Commission approves certificate of appropriateness for 510 Garnett with condition requiring sewer/site investigation

The Public Amenities Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness for an addition to the designated landmark at 510 Garnett Street, subject to a condition that the applicant investigate potential sewer/septic infrastructure impacts and resolve any conflicts before the city issues building permits.

The nut graf: Staff recommended approval after reviewing revised plans the applicant presented in response to the commission’s February feedback; the applicant reduced the roof‑deck visibility, simplified massing and retained second‑story windows. Several neighbors urged additional study of foundations, underground utilities and impacts on adjacent properties during an extended public comment period.

Senior planner Andrew Spytec presented the city’s analysis and concluded staff believes the revised design meets the city’s preservation standards and the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for compatible and differentiated additions to landmark properties. "Staff is of the opinion that the current application is consistent and in line with past approvals," he said.

Architect Miles Pritzgott described the design changes after the February hearing and told the commission the team had removed the visible elements of the rooftop deck and simplified the east‑side massing. "We have eliminated any sort of visual presence of the roof deck from somebody walking along or driving through along Garnet or El Camino, Real as well," he said.

Applicant Kim (homeowner) emphasized the house’s condition and the project’s goals: "We have spent the past 2 and a half years designing a home that celebrates the history of this historic structure but also provides the space needed to support a family," she said, describing longstanding foundation, plumbing and electrical issues the work would address.

Public comment included multiple neighbors who raised construction‑impact concerns: potential effects on adjacent foundations and chimneys during foundation work; a question about whether a historic carriage‑style garage door would remain; and claims that historic trees and older sewer/septic infrastructure cross the site and could be affected by construction. Commissioners asked staff whether those technical issues fall under the commission’s review; planning staff said structural and utility issues are primarily addressed in building‑permit plan check and that they would impose a permit precondition to require investigation and mitigation where necessary.

The commission made a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness with an explicit condition requiring a site utility and foundation investigation (sewer/septic and related infrastructure) and that any identified conflicts be resolved to the satisfaction of building‑plan check before issuance of building permits. The motion passed by recorded voice vote (tally recorded in the minutes as 4 yes, 1 no).

Ending: Staff said the condition will be included in the final resolution and enforced through plan check. The Minor Alteration/Subcommittee and planning staff will continue to coordinate with the applicant during permit review; neighbors were advised to pursue any structural‑impact concerns through the building‑plan review and inspection process.

Speakers quoted: Andrew Spytec (Senior Planner), Miles Pritzgott (Architect), Kim (homeowner/applicant).