The Corte Madera Planning Commission on Wednesday held a preliminary review of an application to expand and remodel the three‑story residence at 208 Summit Drive, a heavily sloped lot on Christmas Tree Hill.

Planning staff presented the project as a study session: the applicant proposes 2,811 square feet of additions to an existing 1,971‑square‑foot house, including a new two‑car garage at the upper level and a reoriented roof. The application requests a height variance because portions of the proposed garage and upper level would exceed the town’s 30‑foot height plane; staff said the project now measures 36 feet at its highest point, matching a 1972 approved height and therefore creating a legal nonconforming condition. “The lot’s heavily sloped with an average slope of 72%,” planning staff said during the presentation.

Staff also identified a potential need for an increased side‑yard setback under the Christmas Tree Hill overlay: the code increases side setbacks as building height rises, and staff explained that at a 36‑foot measured height the south side setback could grow from the standard 10 feet to about 22 feet unless the commission determines the provision does not apply on this irregular parcel.

Neighbors and commenters raised construction‑management and safety concerns. Written letters from nearby homeowners and several public speakers cited the construction schedule and hours, construction parking on the narrow street, hillside stability and the presence of a pool on a steep lot. One online commenter noted recent tree loss that makes the house more visible than the applicant’s photos show.

The applicant’s team — architect Christian Oakes and owner Hector Colina — said the garage is essential to provide safe, usable parking on the steep site and that earlier design iterations reduced overall height and moved the garage toward the street to lower impacts. Christian Oakes told commissioners the project team has an on‑file geotechnical report from earlier seismic work and has engaged a second geotechnical consultant for current plans. Owner Hector Colina said the family needs additional living space and that previous seismic upgrades and voluntarily added fire sprinklers have already been installed.

Commissioners said they were generally sympathetic to the safety and parking rationale and to the existence of a preexisting nonconforming height, but several members said they could not yet make the required variance findings for the increased side‑yard setback. Commissioner comments focused on narrowing the south‑side intrusion (the Bedroom‑4 wedge), providing clearer overlay diagrams (existing vs. proposed parking), adding solar/shadow studies, demonstrating geotechnical and erosion controls, and expanding neighbor outreach. One commissioner suggested story poles or a single‑page overlay showing the setback plane and property lines to clarify visual impacts.

Tracy, planning staff, said construction management plans, required as a condition of approval on similar hillside projects, can address hours, heavy‑equipment staging, worker parking/shuttles and enforcement; she also noted that building permits typically run 12 months and may be extended after inspections and review. The applicant estimated a construction program of roughly two years and said they would use customary mitigation measures including a construction management plan and worker parking strategies.

Because this was a study session no action was taken; commissioners asked the applicant to return with refined drawings, clearer setback and section exhibits, a geotechnical/erosion narrative, a construction management plan and expanded neighbor outreach before formal review and any vote.

Next steps: the applicant will revise materials and schedule a formal hearing where the commission may consider findings for variances and any conditions of approval.