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.