reach 0.214 FAR (3,148 sq ft) against a code max of 0.192, plus a slope permit for 362 cubic yards of grading. Architect Rich Pearlstein pitched it as Mission Revival meets "biomodern," with planted green roofs and a second story tucked into an existing hillside cut.

“I've been a Larkspur resident for 21 years... I told them a year ago what we were starting to do... there's no question there was an impact... but I understand that certainly from 20 Elm there will be impact. I mean there's just no there's no getting around that.”— Mike Folk, property owner, 16 Elm Avenue

Staff recommended approval, but neighbors weren't buying it. Emily Leiden of 20 Elm Avenue said the new second story looms over her backyard and blocks her Mount Tam view from the deck that serves as her main living space, arguing the floor shouldn't exist at all. Trisha Lacy of 110 Acacia Avenue questioned whether a 2024 ADU conversion should even qualify for the project's 800 sq ft FAR bonus, and asked for heritage tree root protection during grading.

Owner Mike Folk didn't dispute the impact on his neighbors — he simply owned it. The commission split the difference, approving the project 4-0 but tacking on real concessions: the second-story plate height drops 6 inches, roof pitch eases from 6:12 to 5:12 on all gables, and the east-facing second-story windows get redesigned to the applicant's own less-intrusive alternate layout.

Neighbor's Appeal Sends Sprawling Tennis Club Rebuild to the Full Council

The week's biggest fight is still ahead: the Planning Commission's approval of a wholesale rebuild at 1 Larkspur Plaza Drive — demolition of every existing structure and construction of 14 new buildings totaling 10,750 square feet, 8 new tennis courts, and 77 parking spaces — has been appealed by Dr. Howard Ortman and lands before the City Council this coming Tuesday, Sept 16.

Getting the project through Planning required a design review, a height exception, a fence height exception, a heritage tree removal permit, and a grading permit — a stack of discretionary approvals that shows how far this departs from what the parcel would normally allow. City staff is recommending the Council adopt Resolution 70/26, affirming the Planning Commission's decision and denying the appeal.

It's the second appeal of the season to reach the Council chamber, following the Mount Tam Racket Club appeal noted at Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting (that one is headed to a Corte Madera hearing). With an appellant on record and a project this large, expect Tuesday's session to draw more than the usual consent-calendar crowd.

Chipotle Clears the Bar; a Fire-Rebuilt Garage on City Land Doesn't — Yet

Two smaller property items rounded out Tuesday's docket. A Chipotle won approval to move into part of the shrinking Vitamin Shop space at 2062 Redwood Highway's Cost Plus Plaza, despite commissioners' skepticism that trip-generation numbers really captured delivery and pickup volume. The bigger worry wasn't parking — Ari Blum of Catalyst Real Estate noted the 291-space lot runs only 41.9% occupied at peak — but the dangerous left turn out of the shopping center onto a road already busy with Highway 101 traffic and an emergency vet clinic. Blum agreed to back a future city traffic study, and the permit passed 4-0.

“We've actually expressed directly to staff that we're really supportive of the study of that area and would love to see some kind of a traffic light or turn corridor safety improvement.”— Ari Blum, Catalyst Real Estate, representing the property owner

At 2 Palm Avenue, a routine post-fire rebuild permit surfaced a stranger problem: survey work found a long-standing private garage and driveway actually sit on a 3,470 sq ft crescent of Palm Avenue's public right-of-way. The owner, after a quiet title action, is asking the city to simply vacate that slice of road. Staff called a private structure in the public right-of-way a liability the city shouldn't carry, but a commissioner asked why the city would give up fee title on a narrow, fire-prone street rather than keep a reversible encroachment agreement — and whether the fire department had even weighed in. Commissioners continued the item 4-0, sending it back for fire department and public works input before it returns.