[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6309647,"mediaKeyId","2410786-7b2c795dd9608a8c0a7b65a2f4734f5c","parentId",2410786,"title","Planning Commission elects Peter Strauss chair and Commissioner Hayman vice chair","audioSeconds",778,"startMs",8534000,"endMs",9312000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2410786-7b2c795dd9608a8c0a7b65a2f4734f5c&start=8534&end=9312","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2410786-7b2c795dd9608a8c0a7b65a2f4734f5c/thumbnail_8534000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6309647/California/Planning-Commission-elects-Peter-Strauss-chair-and-Commissioner-Hayman-vice-chair","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309647-21de40f2831edae3b23d0ff62eef324d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770699584&Signature=Nu7tidHnrbpWYFfKpRRuDxpYP-V04a4UZGW-b6~wUjr0WnbO1uGa1QTHAQ0Oyj7vbSjKsjNxboV0MStWIv8pDKnj0BdVwUGaV1jG0TiBTdcJlSeYy7xQlhjAdAtYMJC8q2QMDHHkARFqP3v8BxD4hvFLqurvXdGMAC-BXhBN4Rnde~NGM07pEV1IJaY2bjSdMPmU2QYEosnCSQ~6jjIfNZrvsLCy7Yb85SgpR72EbPhao4--yqkV5YVF2INFLWDmsGXBw~3XXMecHKu2fqYLGQGbvTnavE3NOpomlKbvTM5-iE1QhlFXsLl1j7AL3AAZyVcRQjmP7DzXFncKfWTyoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town Council of San Anselmo, CA","date","2025-01-06T00:00:00Z","article","The San Anselmo Planning Commission on Jan. 6 elected its 2025 leadership by unanimous roll call.

A nomination was made to appoint Vice Chair Peter Strauss as chair. The commission voted unanimously to elect Peter Strauss; Heidi Skopel called roll for the vote. The commission then nominated and unanimously elected Commissioner Hayman as vice chair.

Votes at a glance
- Motion: Appoint Peter Strauss as Chair of the San Anselmo Planning Commission. Outcome: approved (unanimous).
- Roll call: Commissioner Koblek de Leon — Aye; Commissioner Hayman — Aye; Commissioner Smith — Aye; Commissioner Pipkin — Aye; Vice Chair Peter Strauss — Aye (accepted nomination); Chair Jennifer Asselstine — Aye.

- Motion: Appoint Commissioner Hayman as Vice Chair. Outcome: approved (unanimous).
- Roll call: Commissioner Koblek de Leon — Aye; Commissioner Hayman — Aye; Commissioner Smith — Aye; Commissioner Pipkin — Aye; Commissioner Asselstine (former chair, participating during handoff) — Aye; Chair Peter Strauss — Aye.

Why it matters: Leadership changes set meeting procedures and assignment of chair duties for the calendar year; commissioners use the chair and vice chair to manage agendas, hearings and study sessions.

Ending
Both leadership appointments passed without dissent and the commission proceeded to the next agenda items.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","San Anselmo Planning Commission Jan 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","At the Jan. 6 meeting the San Anselmo Planning Commission voted unanimously to appoint Peter Strauss as chair and Commissioner Hayman as vice chair; roll‑call tallies were recorded.","taxTitle","San Anselmo Town, Marin County, California","taxId",72147,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6309652,"Planners consider remodel and right‑of‑way acquisition for 250 Redwood Road",2106,3226000,5332000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2410786-7b2c795dd9608a8c0a7b65a2f4734f5c&start=3226&end=5332","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2410786-7b2c795dd9608a8c0a7b65a2f4734f5c/thumbnail_3226000.jpg","/articles/6309652/California/Planners-consider-remodel-and-rightofway-acquisition-for-250-Redwood-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309652-6ca1a747003939575abeb0c9ebd1f227/orig.mp4?Expires=1770699584&Signature=gAXf8M8WAc-feV0OvK58cfiTq5SQNkjzuLF4OkUFqkssSqtm1hqYx2IOw1Hbep92XNxIzwwaBCPvCvvML1N-nvOQMbl9rrVC7HarBMn4qjRUCjBK3qOKK~zEeFB1RN20EiE7YRHekXlzc6lWk9tYL1NoOX5dOyNYLnXIfMm0LwipRHKR1xE9FuF8OACCBLfOPKtPyeRxm4dASMKuog4vgaOKS2IU7qUVt7dqF~iTBxVOz334Y2M1D4W9Z9wSznmnfVdyIYdJ~OYpbstUZXr6FGPwlxl5cNVnRmFj0PD3OepL6Z9qJTbX7GVcjeLdZaI~GHq9IQ7s3jqE~f9nd1GwWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Anselmo Planning Commission on Jan. 6 held a study session on a conceptual remodel of a 1923 home at 250 Redwood Road that would enlarge the upper floor, reconfigure interior spaces and add about 421 square feet of habitable area.

Planning Director Heidi Skopel described the lot as located in the single‑family conservation general plan category but zoned R‑1; the parcel is also in the town's Bald Hill area plan and the Wildland‑Urban Interface (WUI), which affects building materials and fire‑safety requirements. The existing house is roughly 914 square feet of floor area; staff reported the proposed addition would increase floor area by about 421 square feet and raise the overall building height by roughly three inches.

Attorney Len Rifkind, representing owners Jason Jaworski and Romy Hom, explained a partial right‑of‑way abandonment in 2012 left a small sliver of town‑controlled paper street across the property. Rifkind said a new town vacation and conveyance of that sliver to the owner would reduce the project's lot‑coverage nonconformity and thereby reduce the number or magnitude of variances required.

Why it matters: The proposal touches multiple regulatory issues—lot coverage, historical lot lines and right‑of‑way ownership, WUI‑compliant materials—and would require design review and variances. Commissioners cautioned that construction logistics, neighbor impacts and fire‑safety requirements will be important in formal review.

Key project details and entitlements
- Existing and proposed size: Staff reported an existing floor area of about 914 sq ft and a proposed increase of roughly 421 sq ft; the plan would reconfigure the upper floor to add bedrooms, bathrooms and a mudroom. The project would slightly increase measured lot coverage; staff said the site is currently nonconforming for lot coverage and that acquiring the adjacent abandoned right of way would reduce but not necessarily eliminate the nonconformity.

- Required permits and variances: Staff listed likely entitlements as design review, a variance to allow structural alterations to a legally nonconforming residence (because prior variances were issued), and a lot‑coverage variance. If more than 50% of building area is demolished, a demolition permit and full compliance with current development standards could be triggered; staff asked the applicant to document demolition calculations in a formal filing.

- Right‑of‑way vacation: Len Rifkind told the commission that a 2012 town council resolution partially vacated a paper street associated with the original subdivision, with most of the abandoned area conveyed to a different parcel. Rifkind said the remaining sliver on the 250 Redwood map “should have been part of the 250 Redwood deed description” and that a new vacation/conveyance would reduce variance requests. He also said town staff and council would need to approve any vacation and that it typically requires a staff report and council action.

Commission comments and public input
Commissioners asked whether the owners had consulted neighbors; owner Jason Jaworski said they had and described generally positive neighborhood contacts. Commissioners also pressed the applicant on parking: staff noted three spaces were required by code and only two are currently shown; a parking variance may be needed depending on final plans.

Several commissioners emphasized concerns about construction impacts on the narrow, steep street, the need for a construction management plan reviewed by Public Works, and compliance with WUI requirements. The applicant said they do not plan preemptive tree removals; two oak trees near the front were discussed but not slated for removal in the concept.

No decision was made. Staff told the commission the formal application will include the full submittal checklist items the commission requested: clear lot‑coverage calculations, demolition percentage, parking dimensions, neighborhood outreach documentation, and any right‑of‑way coordination information with Public Works and Town Council.

Ending
The commission provided generally supportive design comments about massing and materials but asked the applicant to return with a formal application that addresses lot‑coverage math, parking and the town vacation process before any approvals can be considered.","Commissioners reviewed a concept to enlarge and reconfigure a 1923 house at 250 Redwood Road that would add roughly 421 square feet, require a lot‑coverage variance and potentially depend on town vacation of a historic paper street to reduce nonconformity.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6309657,"San Anselmo planners review 4‑unit proposal at 58 Magnolia Avenue",4103,949000,5052000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2410786-7b2c795dd9608a8c0a7b65a2f4734f5c&start=949&end=5052","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2410786-7b2c795dd9608a8c0a7b65a2f4734f5c/thumbnail_949000.jpg","/articles/6309657/California/San-Anselmo-planners-review-4unit-proposal-at-58-Magnolia-Avenue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6309657-ed369df81ccfa4a1842f634704ac9dd9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770699584&Signature=RO9OGXgFXokW-aDEagpEZc9TT8l09UtqW87Gh5wuTB3r73jmzQWJ62JyjKlslgt2s-U9DRSkVUSCAOuPycD0EufwJ0SP4n9qZ74K3ZKHxyKuLOoDq9jmZJE51sMZTvezejNNdAwMhIn4dYXcPykq89UzKtLMNMiyL~pSSqZPD5JO0mKWtMY~9MHKZkgpKHlOsYnEDen6KFfw66dX4OIjmTk3hBl9bpcAHL7~WNgnd58uUiue5xTc69IEry3S4A4CgbsSwLqUh~kUMo6WDrNAgIN4pMcqePIVJC5RdZd1f3RSvdClbLUcpDgIrwMyFpP0ACmynqgJhNIuXv0JhM4biA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Anselmo Planning Commission on Jan. 6 held a study session on a conceptual plan to demolish an existing c.1930 single‑family house at 58 Magnolia Avenue and replace it with a two‑story building containing four one‑bedroom apartments.

Planning staffer Jackson DeBroni introduced the project, calling it “a 4 unit residential development.” The applicant’s architect, Jeff Gard, described the design as living spaces on an upper floor with podium parking beneath and said the team was “primarily seeking design feedback as well as a temperature reading from the planning commission” on the concept in its current form.

The project would demolish the existing one‑story house and accessory structures, excavate roughly 46 cubic yards of earth, and remove two heritage trees (a front‑yard palm and an internal redwood), according to staff. The proposed four units would be about 1,034–1,043 square feet each, with one covered parking space per unit in podium parking beneath the living level. The parcel was rezoned from R‑1 to R‑3 during the town’s 2023 housing element update and is located in the downtown mixed residential land‑use designation.

Why it matters: The property is an identified “opportunity site” in the town housing element and the proposal would add three net housing units while triggering multiple land‑use reviews (demolition permit, design review and variances). Commissioners noted the town’s stated housing goals but pressed applicants on neighborhood compatibility, historic significance and the limits of objective review.

Key issues raised
- Historic status and CEQA: Staff and commissioners noted the structure appears in the California Historic Resources Information System (CRIS) as a property coded for local‑level interest. Planning Director Heidi Skopel said CRIS coding in this case does not create an automatic local‑designation pathway because San Anselmo lacks a local historic registry, but it can trigger California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) considerations if the building is shown to be eligible for state or national listing. Staff told the applicant the commission could request a short historic‑resources evaluation report if the commissioners want more information before supporting demolition.

- Objective Design Standards (ODS) and zoning path: The project was originally submitted under the town’s Objective Design Standards (ODS/\"odds\") process but staff said the application failed several ODS requirements because the building’s form fit the town’s townhouse description rather than a fourplex and the site did not meet minimum lot dimensions for that ODS building type. The applicant now intends to pursue a discretionary review and a zoning variance for front and side setbacks.

- Variances and site compatibility: Staff listed needed variances including a 5‑foot front‑setback variance, a 5‑foot side‑setback variance and a 1‑foot east‑side variance (exact measurements to be confirmed in a formal application). Commissioners asked the applicant to add a context map in the formal filing showing nearby setback patterns and prior variances to help justify requested deviations.

- Trees, materials and site design: Commissioners praised the renderings and modern design elements but pressed on materials (a Corian‑trim window detail drew questions) and on the feasibility of salvaging on‑site redwood for siding. The architect said he is exploring salvaging and milling material from the existing redwood trunks on site.

- Parking and affordability: Staff said each unit would have one covered parking space and the project would conform to San Anselmo parking standards as proposed; commissioners asked for clearer dimensioned plans. Jackson DeBroni said the town’s inclusionary housing policy would require one of the four units to be deed‑restricted at an affordable level (very low or low income) or the applicant could elect to pay an in‑lieu fee; the applicant indicated the priority is to deed‑restrict one unit rather than pay the fee.

Public input and next steps
Public comment was limited. A resident who identified herself as Yvonne asked whether a deed restriction on the affordable unit would remain if the units were sold; staff answered that the restriction would be recorded as a deed restriction and remain tied to the unit. Neighbors who attended asked about construction hours and a construction management plan; staff said the plan would be reviewed by Public Works and the building permit would include standard construction‑hour restrictions.

No formal action or vote was taken during the study session. Staff asked the applicant to return with a formal application that includes a historic‑resources evaluation if the commission requests it, a clearer set of dimensioned plans, and context exhibits documenting neighborhood setbacks and precedent variances.

Ending
The commission’s feedback was generally favorable to the design concept but emphasized the need for more detailed documentation—particularly on the property’s historic significance, required variances, tree impacts and parking dimensions—before any formal approvals.","At a Jan. 6 study session the Planning Commission reviewed a conceptual plan to demolish a c.1930 single‑family house and build a two‑story, four‑unit development at 58 Magnolia Avenue. Commissioners generally liked the design but raised concerns about historic status, variances, tree removals and parking; no formal vote was taken.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning Commission elects Peter Strauss chair and Commissioner Hayman vice chair

Planners consider remodel and right‑of‑way acquisition for 250 Redwood Road

San Anselmo planners review 4‑unit proposal at 58 Magnolia Avenue