CENTRAL LARKSPUR AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
(CLASP)
Send a message to Planning Re: CLASP

Central Larkspur Area Specific Plan (CLASP)

Archived Files
TABLE OF CONTENTS
You must allow file to load completely before using.

Planning Commission Meeting of 9/6/06
CC Staff Report on General Plan Amendment related to CLASP
CC Staff Report for Downtown Specific Plan Amendments related to CLASP
CC Staff Report for the Specific Plan-CLASP
CC Staff Report for the Rezoning related to CLASP


Meeting #22 May 3, 2001
Meeting #21 March 1, 2001
Meeting #20 January 25, 2001
Meeting #18 November 16, 2000
Meeting #17 November 2, 2000
Meeting #16 October 26, 2000
Meeting #15 September 9, 2000
Meeting #14 September 7, 2000
Meeting #13 August 17, 2000
Meeting #12 July 2000
Meeting #11 June 2000
Meeting #10 May 2000
  Meeting #9 May 2000
Meeting #8 March 2000
Meeting #7 March 2000
Meeting #6 February 2000
Meeting #5 January 11, 2000
Meeting #4 December 16, 1999
Meeting #3 October 1999
Meeting #2 September 1999
Meeting #1 July 1999
Open Letter-Mayor Hilmer 4/6/99
Nov. 1998 CC Special Hearing


Meeting #16 October 26, 2000

Agenda October 26, 2000
(The Assessment Report is very large and will require a long loading time.)
Assessment Report, October 19, 2000
Appendix 1- Alternatives Assessment Transportation & Circulation

Logo for Hausrath Economics Group
APENDIX 2
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Date: October 24, 2000
From: Sally Nielsen
Subject: Feasibility Analysis of Central Larkspur Specific Plan Alternatives


This memorandum summarizes the results of Hausrath Economics Group's (HEG) feasibility analysis of the Central Larkspur Specific Plan alternatives. Our analysis is based on the Alternative Plans Development Program Descriptions prepared by Thomas Cooke Associates (TCA) dated 9/26/00 and on subsequent clarifying communications. TCA also provided the construction costs and site preparation costs. HEG assembled the development revenue and income assumptions based on review of comparable Marin County development, conversations with Thompson Residential Builders, and our prior experience preparing pro-forma feasibility analyses.

Structure of the Analysis

We conducted a land residual feasibility analysis for the four key properties affected by the alternatives: the city parking lot, Nazari property, Niven West, and Niven East. This type of analysis identifies any development income left over, after accounting for all development costs except land. That amount is the "residual" that determines the land value for a given development program.

Our analysis is structured as follows:

Add all development costs:

  • Construction costs by development type (hard costs);

  • Site preparation costs (hard costs);

  • Soft costs (design, engineering, financing, fees, insurance, and other incidentals) as a percentage of total hard costs;

  • Land costs for replacement parking, where applicable; plus

  • Contingency, as a percentage of all hard costs, soft costs, and applicable land costs.

Add all development income:

  • Capitalized rental income net of vacancy and operating expenses; plus

  • Income from sale of residential units, net of selling expenses and builder's profit.

The difference between development cost and development income is the net development income. This amount is the income residual that represents the land value for the alternative development programs.

Assumptions are generally conservative

We assume no real increase in rental income or sales prices over time. This is a conservative assumption. Similarly, no real increases in development costs are assumed. Other components of the feasibility analysis are also relatively conservative:

  • a 25 percent factor for soft costs (architecture and engineering, fees, financing, insurance, and other incidentals),

  • a 10 percent contingency on all development costs,

  • a 15 percent rate of return on investment (a 15 percent capitalization rate applied to the income property),

  • a 7.5 percent factor for the sales expense on for-sale residential development, and

  • a 10 percent builder's profit on the for-sale residential development.

Table 1 (at the end of this memorandum) summarizes the development cost assumptions. Table 2 displays all of the development income assumptions used in the analysis, including sales prices and rental rates.

Answers to Specific Topics and Issues for the Four Development Sites

Residual land value of city lot assuming mixed use development

Development of the city lot does not generate a positive residual land value under any of the alternatives evaluated here (see Table 3). Excluding the library alternatives, the net values associated the other alternatives are all negative, ranging from a negative $29 per square foot (Alternative X2) to a negative $70 per square foot (Alternative Y-B/Z1-B). For the city lot, the alternatives with revenue-generating development result in lower residual land values than does Alternative X2 (the plaza alternative).

The proposed revenue-generating development for the city lot consists of a mixed use building with ground floor retail and residential rental apartments above. The amount of space is not large, and residential rental development does not generate very much income. The net income from new mixed use development barely covers the hard construction costs of the mixed use development, even before accounting for the costs of structured parking, replacement parking (relatively small), site preparation (also relatively small), and soft costs and contingency. A development program incorporating for-sale residential development (townhouses above street-level retail) and no structured parking would generate a positive residual land value under the development cost and revenue assumptions used for the feasibility analysis of the alternatives.

Comparison of the economic viability of Nazari property development under different development assumptions

Mixed use development of the Nazari property generates a positive net land value under Alternatives Y and Z1, in the range of $10 per square foot. The residual land values are negative under Alternative X1, X2, and Z2, ranging from negative $5.60 per square foot under X2 to negative $19.38 per square foot under Z2. (Note: The costs of relocating the existing railroad buildings under Alternative Y are not included in this feasibility analysis.)

Under Alternatives X1 and X2 the costs of the plaza and structured parking are high relative to the amount and type of revenue-generating development. As seen in the city lot analysis, mixed use development with residential rental units does not generate enough income to offset development costs, even without structured parking. Replacing residential rental units with hotel development (X2) boosts the income from new development but the added costs of structure parking and additional plaza under that alternative drag down the net value calculation.

The positive results for Y and Z1 are very similar, reflecting the similar development programs. Both have a larger hotel than does X2 and both also have for-sale residential development (townhouse or live-work). This feasibility analysis assumes that there is no sales price discount for the live-work building type, just as there is no construction price discount. In other words, the live-work units function in the market essentially as townhouse units. Alternative Z2 with no hotel and with high structured parking costs results in the most negative residual land value for the Nazari property.

We conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact on feasibility of the higher proportion of land area and improvement costs devoted to publicly accessible plaza area under those alternatives. The amount of additional public plaza area under X1 is small (about 2,700 square feet) and removing that cost from the feasibility calculation only changes the net value by two percent. Under X2, the higher amount of public plaza area is larger (about 10,000 square feet); subtracting those plaza improvement costs improves the net residual land value calculation by 20 percent. Table 2: Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area Alternatives - Public Development Costs in the companion fiscal analysis memorandum (Appendix 3) lists these public plaza improvement costs, and associated land value compensation to the Nazari developer, as potential additional public costs.

Residual land value of the Niven West site assuming 4,000 square feet of retail development and either five cottage units or 10 live/work units

The residual land values for the Niven West site are the highest per square foot among the four sites analyzed (see Table 5). For this analysis, the site area is reduced by the amount of land area that would be devoted to surface public parking (50 downtown-serving spaces and varying amounts of surface spaces replacing spaces lost with development of the city lot). Site preparation costs are also reduced by the cost of the public parking. Table 2: Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area Alternatives-Public Development Costs in the companion fiscal analysis memorandum (Appendix 3) accounts for the public parking costs. The costs of the city lot replacement spaces are also incorporated in the feasibility analysis of city lot development (see Table 3).

The residual land values range from about $18 per square foot for the option of 4,000 square feet of retail space and five cottage units to about $46per square foot for the option of 4,000 square feet of retail space and 10 live-work units. The live-work option provides a substantially better return because more units are provided, and those units are sold for higher per-square-foot prices than are the cottage units. The per-square-foot construction costs are also higher for the live-work units than they are for the cottage units, implying a substantial degree of finish work, comparable to what would be found in a typical residential townhouse. The differential between the per-square-foot construction cost factors is greater than the differential between the two per-square-foot sales price factors.

It is also important to note that we have assumed the live-work units do not count as residential development for the purpose of the City of Larkspur's General Plan affordable housing policy. If they did count as residential development, then one (or two) of the units would have to be provided at a discounted price. This affordable housing discount is not incorporated in the current feasibility analysis.

The residual land value of the Niven West site is overstated to the extent some site preparation costs are absorbed by the Niven East development. Table 7 shows the residual land value results for the combined Niven West and Niven East sites. To estimate land cost for replacement parking and for other public parking provided on the Niven site, we used a residual land value reflecting the combined results for Niven West and Niven East.

Residual land value of three residential alternatives for the Niven East site

The residual land values for the three residential development alternatives for Niven East are about the same in all cases-in the range of $15 to $16 per square foot of land (see Table 6). The alternatives reflect different development programs and different means of meeting the affordable housing requirement.

Alternatives X and Y accommodate the affordable housing requirement within the private development program by making the requisite number of cottage units (four units in Alternative X and 7 units in Alternative Y) available at prices affordable to low and moderate income households. Those less-than-market-rate prices are incorporated in the feasibility analysis for Alternatives X and Y and in the land value results.

Alternative Z takes another approach to the affordable housing requirement, reserving about two acres for land for development of affordable housing by a non-profit housing developer. (A larger amount of affordable housing could be developed in this way-36 apartment units could be accommodated on this two-acre site.) The balance of the Niven East site is assumed to be developed with entirely market-rate residential development (and associated parks and open space). The feasibility analysis of Alternative Z accounts only for that development, not the non-profit component. Under the assumption that these would be the responsibility of the non-profit developer, the development costs, including site preparation costs, and development revenues associated with the affordable housing development are not included in the Alternative Z calculations for Niven East. The land value results for Alternative Z represent residual land values for a development program that does not incorporate any subsidy for affordable housing. It also does not reflect any value from transfer of the two-acre site to a non-profit developer.1

In general, the residual land values for the three Niven East alternatives are positive but are lower than the land values for the Niven West site. This is because Niven East has higher costs to provide park, open space, and transportation improvements. Niven East also bears the cost of site preparation that is required for Niven West. (Table 7 shows the residual land value results for the two sites combined.) The affordable housing requirement also lowers the residual land values for Niven East compared to Niven West.

We conducted a sensitivity analysis of the Niven East alternatives to evaluate potentially higher costs for roads within the development area. If the road cost component of site preparation costs were 20 percent higher than assumed in the basic analysis, then residual land values would be about four percent lower than indicated in Table 6.

For the basic feasibility analysis, all Niven East alternatives incorporate as private development costs the habitat and park land improvements required by the city. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the impact of those requirements on residual land value. The habitat improvement costs under X apply to 9,200 sf of land. Eliminating the costs of habitat improvements to that land area increases the net value per square foot for the balance of the site by just over two percent. The change is greater under Z where more land area is designated for habitat improvement. Subtracting those costs increases the net value per square foot by about seven percent. Also under Alternative Z, more improved park land is assumed than would be required by the City of Larkspur Park Dedication ordinance. Under the Alternative Z residential development program (including affordable housing units), the park dedication requirement would be 44,274 square feet of land area;2 64,000 square feet of park land is included under that alternative, resulting in an excess of 19,726 square feet beyond the dedication requirement of the ordinance. Subtracting this amount of land area and associated park improvement costs from the private development cost calculation for Alternative Z increases the residual land value per square foot by about five percent. Subtracting both the excess park and the habitat improvement requirements from Alternative Z increases the residual land value per square foot by about 12 percent. Table 2: Central Larkspur Specific Plan Alternatives-Public Development Costs in the companion fiscal analysis memorandum (Appendix 3) shows the magnitude of the land and improvement costs associated with these city requirements/policies.

Answers to related questions and issues

What is the trade off between a standard single family lot and other types of housing proposed, i.e., how many cottages are required to equal the return on one single family unit?

Sensitivity analysis indicates that two cottage units provide about the same return as one standard single family unit. We used Alternative Z as a baseline for this sensitivity analysis, since it evaluates a purely market-rate development. In the base case for Alternative Z, the residual land value is $15.54 per square foot. Subtracting one single family unit from the mix (14 units instead of 15 in the base case) lowers the residual land value. Subsequently increasing the number of cottage units by two (from 39 to 41) and maintaining 14 single family units results in a residual land value of $15.61 per square foot.

This sensitivity analysis is based only on the differentials in hard construction costs, sales prices, and unit sizes. It does not assume any differences in site preparation costs that might be associated with a change in the configuration of unit types.

What would be the income to the city if they sold the parking lot for mixed use development?

Under the alternative development programs analyzed here there would be no incentive to sell the city parking lot for mixed use development. None of the development proposals generates a positive land value. A scheme that incorporated for-sale townhouse or live-work development would show a positive land value. One such scenario (townhouses built over retail and "tuck under" parking, with no structured parking) shows a residual land value of about $10 per square foot. Income to the city from sale of the lot would be about $196,000 at this land value.

_____________________
1 An appropriate land value assumption for the transfer of that two-acre site would incorporate the consideration that affordable cottages would otherwise be provided as part of the Alternative Z development scenario. That factor reduces the residual land value under Alternative Z by about 13.5 percent, from $15.54 per square foot to $13.43 per square foot.
2 The park dedication ordinance provides for waiving of requirements and fees for affordable housing development (Section 17.13.150 Exemptions.) This sensitivity analysis assumes that the requirement would not be waived.

Logo for Hausrath Economics Group
APENDIX 3
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Date: October 25, 2000
From: Sally Nielsen
Subject: Fiscal Analysis of Central Larkspur Specific Plan Alternatives


This memorandum summarizes the results of Hausrath Economics Group's (HEG) fiscal analysis of the Central Larkspur Specific Plan alternatives. The assessment is based on HEG's analysis of the City of Larkspur's 1998-99 Actual Budget, on the Alternative Plans Development Program Descriptions prepared by Thomas Cooke Associates (TCA) dated 9/26/00 and subsequent clarifying communications, as well as on the results of HEG's feasibility analysis of the Alternatives, presented in a companion memorandum (Appendix 2).

The fiscal impact analysis consists of an assessment of the implications of each alternative for the City of Larkspur's General Fund operating budget. We also provide a summary of the potential public costs associated with each alternative, e.g., costs for a new library, costs for public parking spaces to serve the downtown area, costs for replacement parking, costs for publicly accessible plaza area on private property, and costs for habitat improvements and park land in excess of city requirements. The memorandum concludes with an evaluation of the development impact fee revenue generated by each alternative for the Larkspur School District.

Alternatives Analyzed

The feasibility analysis indicated that some development programs would generate higher net values than others and would thus be the preferred development options. We have simplified the range of alternatives analyzed for the fiscal impact analysis to reflect those conclusions. We analyze Alternatives X1, X2, Y, Z1, and Z2. In all cases, the live-work development option for the Niven West site is analyzed, because the returns generated by live-work residential development substantially exceed those generated by the cottage option. Similarly, the fiscal impact analysis uses the mixed use development options for the city lot, not the library options. The non-profit affordable housing development is incorporated in the analysis of Alternatives Z1 and Z2.

Fiscal Impact on City of Larkspur General Fund

Table 1 summarizes the fiscal impact analysis of the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Alternatives on costs and revenues for the City's General Fund operating budget. The results shown are annual revenues and costs and net revenue in Year Five, after initial absorption, when all new development is assumed to be built and occupied. All of the alternatives would generate a positive net revenue to the City's General Fund. The alternatives that include hotel development (X2, Y, and Z1) generate the most net revenue because of the transient occupancy tax-accounting for about one quarter of total general fund revenue under those alternatives. The annual net revenue ranges from a low of about $151,000 per year under X1 to a high of about $303,000 per year under Y.

Comparing the results of Alternatives Y and Z1 illustrates other components of the fiscal impact analysis. Property tax revenues in Z1 are lower than they are in Y because of the different mix of development assumed for Niven East. The average market value of the market-rate residential units is lower under Z1 compared to Y, and Z1 includes the non-profit affordable housing development (assumed to be rental housing affordable to low and very low income households). On the other hand, sales tax revenue (and other per-capita revenue) is higher under Z1 because of the larger residential population associated with that alternative (including the 36 affordable units). Offsetting these higher revenues associated with a larger residential population are the higher costs that would also come with that larger population.

After Year Five, under the assumptions of this analysis (no real increases over and above inflation in development revenues, property values, per capita retail sales, or city operating costs), annual net revenue declines by a small percentage each year because of the impact of Proposition 13 limits on annual increases in assessed value (on which property tax revenue is based). Those limits, which apply unless property is sold, mean that assessed value increases at less than the assumed rate of inflation, so property tax revenues decline over time in real terms. Property tax revenues are an important revenue source, but they are not the only revenue source (as indicated by the table), so the annual real decline in net revenue would be relatively small.

The fiscal impact analysis evaluates several components of the operating budget:

  • property tax revenue based on assessed value of new development and changes in that assessed value over time, including re-assessment at market value for periodic re-sales,

  • property transfer tax revenue that accounts for the initial sale and the periodic turn-over (re-sale) of real property,

  • sales tax analysis that accounts for the taxable spending in Larkspur of people living in the Specific Plan Area and of people working in the Specific Plan Area, as well as the additional sales tax revenue that would be generated by taxable sales in new retail development in the Specific Plan Area,

  • transient occupancy tax revenue associated with new hotel development,

  • other revenue sources that make up the operating budget and the public service costs funded by the operating budget (both calculated on a per-capita basis-per resident and per employee).

Public Development Costs Associated with the Alternatives

Table 2 summarizes the potential one-time public development costs associated with the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Alternatives. The biggest one-time cost item is the public library at $3.2 million. Without the public library, the potential one-time public costs range from around $350,000 - $400,000 under Alternative Y to about $1,700,000 under Alternative X2 (with the large public plaza on the city lot and the full cost of replacement parking spaces). The costs under X1 are lower because, aside from foregone general fund revenue, there are no public development costs associated with the existing city parking lot. The habitat costs associated with Niven East contribute to potentially higher public costs under X1 and X2. Similarly, under Z1 and Z2, it is the potential park land and habitat costs associated with Niven East development that could increase public development costs.

The downtown parking lot (50 surface spaces provided at the Niven West site) is common to all alternatives. The cost is in the range of $500,000 ($10,000 per space). The cost difference among alternatives reflects different land cost assumptions, based on the residual land values for the combined Niven property generated by the feasibility analysis.

The variations in use of the existing city parking lot introduce a number of public cost factors. One potential public cost is the cost of replacement parking assuming the city lot is developed more intensively. Again, the major component of this cost is the land cost assumption. In a parallel to this cost, the table indicates the net general fund revenue foregone (assuming no mixed use development on the existing city parking lot site) as a potential public cost under X1 and X2. Those alternatives would either retain the city parking lot (X1) or develop the site as a public plaza (X2). The improvement cost for the public plaza on the city lot under X2 is also shown on the table ($256,000). The table also indicates offsetting revenue to the City from sale of the city lot for more intensive mixed use development under Alternatives Y, Z1, and Z2.

The final potential public costs indicated on Table 2-Nazari public plaza, Niven East park land, and Niven East habitat represent the costs of improvements and associated land value for these public amenities. Again, the land cost is the most significant factor.

Development Impact Fee Revenue to the Larkspur School District

Table 3 presents estimates of the development impact fee revenue that the Larkspur School District would collect from new residential and non-residential development in the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area. (The Tamalpais Union High School District does not assess a development impact fee.) These fees are established to partially offset the cost of new capital facilities required to accommodate the students associated with new development in the district. The current fees are $1.93 per square foot of residential development and $0.31 per square foot of non-residential development.

The table shows the one-time fee revenue that would be generated by development on each of the development sites under each alternative. The residential development on Niven East would clearly generate the most fee revenue, ranging from about $304,000 under Alternative Y to $340,000 under Alternative X. Because the fee is assessed per square foot of residential development, the relative size of the unit makes a significant difference. According to the school district, there is no exemption for affordable housing, so the fees associated with that development are calculated in the table.

For this analysis, it is assumed that live-work development is not counted as a residential use. Therefore, the fees associated with live-work development are calculated based on the lower non-residential rate. Also, as noted in the notes to the table, the fee does not apply to garage space, so the actual amounts would be somewhat less than shown here since garage space is included in the total square footage of residential development.

Return To Top

Meeting#15 September 9, 2000

Meeting Notes, Meeting #15, September 9, 2000
Agenda September 9, 2000

To: CLASP Committee
From: Bob Pendoley
Date: September 6, 2000
Subject: Our meeting on Saturday

Just a reminder. We have a second Committee meeting this week on Saturday, September 9, starting at 9:30 AM. We will be in the Fellowship Hall at Redwoods Presbyterian Church, 110 Magnolia Avenue. Redwoods Presbyterian is located at the corner of Magnolia and Alexander.

If all goes well at our meeting on Thursday September 7, our Saturday meeting will focus on alternative concept plans X, Y and Z for the Niven property. If, after your discussion, you are satisfied that the alternative plans give you an acceptable range of choices, the consultants will be authorized to move to the next stage of the process in which we will evaluate the impacts of the various alternatives. We can have the impact analysis for your meeting in October.

I am forwarding a slightly revised version of Alternative Y. As you will see, the plan has been changed to show housing on both sides of the loop road that is near the creek on the eastern end of the Niven property.

I have not included the drawings that were distributed with earlier agenda packages on the assumption that you have them in your binders I will have copies for the audience, and there will be extras if anybody needs them.

A one-hour lunch break is scheduled for the Saturday meeting. We will have drinks available for Committee members who bring their lunches, and we will have coffee for the morning session.

If you have questions, comments, suggestions or anything we need to discuss, please don't hesitate to call me at 472-3614. My e-mail address is rpendoley@home.com. Thanks to everyone for giving up a Saturday for this important community project!

Return To Top

Meeting#14 September 9, 2000
To: CLASP Committee
From: Bob Pendoley
Date: August 31, 2000
Subject: Our next meeting(s)

We have two meetings next week. We will meet on Thursday, September 7, 2000, beginning at 7:30 PM. The second meeting will be on Saturday, September 9, starting at 9:30 AM. Both meetings will be in the Fellowship Hall at Redwoods Presbyterian Church, 110 Magnolia Avenue. Redwoods Presbyterian is located at the corner of Magnolia and Alexander.

Thursday's meeting will pick up where we left off with the discussion of alternative concept plans for properties fronting on Magnolia Avenue. At the last meeting you discussed the first alternative, Alternative "X," as it would apply to the city parking lot and the Nazari property, as well as portions of the Albertson's shopping area and the Niven property. On September 7 Tom Cooke will present "Y" and "Z" for the same area. Tom will take about 10 minutes to present both alternatives, and then the Committee will take over with questions and comments. We will follow the same pattern as at our last meeting: the committee will discuss the concept plans; we will take public comments after the break, and then the Committee will give direction to the to the consultants.

Near the end of the agenda, when the Committee is giving direction, we need to discuss revisions to "X" which have been prepared for your review. The consultants have interpreted your direction from the last meeting to make a series of adjustments to the "X" alternative. They are included in the material that is attached to this memo. The revised plans give you several choices for "X:"

  • A plan that features a large, park-like plaza at the corner of Ward and Magnolia. There would also be a smaller open area around the railroad buildings. Although ownership could be handled several ways, the most affordable approach may be for the City to continue to own the property at Ward and Magnolia and for the area around the railroad buildings to be privately owned, but open to the public. This plan may require the purchase of a portion of the Niven property in order to replace the parking that would be lost at Ward and Magnolia.
  • A revised version of "X" that depicts a smaller, publicly accessible open area at the corner of Ward and Magnolia.
  • Drawings have been prepared to show a wholesale/retail nursery on the Niven property in the general vicinity of the American Legion.
  • Revised drawings show the American Legion developed in a new use. If reuse of the Legion's property becomes part of the recommended plan, the Committee may want to consider including policies that would encourage the American Legion to remain. You have discussed this approach to encourage retention of the gas station.

On Saturday, if all goes according to schedule, we will focus on the eastern part of the planning area, which consists of most of the Niven property and a portion of the shopping center. We will present the three alternatives as they apply to that part of the planning area. We would like to get your final direction on changes to the alternatives at the end of Saturday's meeting so that we can move to the next step of the planning process in October. As you know, the next step involves assessing the impacts of the alternative concept plans so that you can begin to develop a preferred plan to recommend to the City Council. We will get an agenda package for the Saturday meeting to you by next Wednesday.

Just a reminder on "the process." The purpose of the alternative plans is to depict a range of choices reflecting various community interests that have been identified by the Committee. At this stage of the process the Committee is being asked to review and refine the alternatives. Once the concept plans have been revised to your satisfaction, an impact assessment will be done on each alternative. The plans will be assessed for traffic impacts, effects on the natural environment such as the creek, and other issues including the cost of providing public services. After the Committee has studied impacts, you will be asked to direct the consultants in the preparation of a preferred plan. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared on the plan you recommend. The preferred plan and the draft EIR will be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council.

If you have questions, comments, suggestions or anything we need to discuss, please don't hesitate to call me at 472-3614. I have a new e-mail address: rpendoley@home.com. Have a great Labor Day weekend!

September 7, 2000 Agenda

Return To Top
Meeting #13 August 2000
To: CLASP Committee
From: Bob Pendoley
Date: August 11, 2000
Subject: Our next meeting

Our next meeting is on Thursday, August 17, 2000, beginning at 7:30 PM. We will meet in the Fellowship Hall at Redwoods Presbyterian Church, 110 Magnolia Avenue. Redwoods Presbyterian is located at the corner of Magnolia and Alexander.

Where are we in the process? At our last meeting we began reviewing three alternative concept plans for the project area. The purpose of the alternative plans is to depict a range of choices reflecting the various community interests you have identified. At this stage of the process the Committee is being asked to review and refine the alternatives. Once the concept plans have been revised to your satisfaction, an impact assessment will be done on each alternative. The plans will be assessed for traffic impacts, impacts on the natural environment such as the creak, and other issues including the cost of providing public services. After the Committee has studied impacts, you will be asked to direct the consultants in the preparation of a preferred plan. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared on the plan you recommend. The preferred plan and the draft EIR will be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Our last meeting was an introduction to the alternatives, focusing mainly on the Niven property. At the August meeting Tom Cooke will give a more detailed presentation, concentrating on the properties fronting on Magnolia Avenue, i.e., the Nazari property and the City parking lot. This is intended to be a working session in which the Committee explores and debates the concept plans in detail. At the end of the meeting the Committee will be asked to give the consultant direction on changes to the concept plans for the Nazari and City properties.

Tom Cooke has prepared a series of detailed studies to explain and illustrate the alternatives for the Magnolia Avenue properties. Please consider these ideas as you review the alternatives and prepare for the meeting:

  • The alternatives are not recommendations. They are studies designed to help the Committee study the choices that are available for the project area. Do these alternatives give you an adequate range of choices? If not, the concept plans can be adjusted, or new alternatives can be developed.

  • The alternatives are based on the Design Principles and Criteria the Committee adopted for the specific plan. (a copy of the Principles and Criteria is attached). Do the alternatives accurately reflect the Principles and Criteria?

  • It is probably not possible to achieve all of the Principles and Criteria in this small area. The Committee may need to make trade offs to accomplish the Principles you decide are most important for the properties.

  • The Committee may decide that the alternatives need more work to better reflect the Principles. Or you may find that alternatives are consistent with the Principles, but that the Principles should be changed, at least as they apply to these properties.

  • We can prepare more alternatives with your direction.

Your agenda has been set up to make this a working meeting. An hour and a half has been scheduled to review the Magnolia Avenue alternatives. We would like to discuss the alternatives one-at-a–time. Tom will begin with a brief introduction (five minutes) of the first alternative, explaining the basic idea and the pro's and con's. The Committee will be asked to comment for fifteen or 20 minutes, and then we will move on to the next alternative. At the end of your discussion (around 9:45 PM) we will confirm the changes you would like to the alternatives (and/or the new alternatives you would like to see prepared) based on your discussion during the working session. We will also be seeking public comment during the meeting to help inform your discussion.

At the September meeting, Tom Cooke will provide revised alternatives for the Nazari property and the City parking lot. We will have the same kind of working session, focusing on the Niven property and any remaining issues that need to be explored to complete the alternatives.

If you have questions, comments, suggestions or anything we need to discuss, please don't hesitate to call me at 472-3614. I have a new e-mail address. Have a great weekend!

CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN PROGRAM

Description of Alternatives for the West Portion of the Specific Plan Area

Introduction
The area encompassed in the description of alternatives for the west portion of the Central Larkspur Specific Plan consists of the City parking lot site, the Nazari property, approximately 1.5 acres of the western portion of the Niven site, and the portion of Larkspur Plaza occupied by Albertsons.

The materials contained herein are intended to help the Committee at its August 17 meeting define the land use and design assumptions to be incorporated into the three alternatives to be analyzed and compared in the next phase of the project.

The basic charge to the Committee at this point is to select three alternative plans that meeting the following two criteria. (It is important to note that any decisions as to a preferred plan will only be made after the selected alternatives have been analyzed in more depth, and the pros and cons of each choice have been documented.)

Criteria 1. Do one or more of the alternatives maximize adherence with the General Plan- and Downtown Specific Plan-based planning principles and related criteria established at the start of the program?

Criteria 2. Do the alternatives represent the range of community concerns and objectives identified thus far in the planning program?

Accompanying Materials
This packet contains the following materials:

  1. Copies of Alternatives X, Y, and Z presented at the prior CLASP meetings. (These sketch plan maps can be found at the rear of the materials described below.)

  2. Tables describing the characteristics of each alternative. The tables list the assumed land uses, and the amount of floor area allocated to these uses; the intensity of use for the respective parcels, measured as the ratio between the amount of floor area and the area of the site (referred to as the floor area ratio or FAR); the number of housing units and hotel rooms; the number of parking spaces; the amount of land devoted to public open space; and the amount of the site covered by buildings, streets, and parking. This information will be used to conduct more detailed analysis of traffic, economic feasibility, fiscal consequences, visual impacts, historic and archeological resources, and environmental impacts, including impacts on air and water quality and natural habitats.

  3. Illustrative site plans for the west portion of the Specific Plan area. The illustrative plans serve both to explain the arrangement of buildings, parking, and open space, and to quantify the amount and type of building space, parking, and open space associated with each alternative.

  4. Illustrative cross-sections that depict the height of typical buildings and their relationship to the contours of the site. The cross-sections will help explain some of the design issues associated with construction on a sloping and dimensionally constrained site, and also help depict some of the scale implications of the respective alternatives.

  5. Seven perspectives illustrating the basic design concepts and spatial characteristics. An accompanying map identifies the locations of the various views depicted. The intent of the perspectives is to help the Committee visualize the scale of buildings and spaces as seen from Magnolia Avenue and within the project site.

Description of Alternatives
The defining characteristics of each alternative are briefly described below. The differences are summarized by four defining characteristics. These are in turn related to the original project planning principles. (Note: these principles are paraphrased, and the original listing of principles and criteria should be consulted for more detail.)

  1. Intensity of development: the types of land use and the amount of floor area devoted to each. Intensity of development directly affects such things as traffic generation, economic feasibility, fiscal acceptances, and in turn ability to implement the plan. Intensity also influences the number of people using an area, and in turn the sense of vitality and liveliness of the area. The most directly related project planning principles and related criteria are the following:

    • Balance land use to avoid adverse fiscal impacts to the community (Principle 5).
    • Allow private property owners equitable return on their property (Principle 8).
    • Incorporate community-serving uses or facilities which serve all segments of the community and contribute to the vitality of downtown (Principle 9).
    • Incorporate commercial and public uses that contribute to the commercial and social vitality of the entire city (Principle 13).

  2. Scale: the size and dimensions of buildings and unbuilt spaces. The primary concerns with scale are the extent to which new development does not detract from the appearance of neighboring areas and results in spaces that are visually comfortable. The latter is often referred to as "having a human scale." Related planning principles include the following:

    • Achieve a distinctive identify for the Specific Plan Area (Principle 1).
    • Maintain consistency with Larkspur's small the small-town character (Principle 2).

  3. Connectivity: the ability to link the project area with adjoining areas and the city as whole. Related principles include the following:

    • Maintain consistency with the small-town character of Larkspur's downtown and adjacent neighborhoods (Principle 2).
    • Functionally and visually integrate development of all Specific Plan-area parcels and integrate the entirety of the area into the fabric of the city (Principle 10).
    • Balance provisions for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation (Principle 11).

  4. Community heritage, that is respect for and preservation of city's natural and man-made features and history. Major related principles include the following.

    • Safeguard, enhance, restore, and integrate natural features (Principle 3).
    • Respect the historic, cultural, and natural heritage of Larkspur (Principle 4).

Alternative X. This alternative has two main emphases. The first is to minimize the intensity of development so as to minimize the potential for adverse traffic impacts. For this reason further development of the City property is excluded. Two site plans are provided illustrating several levels of intensity. The second emphasis of alternative X is to maintain a small-scale setting, and the alternative is therefore based on a strict interpretation of a 25-foot height limit. The accompanying illustrative Section 2 depicts this condition. Due to topography and economic limitations, the construction of parking beneath buildings along Magnolia Avenue is not possible under alternative X. Other implications of the alternative are that only a limited amount of new shop frontage may be provided along Magnolia Avenue; an open appearance will be created in which parking is a dominant visual element; and a series of larger-scale open areas will dominate the setting. Other issues raised with this alternative concern economic feasibility and the fiscal consequences of the retention of the railroad buildings and the provision of related public space.

Alternative Y. The primary rationale for this alternative is to provide greater flexibility in siting new development so as to enhance the economic feasibility of development. Toward this end, the railroad buildings are relocated to the north, and the size of the public space adjoining the buildings is limited so that more of the open space may be allocated for private use. The intensity of development is consistent with the Downtown Plan's upper FAR limit of 0.80. Major issues posed by this alternative include the lack of connections between downtown and Larkspur Plaza and the housing proposed on the Niven site; the relocation of the historic buildings; and the size and suitability of the plaza adjoining these buildings.

Alternative Z. The intent of this alternative is to maximize attainment of the objectives embodied in the project's principles. This alternative depicts an intensity of development equivalent to that of Alternative Y while retaining the railroad buildings in their present location and allowing for a major public space surrounding the buildings. Major features include the emphasis given to linking Larkspur Plaza to downtown; linking housing in the Niven site to the area and to Magnolia Avenue; linking site development to Magnolia Avenue; and the creation of a public space that could serve as a "town center."

The accompanying sections 4 through 9 illustrate building conditions common to both Alternatives Z and Y. The accompanying illustrative perspectives (1 thorough 9) are based on Alternative Z, but serve to indicate the general scale implications that are common to all the site plans.

The consultant's presentation at the August 17 meeting will provide a more detailed explanation of the site plans and the illustrative sections and perspectives.

August 17, 2000 Agenda

Return To Top


Meeting #12 July 2000
To: CLASP Committee
From: Bob Pendoley
Date: July 12, 2000
Subject: Our next meeting

Our next meeting is on Thursday, July 20, 2000, beginning at 7:30 PM. We will meet in the Fellowship Hall at Redwoods Presbyterian Church, 110 Magnolia Avenue. Redwoods Presbyterian is located at the corner of Magnolia and Alexander.

As you know, the City Council has discussed the CLASP process at three Council meetings since your Committee last met on June 8. The Council is scheduled to consider adopting a resolution at their July 19 meeting that would provide direction for the rest of the process. Your self-evaluation of the process was forwarded to the Council and has been considered in their discussion. Many of the suggestions you discussed are included in the draft resolution the Council will consider at their July 19 meeting. The Chair and Vice Chair will give a report on the Council’s discussion.

Presentation on Alternative Plans

At your last meeting, the Committee finalized the list of planning options you would like studied further, identifying subareas within the planning area where each of the options should be studied. Based on this direction from the Committee, our planning consultant, Tom Cooke, has prepared three alternative concept plans for the planning area. The plans are maps showing the locations of land uses and the circulation system. The enclosed charts list the land uses that would be included in each alternative with a breakdown by subarea. Please note that options are presented for some of the subareas in order to include all the land uses you listed for study. Tom will also present photographs of similar land uses to demonstrate the scale of things that might be built under each alternative.

At the August 17 meeting Tom will present more detailed information on each of the three alternatives. The focus of this month’s meeting is to get feedback from the Committee on what kind of information you would like presented on August 17. What issues would you like to see explored at the August meeting? Is there particular information you need to understand the alternatives?

Presentation by the Workforce Housing Consortium

Betty Pagett of the Workforce Housing Consortium will make a short presentation on housing needs. Betty will be focusing on the need for housing to support people who work in the community, such as teachers, police and fire personnel.

Schedule

The City Council has asked that we make every effort to schedule Committee meetings on evenings that do not conflict with other community events such as back-to-school nights. Please review the attached draft schedule for conflicts with other events. The Committee will be asked to vote on the schedule.

The proposed schedule would take us through the remainder of the calendar year. The August 17 meeting will be devoted to an in-depth presentation of the alternatives and feedback from the community and Committee members. If you are ready at the end of the August 17 meeting, we will ask you for the go-ahead to proceed to the next steps.

The next steps will be to prepare an analysis of the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives for you consideration at a later meeting. Before that analysis can begin, the consultants will need your direction on any adjustments you may want to make to the alternatives. If the Committee needs more time to refine the alternatives, an additional meeting can be scheduled for September 7 or 9.

If the Committee is ready to move on after the August (or September) meeting, the consultants can present a report on October 26 that explains the impacts (traffic, biology, flooding, etc.) of each alternative. Based on this information, you will be asked to select a preferred alternative that will become the basis of the specific plan. An additional meeting can be scheduled for this discussion. If you do not like any of the alternatives, you may want to "cut and paste" from the alternatives to design a preferred plan.

We recommend December 6 as a target date for making a presentation to the City Council on the preferred plan. With the Council’s approval, the consultants would be directed to complete the draft plan and a draft EIR for your sign off (or changes) in February.

Presentation by the 2050 Committee

A subcommittee of the 2050 Committee will make a brief progress report. Since January, 2050 has reviewed a series of studies on the City’s infrastructure needs. The 2050 Committee has also been presented with a series of alternative approaches to meeting those needs.

The Committee has adopted a vision statement and a series of principles to guide it as it prioritizes needs and projects (the vision and principles are attached.) The Committee has tentatively prioritized needs and is now in the process of prioritizing projects that could address the needs. Please see the attached "Category Rankings" chart, which shows the Committee’s tentative ranking of needs. The attached "Projects" chart lists the projects that the 2050 Committee will be ranking at their next meeting.

The recent Larkspur School District bond election has opened up opportunities for joint projects that may be cost effective solutions to needs identified by 2050. The 2050 Committee has recommended that the City Council investigate three possible joint projects:

  • Play fields at Hall Middle School. This would be a 3.5 acre facility. Joint participation by the City and the School District may allow the City Recreation Department to program the fields for use by the general public during non-school hours.

  • Recreation facility. The bond issue includes funds for a new gymnasium at Hall Middle School. The District is interested in partnering with the City to add 2000 square feet of multi-purpose meeting, class room and office space. This space could include offices for the Recreation Department. The Recreation Department could operate the facility with the gym available to the general public during non-school hours.

  • Joint library. The bond issue also includes funds for a new library at Hall Middle School. The City is eligible to apply for funds that were authorized by the Library Bond Act that was passed by California voters in March of this year. The Bond Act encourages joint city-school libraries. There is potential for a joint facility at the Middle School.

The City Council has approved a recommendation by the 2050 Committee to budget $50,000 to explore the feasibility of these projects. A subcommittee of 2050 has been formed to work with staff on this project.

Conclusion

This is a very full agenda. If you need more time to discuss the 2050 report and/or the Housing Consortium’s presentation, those items can be added to the August 17 agenda (the meeting would need to start before 7:30).. It is important however, that we get through the alternatives presentation and the schedule on July 20 so that the work can move forward in a timely manner. This will allow you time for a detailed discussion of the alternative plans in August (and September if necessary).

If you have questions, comments, suggestions or anything we need to discuss, please don’t hesitate to call me at 472-3614. I have a new e-mail address. Have a great weekend!

Steering Committee Meeting #12

Fellowship Hall
Redwoods Presbyterian Church
110 Magnolia Avenue

July 20, 2000
7:30-10:00PM

AGENDA
7:30 1. Welcome
  • Where we are/where we are going
  • Agenda Overview
  • June 8 Meeting Notes
7:45 2. Presentation on Alternative Plans

  • Committee Discussion
    Our planning consultant will introduce alternative plans that are being proposed for study by the Committee. This presentation is intended to be an introduction. The Committee will be asked to provide feedback on additional information members would like to have for the August meeting. At the August 17 meeting a more in depth presentation will be offered. Also in August the Committee will be asked to direct the consultant to adjust the alternatives, if necessary, and to prepare an analysis of the impacts of each alternative for discussion at a later meeting.

8:30 Break

8:40 3. Presentation by the Workforce Housing Consortium
  • Consortium representatives will make a brief presentation on workforce housing needs.
  • Public comment.

9:00 4. Public Comment: The Alternatives
Members of the public will be asked to comment on the alternative plans
 
9:30 5. Schedule
  • Public Comment
    We will ask people in the audience to comment on our discussion
  • Committee Action
    We will vote on the schedule

9:35 6. Presentation by the 2050 Committee
  • Committee Discussion
    A subcommittee of the 2050 Committee will give a status report on the capital improvement needs they have identified and their effort to prioritize projects.
  • Public Comment
    The public is invited to comment.
  • Committee Action
    No action is anticipated on this agenda item.

9:55 7. Public Comment
The public is invited to comment on items that are not on the agenda.
 
10:00 8. Close

July 2000 Meeting Notes

CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN
PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE X
Area A Area B Area C Area D/E
City parking lot remains

Railroad buildings remain in current location

Two story maximum height

No semi- or subterranean parking located beneath buildings

Upper floor residential, offices or combinations thereof.

Subset

* Permit B&B of 10 or less rooms

No changes. Replacement limited to current square footage

Land use regulations would limit use of gas station site to equivalent type of use.

Six single family "cottage" units

Limited retail space adjoining plaza

Interim use: Wholesale/retail nursery

No public parking

Subset:

* 50 public parking spaces plus five cottage units.

Public facilities: Playfield and creek side linear park of approximately 5 acres

24 single family units, on lots ranging ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 sf. and five "cottage" units

ALTERNATIVE Y
Area A Area B Area C Area D/E
Railroad buildings and plaza moved to north

City parking lot and Nazari developed independently but in a coordinated manner

Library with allowance for second floor community space on city lot.

Street and plaza level commercial space

Limit of two-story construction

Combination of surface and subterranean parking

30 hotel rooms

Residential or office in second floor space

Subsets:

* Railroad buildings remain in existing location with adjacent plaza. See related subset for park and pedestrianway for Area D/E

* Small plaza at corner of Magnolia and Ward

* Two-story mixed use on city lot on city lot, i.e. street level retail/service and upper floor residential and/or offices

Commercial building replacing gas station at a FAR of 0.40

Expansion adjacent to Albertsons of 4,500 to 6,000 square feet.

 

Any additional development limited to replacement of existing space.

Subset:

* Parking deck in western portion of existing lot to serve downtown.

Approximately 10

Live/Work units

Interim use: Wholesale/retail nursery with ancillary retail shop

Public parking with 50 spaces

Subset:

* No public parking

Mixed housing type development of approximately 66 units

With mix consisting of 34 SF homes on 7,000 to 10,000 sq ft lots and 32 cottage units.

one-acre creekside park (approximate)

Subset:

* one area central park (approximate) and pedestrian link to Magnolia. See related subset for railroad buildings for Area A.

ALTERNATIVE Z
Area A Area B Area C Areas D/E
Railroad buildings remain in place with adjoining plaza

Integrated development of City Lot/Nazari

Portion of parking provided beneath buildings

Street/Plaza level uses consisting of library and retail/service

30 unit hotel

Office and/or residential in upper floor space.

Approximately 7 live/work units at plaza level.

Three story construction

American Legion building remains with allowances for future building with ground level commercial and upper floor residential and/or offices.

Subsets:

* Office replaces upper floor residential

* Small plaza provided a corner of Magnolia and Ward

* Library replaced by mixed use

* City/Nazari developed independently

Commercial building replacing gas station at a FAR of 0.40

Expansion adjacent to Albertsons of 4,500 to 6,000 square feet.

Subset:

* Parking deck in western portion of existing lot to serve downtown

Live/Work units – approximately 10 units

Limited retail space adjoining plaza

Interim use: Wholesale/retail nursery

Public parking with approximately 50 spaces

Subset:

* No public parking

* Six cottage units in place of live/work units

Mixed housing type development of approximately 82 units
  15 single family detached
       homes on 7,000 to
      10,000 sf lots.
  47 cottage units
  20 attached single family
      units

one-acre park (approximate) at terminus of pedestrian link to plaza

Subset:

* Reconfigure with detached single family homes along park face.

CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN
PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES
(July 20, 2000)

Task 5 of the Central larkspur Specific Plan work program call for preparation of alternative plans for the Specific Plan area for the purpose of assessing and comparing alternative plans that incorporate land use and design proposal concepts and ideas advanced by the CLASP committee, property owners, participants in prior CLASP meetings, and the consultant.

Three alternative concepts plans for the entire Specific Plan area are briefly described below for consideration by the Committee. The intent is to select three alternatives that represent a range of choices that reflect objectives of various community interests and the property owners. Following the Committee's selection more detailed evaluation will be prepared for each alternative and comparison provided of the alternatives. This assessment will be based on prior presented planning principles and criteria and will include traffic analysis, economic feasibility, fiscal analyses, and other impact assessments such as noise, affect on natural resources, and other assessments required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the required Environmental Impact Report requirements..

At the July 20 meeting three concept plan encompassing the entire Specific Plan area will be presented for the Committee's review. The accompanying table list, by the prior described subarea of the Specific Plan Area, the major land uses assumptions of the three alternatives. Note that table also includes what are called subsets, that is variations on the described concept that Committee may wish to consider before finalizing their selection of the alternatives for next phase of the program. (A copy of the Plan Subarea map is attached for your convenience.)

Characterization of Alternatives

There are obviously a number of ways of combining the development programs choices for the respective subareas into integrated plans for the entire Specific Plan area. The combinations described herein have been selected by the consultant so as to bracket a range of objectives put forth by various interests. It is important that Committee carefully review, and revise where considered necessary, the assumptions and program specifications of each preliminary alternative in order that the upcoming assessment effort can be truly informative effort that will contributes to everyone's understanding of the pros and cons of the plan choices facing the community.

Alternative X. This alternative is designed to test out the implications of a plan that incorporates a large recreational playfield, retention of City parking lot in its current functions, strict adherence to a two story height limit, and a predominance of low density single family homes.

Alternative Y. This alternative depicts the following: 1) relocation of the railroad buildings and plaza; 2) a more varied housing stock consisting of approximately 50 percent standard single family homes and 50 percent smaller cottage homes that would fulfill the project's requirements for low and moderate income housing while also providing more affordable market rate housing; and 3) provision of public park along the creek adjacent to Ward Street.

Alternative X. This alternative is designed to promote two major objectives. First to increase the type of housing available in Larkspur to meet the needs a households with broad range of incomes. To achieve this objective a housing program provides for a total of 82 units consisting of a combination of detached single family, attached single family homes, and cottage homes. The second objectives to maximize the integration of plan areas with each other and with adjoining areas. It does so by providing for direct and well-designed pedestrian routes pedestrian linkages between Magnolia Avenue and the related public plaza, Larkspur Plaza and housing on the Niven portion of the property.

None of the above alternatives would exceed the limits specified in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan.

CLASP
Proposed Schedule

Meeting date Tasks Results
July 20, 2000 Present Plan Alternatives
  • Introduce the alternatives
  • Feedback re data needs
August 17, 2000 Refine alternatives
  • Committee directs refinements to alternatives as necessary
  • Go-ahead to consultants to do impacts analysis on alternatives
September 7 (or 9), 2000
if needed
Refine alternatives         Same as above
October 26, 2000 Impact assessment
  • Provide data on impact of each alternative
  • Direct additional analysis if needed
November 2, 2000 Select preferred plan
  • Select on of the alternatives
    or
  • Design a preferred alternative
November 16, 2000
If needed
Select preferred plan         Same as above
December 6, 2000 Recommendation to
City Council
  • Present recommendation
  • Request go-ahead to prepare EIR.

Return To Top

Meeting #11 June 2000
To: CLASP Committee
From: Bob Pendoley
Date: June 1, 2000
Subject: Our next meeting

Our next meeting is on Thursday, June 8, 2000, beginning at 7:30 PM. We will meet in the Fellowship Hall at Redwoods Presbyterian Church, 110 Magnolia Avenue. Redwoods Presbyterian is located at the corner of Magnolia and Alexander.

Our agenda focuses on two topics: 1) finishing your discussion of the locations you would like studied for the various planning options, and 2) discussing changes you may want to recommend to the process.

The first item will be Part II of the Options Assessment Workshop, which we started on May 4. I will take you through a short exercise to determine where in the planning area you may want to locate the various options you have chosen for further study. We will be working with the following information:

  • The options you decided to retain for further study at your May 4 meeting.
  • The Subdistrict Map on page 8 of the workbook; a copy of the map attached to this memo
  • The "Site Suitability Assessment" table from the workbook, which is also attached to this memo

The exercise will be simple. We will discuss the consultant's recommendations for the five subdistricts – A through E – one-subdistrict-at-time to develop a list of the options you would like to see studied within each subdistrict. We will also ask you to prioritize the lists. Five rating sheets are attached to this memo (one for each subdistrict). Please fill out the rating sheets and bring them to the meeting. We don't want to collect them from you; they are just to give you a headstart on the discussion.

The second part of the agenda is a discussion of changes you may want to recommend to improve the process. This is on the agenda at the City Manager's request. The Manager is scheduling a discussion of the CLASP project for the June 21 City Council meeting, and she would like to have your opinions and recommendations for the Council's consideration. I have attached a list of suggested improvements from staff and the consultants that you may want to consider. We will get the best results if we focus on positive changes you would like to see rather than focusing on what's wrong.

If you have question, comments, suggestions or anything we need to discuss, please don't hesitate to call me at 472-3614. I have a new e-mail address. Have a great weekend!

Central Larkspur Specific Plan

Suggested Process Improvements

Process explanation

  • Prepare a simple chart outlining the process
  • At the beginning of each meeting, use the chart to show where we have been and where we are going next.

Agendas

  • Introduce facilitator and consultants
  • List expected outcomes. This will help people understand what the meeting is about

Handouts

  • Members; who/what they represent and how appointed
  • Summary of the process: charge to the committee, simple explanation of the work program
  • Summary of work done to date
  • Explanation of specific plan: its purpose, what it regulates, etc.

Public comment

  • Schedule comment time for earlier in the agenda; let's not make people wait until the end of the meeting
  • Time for public comment should be shown on the agenda; people need to know when they will be able to talk to the Committee
  • Comments should be focused on the agenda item
  • Schedule a time on the agenda for comments about things that aren't on the agenda
  • No ad hominum comments – personal criticisms are inappropriate

Staff and consultants

  • Spend less time explaining things; the committee reads and understands the material
  • Short direct answers to questions
  • Avoid the technicalities where possible.

Committee members

  • Have name tags for Committee members so that the audience knows who you are
  • Talk about the public input you have received. This will help people understand you are listening.

Site Suitability

Consultant Recommendations

The table below rates the suitability of the five planning subdistricts shown in accompanying Figure 1 for the proposed land use and community-facility options. Three categories have been used to rate suitability: (1) highly suitable; (2) suitable; and (3) unsuitable--either infeasible or inappropriate. The ratings shown are not recommendations, but are rather conclusions about whether it is practical to consider the specific uses and/or facilities for each subdistrict. Together with other information and data provided in this workbook, this information is intended to provide a basis for the Committee to judge the planning options and arrive at suggested uses for each planning subdistrict.

The ratings are based on three criteria.

  1. Is the size of the site sufficient to accommodate the program requirements of the specific facility or use? Example: the site area and configuration of subdistrict A is insufficient to accommodate the program requirements of a community center.

  2. Is the potential use or facility compatible with existing or proposed uses on adjacent properties? Example: a fire house on Magnolia Avenue would conflict with the City's established goal to extend storefront retail uses along Magnolia Avenue; furthermore, the vehicle ingress and egress requirements for a fire station, particularly the desire for a "drive-through" facility, would conflict with both desired and existing pedestrian and vehicular circulation.

  3. Does the site meet the locational needs of the specific use or facility. Example: retail uses need to be located close to other similar business and have good vehicular and pedestrian access and visibility

Table X: Site Suitability Assessment
Use Plan Subdistrict
    A  B   C  D   E 
City Hall 1 3 3 3 3
Library 1 3 3 2 (1) 3
Community Center 3 3 3 1 3
Fire Station 3 2 (2) 3 1 3
Retail 1 1 2 3 3
Hotel/B&B 1 3 2 3 3
Office 1 1 2 3 3
Multifamily Market-Rate Housing 2 3 1 1 1
Multifamily Affordable Housing- 2 3 1 1 1
Mixed-Use MF Housing 1 3 1 3 3
Single-Family Housing 3 3 2 1 1
Wholesale Nursery 3 3 1 1 3
Public Plaza 1 3 3 3 3
Public Playfields 3 3 3 2 2
Public Park 3 3 3 3 1
General-Purpose Public Parking 2 2 1 3 3

A = Land west of former railroad right-of-way D = Civic use reserve site on Doherty Drive
B = Larkspur Plaza E = East Niven area.
C = West Niven area
(1) If combined with community center.  (2) Gas station site.

Meeting #10 May 2000
To: CLASP Committee
From: Bob Pendoley
Date: May 11, 2000
Subject: Our next meeting

Our next meeting is on Thursday, May 18, 2000, beginning at 7:30 PM. We will meet in the Fellowship Hall at Redwoods Presbyterian Church, 110 Magnolia Avenue. Redwoods Presbyterian is located at the corner of Magnolia and Alexander.

This will be Part II of the Options Assessment Workshop, which we started on May 4. Tom Cooke will take us through an exercise to determine where in the planning area you may want to locate the various options you have chosen for further study. We will be working with the following information:

  • The options you decided to retain for further study at your May 4 meeting. The list of retained options is attached to the May 4 Meeting Notes.

  • The Subdistrict Map on page 8 of the workbook you received with the May 4 agenda package. There is a copy of the map behind the list of options in this agenda package

The exercise will be simple. We will discuss the five subdistricts – A through E – on-at-time to develop a list of the options you would like to see studied within each subdistrict. We will also ask you to prioritize the lists. Please review the retained options and list the options you would like to see studied on the attached subdistrict map. For example, if you would like to see playfields, commercial offices and/or market rate housing studied for subdistrict "C," list options 20, 10 and 19 in the box provided on the map for subdistrict "C." If the Committee asked the consultants to study the list in this example, sketch plans would be prepared showing different combinations of the options on the list.

It is possible that the list for some subdistricts will include more options than will fit. Also, some combinations of options may be incompatible. While we should try to keep these situations to a minimum, these kinds of problems can be resolved as sketch plans are developed for the subdistricts.

Obviously, many of the options you have retained are "self-locating" and do not need to be part of the exercise. For example, the locations of Options 1 and 2 are already specified, so they do not need to be discussed as part of this exercise. We will focus on Options 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20,and 22. If the Committee sees location issues with other options, we will discuss those as well.

Finally, the Committee asked for an analysis of the remaining options in terms of General Plan consistency. I have enclosed an analysis the Committee reviewed last October, which analyzed the Planning and Design Principles for consistency with the General Plan, Downtown Plan, the Niven CAC goals and the City Council's goals for the Niven property. In most cases, if an option is consistent with the Principles, it is by definition consistent with the General Plan, but there are some exceptions. For example, the General Plan does not show a park on the Niven property, and a General Plan amendment would be required before fees could be collected to build a park in the area. We will have a more detailed analysis to distribute at your meeting.

If you have question, comments, suggestions or anything we need to discuss, please don't hesitate to call me at 472-3614. I have a new e-mail address.Have a great weekend!

Return To Top


Meeting #8 March 2000
To: CLASP Committee
From: Bob Pendoley
Date: March 9, 2000
Subject: Our next meeting

Our next meeting is on Thursday, March 16, 2000, beginning at 7:30 PM. We will be meeting in the Fellowship Hall at Redwoods Presbyterian Church, 110 Magnolia Avenue. Redwoods Presbyterian is located at the corner of Magnolia and Alexander. The Fellowship Hall is next door to the church, fronting on Magnolia Avenue. The Fellowship Hall is a large, comfortable room; there should be plenty of space for the audience. If this space works, I will schedule the hall whenever it is available for future meetings.

We will focus on options, picking up from where we left off at the last meeting. Tom Cooke has added several options, as you will see: a park option and a "sub option" to #4. Please keep in mind that there are two purposes to the options discussion:

  • To answer questions you and the audience may have on individual options and to clarify as needed; and,
  • To determine whether there are other options you would like to have considered.

If there are other basic ideas that you would like to see considered for possible inclusion in the specific plan, please raise them at the March 16 meeting. Better yet, call me (472-3614) or Tom (501/437-8099), and we will try to have your option(s) prepared in time for next Thursday's meeting.

Once we have agreed on the list of options, Tom Cooke and the other consultants will prepare an assessment of each option. The Committee will be asked to review the assessments at your next meeting, and decide which options are worth considering further and which should be discarded. The options that are retained will be used to develop alternative plans. The Committee will oversee a similar assessment process for the alternative plans before identifying a preferred plan. The Committee will likely adjust the preferred plan as well, before it is forwarded to the City Council.

Finally, we need to agree on a meeting date for April. As you know, the scheduled date, April 20, is Passover and Holy Thursday. Most of you responded to my e-mail poll of possible meeting dates, and April 27 is good for almost everyone. Unfortunately, I did not check with Tom Cooke before polling you, and April 27 is just not possible for him. I will poll the Committee for other dates, and report the results on March 16. I have scheduled time at the end of the meeting to set the next date.

If you have question, comments, suggestions or anything we need to discuss, please don't hesitate to call me at 472-3614. Have a great weekend!

Meeting #7 March 2000
To: CLASP Committee
From: Tom Cooke
Date: February 11, 2000
Re: Next Steps in the Process

Over the next three to four months the Specific Plan Committee will be engaged in the most critical decision making phase of the program. At this point in the process it is often difficult to grasp how all the various tasks will come together. To assist you we have elaborated below on the intent and purposes of the upcoming tasks and meetings.

It is important that the decisions made over the next several months be guided by existing city policies embodied in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan and the by the legal requirements imposed by state law on the content of a specific plan. Highlighted below are the major city policies for the area along with identification of key planning decisions that must be addressed in the preparation of the plan

Major City Policies for the Area.

  • Integration of Larkspur Plaza with downtown.
  • Use of substantial portion of Niven site for housing. Retention of the two former railroad buildings and inclusion of the buildings in a public plaza.
  • Magnolia Avenue primarily retail and pedestrian oriented.
  • Retention of the two former railroad buildings and incorporation of the buildings into a public plaza.

Five key planning decisions that need to be resolved by the Specific Plan

  1. What should be the land use and design conditions governing any future changes to the Larkspur Plaza?

  2. Is construction of major community facilities such as a library, city hall, community center, or fire and/police facilities within the Specific Plan area desirable and feasible?

  3. How can the land in the western portion of the site be redeveloped so as to both comply with existing city policies and provide property owners with reasonable development rights.

  4. What should be the overall mix of housing in the Niven site and how should the site and housing be designed to relate to the community and adjacent natural features?

  5. How can the land use, design, and circulation features of each the specific plan's sub-areas be best integrated with each other and with adjoining areas of the city?

Next Steps in the Process.

There are five basic steps remaining to complete the Specific Plan:

  1. Explore of Options. Before attempting to prepare overall alternative plans for the entire plan area we will devote the next several meeting to identifying and evaluating specific land planning, transportation and design ideas. The purpose of this step is to permit all involved or interested parties to identify proposals for possible inclusion in the Specific Plan before the content of the various alternative plans becomes too fixed. As a first step, the consultant team has identified a number of options for commercial, residential, and civic uses and other concepts for addressing the major city policies and planning decisions highlighted above. The next several meetings will be an opportunity for interested parties to add other options to the list of those under consideration.

  2. Assess Options. Following these meetings, the Committee will meet to discuss and evaluate which options are worthy of further consideration. To assist the Committee in this task the consultant team will provide a preliminary appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages of the respective choices. The previously discussed planning principles and criteria will serve as the basis for the appraisals and will include consideration of economic feasibility, fiscal consequences, transportation implications, site suitability, compatibility with other potential uses and adjoining areas, and consistency with the City's policies for the area. This step is particularly important since it will provide all parties involved with the firm basis upon to judge and discuss the merits of possible Specific Plan components. What we want to avoid is "wish list" planning, that is a process in which mix of untested ideas are advance by various interest and compiled into a plan that is internally inconsistent and unworkable.

  3. Prepare Alternative Plans. After the above step, the consultant team will work with the Committee and property owners to prepare several overall alternative plans, which incorporate ideas and features the Committee has found worthy of further consideration. At this point in the program it is too early to identify the focus or direction of these alternative plans. However, one might, for example, include a greater emphasis of inclusion of community facilities or another no or minor variations in consolidations of existing properties.

  4. Assess and Select Preferred Plans. The selected alternatives will then be subjected to a more intensive assessment, which will consider the collective effect of the various land use, design, and transportation components. This analysis will include the required EIR assessments, such as traffic, noise, natural resources. The assessment will also include economic feasibility as it affects private property owners and the fiscal and financing implications and requirements for the City. This information will be brought back to the Committee and property owners to permit them to make their recommendations as to a preferred plan.

  5. Prepare Final Plan and EIR. The final steps in the program will consist of fleshing out the selected alternative plan into an administrative draft plan for review, which complies with the City General Plan and state law requirements for specific plan. The administrative draft EIR will also be prepared concurrently so as to ensure the review and approval process can proceed expeditiously as possible.

Conclusion

I would like to briefly discuss the points in this memo and try to answer any questions you may have at our meeting on February 17, 2000. I am looking forward to seeing you then.

CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN COMMITTEE
Steering Committee Meeting #6

CLASP-Agenda-2-3-00
CLASP-MtgNotes6-Feb2000

CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN
CLASP Workshop – February 3, 2000

Initial Discussion Land Use, Transportation, and Development/Design Options

Purpose of Workshop: The purpose of the February 3 workshop is twofold. The first purpose is for the consultants to present, and explain further, the various options for land use, transportation, and development/design that have been identified for possible consideration and analysis in the next phase of the program. The second purpose is to determine if there are other options or variations on the options presented that the committee wishes to have considered.

The options presented are not recommendations but rather concepts and ideas deemed worthy of consideration. The next phase of the study will include analyses of each option, so as to provide committee members with the base for making well informed judgements, and an overall assessment based on the previously approved principles. The outcome of these analyses and assessments will be used to prepare two to three alternative plans for the entire Specific Plan area, alternatives that in turn will be the subject of further analyses and assessments.

Outlined below are the options to be presented. Committee members will be provided at the workshop with brief summary descriptions of each option. Additional wall mounted displays and projected images will also be used to further explain the respective options.

Options Under Consideration:

  • Vehicular circulation and roadways including: (a) consolidation of Larkspur Plaza Drive, Larkspur Boardwalk, and Hall Middle School drive into a single signalized intersection; (b) redesign of Magnolia/Doherty intersection (c) reconstruction of Magnolia Avenue entrance to Larkspur Plaza; and (d) various options for entrances to the Niven property from Ward Street and Doherty Drive.
  • Pedestrian and bicycle routes: (1) rerouting of regional bikeway to the east to avoid the Magnolia Ave./Doherty Drive intersection; (2) provision of a pedestrian link from Magnolia Ave through proposed plaza to Niven housing area; and improved linkages with other existing pedestrian and bicycle routes.
  • Potential locations for expansion of parking to accommodate future development.
  • Plaza encompassing the two historic railroad buildings.
  • Assemblage of existing parcels to create more viable sites for commercial and/or civic uses and facilities.
  • Possible changes to Larkspur Plaza including expansion of Albertsons and use of the gas station site to other purposes.
  • A 50 to 80 room hotel with street/plaza level lobby, restaurant, and retail shops.
  • Retail along the Magnolia Avenue and plaza frontage with upper floor office or housing.
  • Civic facilities including: (1) library; (2) community center; (3) city hall; and (4) combined police/fire facility.
  • Commercial plant nursery in the southeast portion of the Niven site with possible residential or mixed uses along the eastside.
  • Community playfields along Doherty Drive.
  • Slough and creekside nature preserve.
  • Various housing types including standard single family detached residences, i.e., 7,500 square foot minimum lot; (2) small lot single family residences, i.e., 4,500 to 5,500 square foot lots, (2) clustered cottage homes; (3) garden apartment; (4) duplex and triplex units intermixed with single family detached units.
  • Affordable housing development by non-profit developer.

Logo for Hausrath Economics Group

MEMORANDUM

Date: January 27, 2000
To: Central Larkspur Specific Plan Committee
From: Hausrath Economics Group
Subject: Central Larkspur Specific Plan –
Market and Fiscal Opportunities and Constraints


INTRODUCTION

This memorandum summarizes the results of the baseline economic and fiscal analyses conducted to help identify development options for the Central Larkspur Specific Plan (CLASP). The memorandum describes opportunities and constraints relevant to development in the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area, from an economic and public finance perspective. Hausrath Economics Group (HEG) completed data analysis, interviews, and field work to update market analysis for downtown Larkspur completed in 1991 as input to the Downtown Specific Plan. For the baseline fiscal analysis, we reviewed recent fiscal documentation prepared by city staff and followed the work of the Larkspur 2050 Committee.

The memorandum begins with a review of background economic indicators useful in market analysis—for the most part an update of the 1991 market analysis. The existing inventory of downtown retail and office space is described to provide a baseline for considering potential changes to that supply. The memorandum reviews fiscal considerations affecting development options: trends in the City's operating budget, the current capital improvement spending program, and capital facility needs. The memorandum concludes with discussion of constraints and opportunities raised by the baseline economic and fiscal analyses. An appendix includes tables providing much of the data summarized in the text.

KEY ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Changes in households and population: 1990 - 1999
During the 1990s, Larkspur's population grew at a somewhat faster pace than during the preceding decade. Between 1990 and January 1, 1999, Larkspur's population increased by 872 residents. (See Appendix
Table 1.) There were 325 additional households in the City—about the same pace of growth sustained in the preceding decade. The faster rate of population growth was largely the result of increases average household size. This pattern was evident throughout Marin County and the region, reflecting higher birth rates since 1980 and larger numbers of children per family as well as housing market pressures leading more individuals to live together to share housing costs.

The mix of housing types in Larkspur has remained stable since 1990. (See Appendix Table 2.) Single family detached units still represent about 40 percent of the total housing stock, a substantially lower share than is the norm for Marin County or the state as a whole. The share of the housing stock represented by higher-density multi-family units actually increased over this period to 44 percent, following the completion and occupancy of Larkspur Courts and Creekside early in the decade.

Given these changes in the housing stock, the demographics of Larkspur residents noted in the 1991 market analysis prepared for the Downtown Specific Plan (based on 1990 Census data) have probably not changed dramatically. The proportion of renter-households is likely still higher than in Marin County or the state. (Likewise, owner-occupancy remains the predominant pattern in the Corte Madera, Kentfield, and Greenbrae portions of the broader local market area.) It is also likely that non-family households (retirees, seniors, and younger people sharing housing) are more common than family households in Larkspur; and the age distribution of the population may be even more heavily weighted towards retirees and seniors in 2000 than was the case in 1990.

Projections of households and population through 2020
Projections of household and population growth for Larkspur and the broader market area, recently prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG – Projections 2000), indicate continuation of the trends of the last two decades. (See Appendix Table 3 and Appendix Table 4.) Larkspur is expected to add 330 households over the 2000 to 2020 period, while Corte Madera adds a similar amount (290 households). Overall, only about 840 additional households are expected in the broader market area (including the Larkspur and Corte Madera sphere-of-influence areas). · The projected household growth rate is among the slowest in Marin County. As is projected throughout the Bay Area, Marin County will have a rapidly aging population. The over-60 age group will reach 34 percent of the county's population in 2020, up from 14 percent in 1980 and 19 percent in 2000.


· ABAG prepares projections for Larkspur and Corte Madera incorporated jurisdictions (330 households and 290 households, respectively), as well as projections for larger geographic areas. Those larger areas include Kentfield and other sphere-or-influence areas for Larkspur and Corte Madera. The larger geographic area corresponds generally to what was defined in the 1991 Downtown Specific Plan market analysis as the broader market area for measuring downtown area retail and office demand.

Income and spending potential
High household income and high disposable income in Larkspur and the rest of the market area are important factors behind the level of retail activity in the downtown and potentially in the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area. Marin County has one of the highest household income levels in the region. (See Appendix Table 5.) From 1985 through 1996 per capita personal income in Marin County exceeded statewide per capita personal income by 65 percent to 80 percent. (See Appendix Table 6.)

At the same time, housing in Marin County is among the most expensive in the region. Data from the 1990 Census on housing costs as a share of household income indicate, however, that high housing costs in Marin County do not take a disproportionate share of household income, leaving higher than average disposable incomes supporting relatively high retail spending potential on the part of Marin County households. (See Appendix Table 7.)

Occupations and employment
As documented in the 1991 market analysis, employed residents of Larkspur and the broader market area are more likely to work in executive, managerial, and professional occupations, than is the case for either Marin County or the state as a whole. In the 1990 Census, almost half of all employed residents reported working in these occupations, while the share was 43 percent for the county overall and 29 percent for the state overall. (See Appendix Table 8.) This pattern may have become more extreme since 1990, as the escalation in housing prices and the appeal of Marin County housing to two-income professional families has reduced the supply of housing affordable to people working in lower-wage sales and service occupations.

Recent trends in retail sales
Following large additions of retail space and subsequent significant growth in retail sales captured in the Larkspur-Corte Madera market area in the 1980s, retail sales in the 1990s have settled into a pattern consistent with state and regional trends. (See Appendix Tables 9 – 12.) The level of taxable retail sales in the City of Larkspur has remained relatively constant over the last two decades, after adjusting for inflation. Between 1980 and 1990, taxable sales in retail outlets grew in real terms by less than one percent per year. Between 1989 and 1998, overall taxable sales in retail outlets actually declined by a small amount in real terms. In Corte Madera, Marin County, and the state as a whole, taxable retail sales, adjusted for inflation, grew by less than one percent per year or were flat.

The pattern for Larkspur varies by type of retail business. Real sales declines were greatest in apparel stores, while there was strong real growth in sales in home furnishings and appliances, building materials (hardware), and the automotive sector. Specialty retail stores evidenced steady real growth through 1997; and sales in general merchandise and drug stores and eating and drinking establishments maintained a fairly constant level over the period. Food stores evidenced a rather dramatic decline in the early 1990s, reflecting at least in part a shift in local residents spending, since this is primarily convenience shopping. It is likely that those sales could be recaptured with improved grocery store offerings in Larkspur.

Comparing per-capita sales levels in a community to per-capita sales levels in an area, such as the region or state, that is assumed to be relatively self-sufficient with respect to retail spending and sales—in other words experiencing no significant leakage of spending—reveals a community's retail strengths and areas in which capture might be increased. Overall, per-capita retail sales in Larkspur are about at the same level as those in Marin County and California. Per-capita sales in the Corte Madera part of the market area are substantially higher (about four times the county and state level), as a consequence of the concentration of regional retail shopping in that community.

There is substantial variance in the per-capita comparison by type of retail outlet, however, reflecting Larkspur's particular draw in a few sectors. Larkspur's per-capita sales levels for eating and drinking, and home furnishings and appliances are more than two times the statewide average. The per-capita sales level for specialty retail in Larkspur has also been substantially higher than the statewide per-capita level, although the difference appears to be narrowing. Sectors in which Larkspur's per-capita pattern indicates some weakness are very strong in the market area overall when the retail offerings in Corte Madera are factored into the equation. While indicating limited potential for increasing overall retail activity in Larkspur by increasing regional capture, the analysis indicates that the market does have underlying strengths in sectors that might grow through diversification.

Trends in office and retail development
Since the 1980s, there have been no significant additions to the supply of retail or office space in the Larkspur/Corte Madera market area, although existing spaces have been remodeled.

Trends in the lodging industry
The hotel market in Marin County is very strong. Room rates are rising and occupancy rates are strong. PKF Consulting reports Marin County room rates increasing at an average rate of six to 7 percent per year over the last two years. At the same time, overall occupancy levels have been maintained at around 80 percent. Existing hotels are expanding and new hotels are in the development pipeline. According to the Marin County Convention and Visitors Bureau, almost 200 rooms were added in 1999, increasing the countywide room inventory by almost 10 percent—to 2,386. An additional 50 rooms are anticipated in 2000. There are additional hotel proposals of unknown magnitude in San Rafael and southern Marin County.

Trends in the housing market
There have been no significant new additions to the housing supply in Larkspur since the larger-scale new projects identified in the 1991 market study (Creekside, Marin Shores, and Larkspur Courts). An eight-lot single family subdivision has recently received approval, as has a six-unit condominium project. Earlier in the decade, a few two- and three-unit residential projects were developed.

As is the case throughout the Bay Area, strong demand and limited supply characterize the Marin County, Larkspur, and Corte Madera housing markets. This is evident in recent data from the Northern California Real Estate Research Council describing house price appreciation, vacancy rates, and rent levels (Northern California Real Estate Research Report: Third Quarter 1999).

Since April 1998, the annual change in Marin County house prices has been more than 10 percent on a year-over-year basis. Most recently, the increase from October 1998 to October 1999 was 15 percent. The market price for existing single family units in Marin County at the end of 1999 was 35 percent above the market price from April 1990. (In the Bay Area, Marin County's index was second only to that of Santa Clara County—at 39.5 percent above 1990 levels.) The prices of both new and existing housing in Marin County are the highest among all Bay Area counties, averaging about 50 percent higher than the nine-county average market prices. Over the last nine years, the prices of new units in Marin have increased over five percent per year. Consequently, the prices of new residential development in the County now equal or exceed the average price for existing units, which in Marin County had traditionally commanded a significant market premium.

At levels similar to those in other Bay Area counties, Marin County's average apartment vacancy rate has ranged around two to three percent over the past two years. Average apartment rents in the County have increased nine percent per year since 1995.

EXISTING INVENTORY OF DOWNTOWN SPACE

The supply of commercial space in downtown Larkspur has not changed significantly since the early 1990s when the City conducted an inventory as part of the work for the Downtown Specific Plan. (See Appendix Table 13.) The inventory of existing commercial building space along Magnolia Avenue between Doherty Drive and William Avenue still totals about 133,000 square feet. (In the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area, inventory covers Larkspur Plaza, the Nazari property, the city-owned parking lot, and other parcels adjacent to the railroad right of way, but does not include the Niven property.) No new construction has occurred, although a new office building may be approved for construction on a vacant parcel on the west side of Magnolia. The three-story building would add a total of 3,500 square feet of office space to the downtown inventory.

In 1991, three quarters of the downtown space was identified as retail space (about 98,000 square feet) and one quarter of the space (35,000 square feet) was identified as office space. According the Larkspur's planning director, there have been no significant changes in that mix, although there have been changes in tenancy and a general increase in the level and intensity of economic activity in the downtown. This has occurred as higher volume stores and eating establishments have replaced older businesses, and existing establishments have invested in building upgrades and have re-positioned themselves to appeal to a more diverse clientele.

There has been a corresponding reduction in the vacancy rate for downtown retail space. A relatively high retail vacancy rate of 10 percent was noted in the 1991 downtown inventory. It appears that this vacancy rate has been reduced with improvement in the overall economic climate downtown. Very little vacant space was observed in recent field work conducted for this study; the long-vacant Rainbow Grocery has recently been leased for gallery use.

Some storefronts at the Doherty Drive end of Magnolia and in the Larkspur Plaza shopping center appear underutilized as retail space, however. In fact, some vacated storefronts have been recently leased for office use, generating concern among downtown retail establishments about the loss of street-level retail continuity.

Until recently, the Lucky Store in the Larkspur Plaza shopping center had been the victim of disinvestment fueled by uncertainty about its long-term future. Under new Albertson's ownership, the store is to be upgraded and moderate expansion is planned. In addition to adding a pharmacy, Albertson's plans to adapt merchandise lines to better represent the needs of the trade area. The current owners are confident that updating the presentation, retail environment, and products offered will revitalize the market for this store, recapturing customers who now shop elsewhere.

FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS

Annual operating budget
Larkspur's operating budget for fiscal year 1999 – 2000 totals about $7.7 million. (See Appendix Table 14 and Appendix Table 15.) The City has maintained a stable budget at about this level for the last several years, after accounting for inflation. Since 1993, property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy tax revenues have kept pace with inflation, while most fee revenues have remained stable, interest income has declined, and there have been no new revenue sources or adjustments to fees. This revenue situation has allowed some cost of living adjustments for City staff compensation. For the most part, however, Larkspur's level of City services has remained constant following the substantial reduction in the City's budget (about a ten percent reduction) necessitated by the 1993 statewide shift of property tax revenues that had previously funded local government operations.

Larkspur depends on property and sales taxes for about two-thirds of the City's general fund revenue. Property taxes now contribute about 40 percent of total general fund revenue, and sales taxes contribute another 23 percent. Transient occupancy tax revenue accounts for about seven percent of total general fund revenue, as does the motor vehicle in-lieu tax. Charges for current services (more than half of which are recreation program fees) and franchise tax revenues each contribute about five percent of total general fund revenue.

More than half of Larkspur's annual operating expenses are absorbed by police and fire services. Another 18 percent of expenditures fund public works department administration, street maintenance, and park maintenance. General administration, including facilities maintenance, accounts for another 15 percent of general fund expenditures.

Maintaining a conservative, "pay-as-you-go" philosophy, the City of Larkspur is not burdened with debt. The general fund contributes $82,000 annually (about one percent of the total budget) to repay the debt issued for the Greenbrae Fire Station. The financing expires in 2010. In addition, the City maintains reserves for contingencies and equipment replacement that, combined, amount to about 30 percent of the annual operating budget.

Capital improvement budget
With annual operating expenditures constrained by the level of annual general fund revenues and no special assessments for City services, Larkspur has very limited local revenue for capital infrastructure projects. Larkspur's capital improvement program has been largely funded by annual contributions from unexpended general fund balances. For the three fiscal years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 (combined), that carryover transfer to the general fund totaled about $1.1 million. Those contributions have funded a backlog of street, storm drain, and park and recreation improvements. The annual general fund carryover for the 1998-99 fiscal year will be allocated to the Facilities Replacement Fund (now totalling about $800,000) that is set aside for long-term capital infrastructure needs at City Hall.

Larkspur's recommended four-year capital improvement program totals $4.9 million for 1999 through 2003. Almost half of that funding represents grant funding and matching gas tax revenues for transportation improvements (Magnolia Avenue resurfacing, Doherty Drive pedestrian and bicycle improvements, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard re-surfacing and signal improvements). The last two years of program recommendations, totaling $1.3 million, are unfunded.

Capital infrastructure needs
In addition to the problems of aging streets, roadways, storm drains, and park and recreation facilities common to most local jurisdictions, Larkspur faces major problems with key City facilities: City Hall, the Library, Downtown Fire Station, and Police Station. The downtown City Hall and Library lack sufficient space for offices, public meetings, and the complete library collection, as well as for necessary storage and equipment. Parking is inadequate. Building systems are antiquated; seismic retrofitting and accessibility improvements are required. The adjacent downtown Fire Station also is not seismically reinforced; it lacks both a sprinkler system, and adequate facilities for personnel. The building's plumbing, electrical, and structural systems are failing. The Twin Cities Police Station is seismically unsafe, is not centrally located, and does not provide sufficient space for staff and detainees, or for the technological needs of the department.

In 1998, the City of Larkspur estimated that the total least cost for facility improvements to address these problems would be about $8.9 million. Costs of this magnitude far exceed the City's limited annual locally generated capital improvement budget. In 1999, the City convened a committee of citizens—the Larkspur 2050 Committee—to study the city's finances and infrastructure needs, recommend short and longer-term priorities, and recommend new funding sources. During the course of developing the Central Larkspur Specific Plan, the Larkspur 2050 Committee will provide input on the need and/or priority for various public facilities that might be considered for the Specific Plan Area.

MARKET AND PUBLIC FINANCE FACTORS THAT PLACE CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR
THE CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN

There is limited retail growth potential in the local market area
Perhaps the most significant constraint to future retail development in the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area is the lack of expected growth in household retail spending in the local market area. Projections of household growth in Larkspur and the surrounding communities are among the lowest in the Bay Area region. These Marin County communities have for the most part reached the capacity of their residential development potential. Therefore, retail expansion will depend on recapturing local sales now attracted to competitive shopping centers in the market area (primarily in the convenience grocery and general merchandise categories); on extending the stay (and thus the local spending) of those already attracted to Larkspur as a destination for shopping, dining, and entertainment; on providing complementary development that attracts visitors and workers to the area; and on small incremental expansion of the range of retail options now available.

Retail development in the Specific Plan Area must not cannibalize sales from retail establishments in the historic downtown district
The economic vitality of Larkspur's existing downtown district will depend on activity in the Specific Plan Area that complements the stores, personal services, galleries, restaurants, cafes, and entertainment venues located in the historic downtown. The niche to fill will bring more local shoppers back Central Larkspur and, potentially, broaden the base of destination visitors, while not competing with the somewhat fragile base of support for the bulk of the establishments located in the historic downtown.

Central Larkspur is not visible or accessible
Central Larkspur is some distance from Highway 101, and newcomers to the area find it difficult to navigate Larkspur's dispersed, multi-node development pattern. Compared to locations of competitive retail, office, and hotel development, central Larkspur is "off the beaten track". For hotel development potential, central Larkspur's deficiencies also include being relatively remote from San Francisco. (Shuttle service to the ferry terminal might alleviate this problem.) In addition, congestion along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, Magnolia Avenue, and Highway 101 through Larkspur and Corte Madera is an impediment to those who might come from more distant locations.

The local market area is highly developed with a competitive supply of retail and office space
Along the continuation of Magnolia Avenue and other arterials leading to Central Larkspur, there are numerous other commercial districts and shopping centers that combine retail and office development. The Larkspur-Corte Madera market area is well-served by established neighborhood and regional shopping centers; combined, the Bon Air Center, Town Center, the Villages, and Larkspur Landing represent over one million square feet of leasable retail space and 132,000 square feet of office space. The market area also includes a variety of local serving neighborhood commercial districts. There are also other destination downtowns in southern Marin County: Mill Valley, Sausalito, and Tiburon. Relatively high retail vacancy rates (at the level of 18 percent) at the Larkspur Landing shopping center offer some evidence of the fragility of the retail market.

The local lodging market is competitive and highly seasonal
Although there is only one other hotel in Larkspur—the Marriott Courtyard at Larkspur Landing, there are several other smaller boutique hotels in the market area that would compete with a facility in Central Larkspur. The competition in Tiburon, Sausalito, and Mill Valley offers more extensive shopping districts and, in many cases, scenic views of San Francisco and the Bay. Tourists are a strong part of the local market from May through October; successful hotel development in Marin County has to target business travelers as well as friends and relatives visiting local residents. The need to appeal to all these important customer groups requires providing a full range of amenities—all within a competitive pricing strategy.

New revenue sources and creative public financing are most likely required to satisfy community facility needs within the Specific Plan Area
Larkspur has significant unmet long-term basic community facility needs. The capital costs of upgrades and expansions are high. Currently, there is inadequate local revenue to fund these needs. Since Proposition 218, it is even more difficult to raise local public revenues as a 2/3 voter majority is required to impose or raise property-related taxes or fees. A 2/3 voter majority is also required to issue a general obligation bond, funded by increases in the property tax rate.

MARKET AND PUBLIC FINANCE OPPORTUNITIES ENHANCING
DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR THE CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN

The desire to reduce travel time supports development options in Central Larkspur
Retail and office development in the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area could benefit from expected higher levels of traffic congestion on the 101 Corridor and major arterials linking southern Marin County to San Francisco, the North Bay, and the East Bay. Even without substantial household growth in the market area, new, convenient retail development could be supported by capturing spending now occurring at those locations in the market area that may become relatively less accessible over time as highway congestion increases. This could be come of the thinking behind Albertson's planned upgrading of the former Lucky supermarket at Larkspur Plaza.

The changing nature of jobs and the workforce combined with advances in technology and communications point to increased demand for office space enabling people to work closer to home
New technologies, new types of economic activity, and the propensities of both older and younger workers create a potential market for smaller office space located amongst the convenient services of a smaller-scale downtown. Downtown Larkspur already boasts a cluster of offices of architects and other design professionals, typically the pioneers in this type of smaller scale development. With suitable space, amenities, and affordable rent levels, small law offices, real estate and accountancy offices, communications, technology, and other business service consultants could find a Central Larkspur location attractive. Businesses serving a local clientele might be the primary source of demand. Satellite offices and individuals linked electronically to remote corporate headquarters might be another demand segment. Affordable rent levels would be an important criteria for those individuals whose alternative location would be telecommuting from a home-office.

The occupational profile of employed residents in Larkspur and the market area indicates a significant percentage of the total workforce in those occupations most likely to be attracted to the small office environment.

Natural features and historic buildings provide attractive backdrop for distinctive new development
The core of historic downtown Larkspur, south of the Specific Plan Area, has capitalized on the unique character of historic buildings against the backdrop of creek and redwoods to attract retail spending back to the downtown, in the face of large amounts of new shopping center development in the market area. Moreover, the special character and even the relative lack of accessibility inherent in smaller, more traditional downtown districts is forecast to only become more of an advantage as some segment of locals and visitors alike rejects the increasing homogeneity of more standardized shopping centers.

The amenity value of the Magnolia Avenue restaurants and shops is also a key to successful hotel development in Central Larkspur. In fact, from a location perspective only, a hotel site next to the Lark Creek Inn would be likely to be more appealing than a hotel site next to a shopping center.

Larkspur has a regional and national reputation that provides a good starting point for retail expansion and for hotel development
Larkspur is more fortunate than many cities of comparable size where competition from large-scale, highway-oriented retail development has drained the local market of most of its spending potential. The reach of Larkspur's market potential extends beyond the local area as a consequence of existing destination establishments that offer high quality and/or unique experiences. Development in the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area can capitalize on that underlying market that already attracts people with a range of interests—shopping, dining, and entertainment.

The retail market may be poised for some additional retail inventory
With the exception of the troubled Larkspur Landing shopping center, the other major shopping centers in the market area indicate essentially full occupancy of their leasable retail space. Furthermore, there have been no significant additions to the retail supply in the market area in the last decade. If new sources of demand could be identified, the supply side appears ripe for expansion. Reinvestment by Albertson's in the grocery store anchoring the Larkspur Plaza shopping center reinforces this view of the local retail market.

Office development in the Specific Plan Area relieves pressure for incompatible office use in downtown storefronts
Increased office use of downtown storefronts has been noted with some alarm by retail establishments concerned with the vitality of the pedestrian experience along Magnolia Avenue in the historic district. Second-story office development in the Central Larkspur Specific Plan Area would more appropriately capture this demand.

The strength of the local hotel market makes this a good time to consider a small boutique hotel for Central Larkspur
The absence of similar lodging types in Larkspur, combined with prospects for continued local and regional economic growth, support the market potential for boutique hotel development as part of the Central Larkspur Specific Plan. Downtown Larkspur already has as reputation among out-of-town visitors. Business travelers could be attracted to a small facility's more intimate scale and reasonable prices, combined with a conference room and other shared office facilities, in addition to up-to-date communications infrastructure. By contrast to a bed-and-breakfast conversion, those amenities could be provided more easily as part of new development in the Specific Plan Area, perhaps in conjunction with common facilities developed for permanent office use in the project area. A hotel centrally-located near the downtown would also have strong appeal to friends and relatives visiting people living throughout the local market area.

The City's diverse housing stock establishes a track record for a wide range of housing types
Larkspur has a diverse housing stock, marked by a significant share of higher density units. As a result of this housing mix and the community's location south of San Rafael, Larkspur is recognized as a housing market that appeals to a broad range of tastes and preferences.

Continued prospects for economic growth in San Francisco, Marin County, and the rest of the region create opportunities for high residential development values across a range of housing types
The time is right for pursuing residential development. Market potentials appear strong for some time to come across a range of market segments. Over the longer-term, higher density housing oriented to the move-up baby boom market and the senior market could have the strongest market potential. The relatively large size of the site offers opportunities for efficient site planning and densities that enhance the options for providing housing affordable to moderate and lower income households.

The Specific Plan Area could accommodate more efficient, upgraded, and expanded community facilities
The large and centrally-located Specific Plan Area, including City-owned property, offers the opportunity to consider relocating, expanding, and upgrading various aging and inadequate City facilities. Moreover, the opportunity to develop a significant community center in the Specific Plan Area might provide the inspiration for voter-approval of local public funding to partially fund its development.

The absence to-date of revenue increases in Larkspur means there may be willingness and capacity to approve some form of local public funding
Because the city currently does not impose some of the taxes that are available to local jurisdictions, Larkspur residents might be more willing to consider raising revenue through a parcel tax or utility users' tax, or voting for bond financing to fund critical facility needs.

APPENDIX TABLES

Table 1: Change In Housing & Population:Larkspur & Marin County,1990-1999
Table 2: Housing Units By Type: Larkspur, Marin County, & California, 1999
Table 3: Projections For Larkspur & Corte Madera, 1990 - 2020
Table 4: Projections For Larkspur,Market Area,Marin,&Bay Area,1990-2020
Table 5: Mean Household Income For Bay Area
Table 6: Per Capita Personal Income For Marin County & California, 1985-1996
Table 7: Housing Costs As a Percent Of Income, 1989
Table 8: Distribution Of Employment By Occupation, 1990
Table 9: City Of Larkspur Taxable Sales Patterns, 1989 - 1998
Table 10: City Of Corte Madera Taxable Sales Patterns, 1989 - 1998
Table 11: Marin County Taxable Sales Patterns, 1989 - 1998
Table 12: State Of California Taxable Sales Patterns, 1989 - 1998
Table 13: Inventory Of Existing Space In Downtown Larkspur: 1991
Table 14: City Of Larkspur General Fund Revenue By Source
Table 15: City Of Larkspur General Fund Expenditures By Department

Return To Top


Meeting #5 January 11, 2000
To: CLASP Committee
From: Bob Pendoley
Date: January 11, 2000
Subject: Our next meeting

This month's meeting will be On January 20, 2000, at the Kreps Conference Center, Redwood High School, at the usual time, 7:30pm. The easiest way to get to Kreps is to park in the east parking lot at the high school. The entry to the parking lot is at the intersection of Lucky and Doherty Drives. After the meeting notice for the January 20 was mailed, the School District discovered a schedule conflict. We have been moved to another room down the hall from Kreps. Signs will be posted; the space we will be using is a little larger than Kreps.

This month's meeting will be a workshop on the Existing Conditions Traffic Report, which is enclosed. As with the information we discussed last month, this report will be part of the existing conditions phase of the EIR. Later, as we develop plan alternatives, the impact of the plan on traffic conditions will be determined and evaluated. Obviously, we can't do that yet because we do not have development proposals for the properties in the project area.

Ron Foster from Wilbur Smith Associates, who prepared the report, will give a 20-minute presentation on existing traffic conditions. Your Chair and Vice Chair have seen a preview of the presentation, and it is very interesting. The presentation goes into more detail on some of the conditions than the enclosed report, illustrating trends with graphs. Printed copies of the presentation will be available for the Committee and the audience at the workshop. At the conclusion of your discussion, staff and consultants would like direction on the adequacy of the report. Is it clear? Does it leave any questions unanswered? Are there points that should get more emphasis?

Some of the most interesting and important facts to come out of this report are what has and has not changed about traffic conditions. The evening commute traffic on city streets has changed very little over the past ten years, but the total volume of traffic over a typical 24-hour period has increased 25% on Doherty Drive and 27% on Magnolia Avenue. We now experience traffic peaks in the early morning, noon and mid -afternoon, in addition to the usual evening commute. We will discuss some of the likely reasons for these changes at the workshop. The presentation will also discuss planning options for dealing with this trend. Communities are having success with new approaches that put more emphasis on pedestrians, bicyclists and neighborhood ambience in addition to the traditional focus on traffic flow.

We also need to recheck the schedule. Last month we agreed to the following schedule to make up for the cancelled November meeting; is this still ok with everyone?

January 20, 2000 Traffic Workshop
February 3, 2000 make up meeting
February 17, 2000 regularly schedule meeting

Adding the extra meeting on February 3 would put us back on schedule. Our regularly scheduled meetings are on the third Thursday of the month. Will the following dates work for the rest of the project?

February 17, 2000 March 16, 2000
April 20, 2000 May 18, 2000
June 15, 2000 July 20, 2000

I will ask for direction on the schedule at the beginning of our meeting.

The February meeting will explore planning options for the project area. These will not be plans per se, but ideas to deal with specific issues. We will ask for feedback that can be used to prepare alternative conceptual plans for the properties.

Hope to see you all next week.

January 20, 2000 Agenda
January 2000 Meeting Notes

Return To Top


Meeting #4 December 7, 1999
To: CLASP Committee
From: Bob Pendoley
Date: December 7 1999
Subject: Our next meeting

This month's meeting will be at Hall Middle School Gymnasium, 200 Doherty Drive, at the usual time, 7:30pm.

This month's meeting will focus on the draft Environmental Constraints and Opportunities Analysis prepared by Lamphier and Associates. The draft Analysis is enclosed for your review. The Constraints and Opportunities Analysis serves two purposes: 1) it provides basic information about the project area that will be used to develop the plan, and 2) it is the basis for the existing conditions analysis in the EIR. This draft of the analysis does not cover traffic conditions or visual analysis. Traffic analysis will be presented in a workshop, tentatively scheduled for January 20 (subject to the Committee's approval). The visual analysis will be prepared by Tom Cooke and presented in an early phase of plan development, probably in February.

At this stage, it appears that the two most significant constraints are traffic and wetlands. The wetlands consultants will give a 15 to 20 minute presentation on their findings, and answer your questions. After you have discussed wetlands, I recommend that you break into small groups to discuss other parts of the constraints analysis. Staff and the consultants need feedback from the committee on aspects of the report that may not be clear or that need further study. Your comments will also help Tom Cooke as he develops planning concepts for your consideration. Consultants will be available to work with the small groups.

The Preliminary Planning and Design Principles and Criteria have been revised to reflect the direction you gave on October 14. We can adjust them if you find errors or loose ends.

We also need to talk about next steps. We need to conduct the traffic workshop, and we need to make up for the meeting lost in October. Staff proposes the following schedule for discussion when we meet on December 16: regularly schedule meeting
January 20, 2000 Traffic Workshop
February 3, 2000 make up meeting
February 17, 2000

Adding the extra meeting on February 3 would put us back on schedule.

Hope to see you all next week.

December 16, 1999 Agenda
December 1999 Meeting Notes

Revised Principles and Criteria December 16, 1999
Seek a mix of land uses that will achieve an appropriate balance of City revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, and other local taxes and fees) and the cost of City services to the area, exclusive of those associated with community wide-serving public facilities.

Return To Top


Meeting #3 October 1999

To:CLASP Committee
From:Bob Pendoley
Date:October 5, 1999
Subject:Our next meeting

This month's meeting will be at the Masonic Temple, 1122 Magnolia Avenue, at the usual time, 7:30pm.

We have added a "Committee Update" as a regular part of the agenda. It will be an opportunity to share information that is relevant to the project, but is not proposed for action by the Committee. One reason for doing this is to keep you up to date with the work of the Larkspur 2050 Committee (they have asked for the same thing on their agenda). You will also be receiving the 2050 Committee's agendas and Meeting Notes.

The Meeting Guidelines have been finalized (?) to include items you requested at the last meeting. They are on the first part of the agenda for discussion if necessary.

The majority of our meeting will be a workshop on planning and design principles and criteria. As Tom Cooke explains in the attached material, the principles and criteria will be the basis for evaluating options for land uses and types of development as well as open space and vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle circulation. Later, the principles and criteria will come into play when you evaluate plan alternatives. The proposed principles and criteria are drawn from General Plan policies, the Downtown specific Plan and other documents the City Council has asked the Committee to follow. It is important to keep in mind that when these principles are used, they will be balanced against each other. Implementing the Council's direction will require balancing the various policies the Council has asked you to consider. The committee's task is to find the most appropriate balance.

You may have noticed hoses crossing streets in the project area as well as people in orange vests at intersections. That's our traffic consultant counting cars for next month's meeting. The people in vests are manually counting the turns vehicles make into and out of intersections. The hose counts are used to verify the overall volumes enumerated in the manual counts as well as to identify 24-hour and 7-day patterns. The counting will continue at least through next Saturday. The intersections that are being counted are listed on the attached sheet.

The project schedule and other data that Tom Cooke and Joan Lamphier presented at last month's meeting are enclosed. I am looking forward to seeing everyone next week.. Please do not hesitate to call (472-3614) if there is something we need for the meeting, or if I can answer questions.

*****************

CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN
Draft Principles & Criteria
October 4, 1999

FUNCTION AND APPLICATION:

The function of the planning and design principles is to provide the Specific Plan Committee with a common foundation upon which to base the Specific Plan and judge the planning and community choices leading up to the selection of the preferred Specific Plan. The principles represent a distillation of the goals, policies, and objectives contained in the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. These principles also encompass the intent expressed in the City Council's eight goals for the Niven property and the seven goals identified by the prior Citizens Advisory Committee for the Niven property. An accompanying table identifies the various policy sources underlying each of the principles.

In subsequent work sessions the principles will be used to initially evaluate the options for various land uses and types of development, open space, and vehicular and nonvehicular travel. At the alternative plan phase, the principles will provide the basis for comparing, ranking, and then selecting a preferred plan. In the table which follows, each principle is accompanied by one or more criteria which can be used to determine the extent to which the respective choices conform to the principle. These criteria will enable the Specific Plan Committee to more easily understand the implications and consequences of the various choices and the degree of correspondence to the principles. The listed criteria will be refined further as the study proceeds. This portion of the work will be done in close collaboration with the EIR consultant so as to incorporate the findings of their environmental analyses.

In some instances the criteria employ quantitative measures such as the number, type and time of vehicular trips; number, mix and type of housing; land area devoted to retention of natural features; anticipated public revenues and costs; amount an type of community-serving uses; required public expenditures; and financial return to property owners. It is not possible, nor desirable, however, to depend solely on quantitative criteria. Other criteria therefore rely on more qualitative determinations to address principles concerned with topics such as a distinctive identity, scale and character, and visual and functional interconnectedness and continuity with downtown and the neighborhoods.

Arrayed below are the Consultant's initial identification of major principles, and associated criteria based on the community goals and policy sources identified above. The form is organized to allow you to indicate general agreement with the principles and criteria, suggest modifications, or express concerns about their applicability or relevancy of the proposed principles. The October 14 workshop will be used to record the Committee's collective responses and to finalize the listing of applicable principles. If necessary, this task can be carried through to and finalized at the November meeting.

PRELIMINARY PLANNING &
DESIGN PRINCIPLES & CRITERIA

  1. Achieve a distinctive identify for the Specific Plan Area such that residents will be attracted to and take pride in it, and to allow the Specific Plan Area to contribute to and enhance the identity of downtown.
    Criteria:
    1.1_   Has one or more unifying elements that create a cohesive, attractive image for the Specific Plan Area.
    1.2   Includes a central public space or facility.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  2. Maintain consistency with the small-town character exhibited by Larkspur's downtown and adjacent neighborhoods.
    Criteria:
    2.1   Provides for continuation of downtown shop frontage and building scale along Magnolia Avenue.
    2.2   Residential buildings at the edge of the Specific Plan Area maintain height and bulk similar to that of nearby neighborhoods.
    2.3   Architecture and landscaping employ forms and materials similar to those prevailing throughout the city.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  3. Site and design new development so as to safeguard, enhance and incorporate into the Specific Plan significant on-site natural features, and where possible provide strong connections between on- and off-site natural features.
    Criteria:
    3.1   Extent of area retained in natural features.
    3.2   Extent of retention of identified significant vegetation.
    3.3   Number and extent of links with off-site open space areas.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  4. Respect the historic, cultural, and natural heritage of Larkspur by incorporating valued artifacts or sites where possible and practical within new development and/ or by using architectural or landscape designs that incorporate forms, details or materials providing evident associations with the city's heritage.
    Criteria:
    4.1   Retains heritage trees where they exist.
    4.2   Acknowledges prior Miwok presence and use of site.
    4.3   Maintains evident association with and reminder of prior horticultural use.
    4.4   Retains historic railroad structures and provides an appropriate setting.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  5. Balance land uses to produce City revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, and other local taxes and fees) which exceed the City's cost of services to the area, exclusive of those associated with communitywide-serving public facilities.
    Criteria:
    5.1   Order of magnitude estimates of City revenue generated vs. cost of City services.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  6. Combine uses in such a way that the average number of trips generated by individual uses is reduced as a result of possibilities for multipurpose trips, deferred trips, and increased reliance on access by foot and bicycle.
    Criteria:
    6.1   Promotes multipurpose trips.
    6.2   Increases uses whose peak trip generation occurs during nonpeak travel times.
    6.3   Encourages trip deferral during peak travel periods.
    6.4   Ease and feasibility for access on foot or by bicycle for many trip purposes.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  7. Provide a diversified housing stock offering housing opportunities to all age groups and household types and to households with moderate incomes.
    Criteria
    7.1   Percent of units within the means of households with incomes of 120 percent or less of the county median income - i.e., the current definition of affordable housing.
    7.2   Percent of units within the means of households with incomes of 80 percent or less of county median income.
    7.3   Percentage of units within the means of households with incomes of 50 percent or less of the county median income.
    7.4   Provides balance of housing for various household types - i.e., includes housing for seniors, but not exceeding 20 percent of total units; provides housing for one-, two-, or three-person households; serves the needs of families with school-age children.
    7.5   Provides for range of tenure opportunities - i.e., standard ownership, condominium ownership, and rental.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  8. Provide private property owners equitable return on their property.
    Criteria:
    8.1   Reasonable market exist for permitted uses within the next three to five years.
    8.2   Property owners can expect a return on the value of their property of approximately XXX percent.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  9. Functionally and visually integrate development of all Specific Plan Area parcels and integrate the entirety of the area into the fabric of the city.
    Criteria:
    9.1   Includes allowances for pedestrian and bicycle movement through the Specific Plan Area.
    9.2   Maintains continuity of retail/commercial frontage along Magnolia Ave.
    9.3   Integrates existing shopping center with the balance of site.
    9.4   Responds to the needs for additional downtown parking.
    9.5   Provides for an attractive frontage along Doherty Drive and addresses pedestrian and bicycle safety issues existing along this frontage.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  10. Incorporate community-serving uses or facilities which will serve all segments of the community and contribute to the vitality of downtown.
    Criteria:
    10.1   Incorporates a public plaza: compare based on size and location.
    10.2   Includes a public park or outdoor recreation area: compare based on size and location.
    10.3   If a community facility is provided, compare based on projected visitation or level of use.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  11. Give priority to pedestrian and bicycle movement over vehicles in the Specific Plan Area, downtown, and immediate environs, and permit roadway construction and vehicular traffic mitigation measures only when such changes do not adversely affect pedestrian and bicycle circulation and safety.
    Criteria:
    11.1   Projected increases in vehicular traffic at critical intersections.
    11.2   Time allowed for pedestrians to cross Doherty Drive, Magnolia Avenue, and Ward Street is ample for older residents and handicapped people. Crossing intervals are frequent enough to encourage pedestrian movements.
    11.3   A well-defined and convenient pedestrian and bicycle routes links all areas of the Specific Plan Area to each other and other destinations citywide.
    11.4   Provides for safe crossing of Doherty Drive to Hall Middle School and Piper Park.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  12. Protect adjacent neighborhoods from traffic and noise effects and scenic degradation.
    Criteria:
    12.1   Potential for downtown-related parking overflowing into neighboring areas has been avoided or minimized.
    12.2   Significant alterations of existing views from nearby residences has been avoided.
    12.3   Projected level of noise generated in the Specific Plan Area, as measured at its boundaries.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  13. Incorporate a mixture of residential, commercial, and public and institutional uses, the net effect of which will be to contribute to the commercial and social vitality of Larkspur.
    Criteria:
    13.1   Estimated weekday and weekend activity levels - i.e., employees, shoppers, business visitors, or visitations to public-use facilities.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

  14. Avoid or minimize to the greatest extent possible adverse impacts on natural resources including water quality, air quality, natural habitats, and energy consumption.
    Criteria:
    14.1   Allowances for accommodating and treating storm water runoff.
    14.2   Potential for improving off-site water quality or natural habitat values.
    14.3   Potential for reduction in average vehicle trips per housing unit or per square foot of nonresidential space.
    • Concur with principle and criteria as stated.
    • Suggest the following modifications.
    • Concerned about applicability or relevancy. Explain.

Central Larkspur Specific Plan
Baseline Traffic Data Collection
9/29/99 to 10/9/99
 
One-day Intersection counts
  Days and times –
Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday
  • 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM
  • 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Saturday
  • Noon to 2:00 PM
  Intersections:
 
  1. Magnolia/Doherty
  2. Magnolia/Bon Air
  3. Magnolia/Ward
  4. Magnolia/King
  5. Larkspur Plaza/Doherty
  6. Riviera Circle/Doherty
  7. Doherty/Lucky/High School Driveway
  8. Lucky/Fifer
  9. Tamal Vista/Fifer
  10. Tamal Vista/Wornum
  11. Wornum/redwood Highway
  12. Redwood/Industrial/101 ramps.
7-day/24-Hour machine counts
 
  1. Magnolia south of Doherty
  2. S.F. Drake south of Bon Air Road
  3. Bon Air Road west of Corte Madera Creek
Parking Survey
  Days and times –
Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday
  • 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM
  • 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Saturday
  • 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM
  • 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
  Off Street
  1. Larkspur Plaza Center
  2. Piper park
  3. City lot at Magnolia/Ward
  4. 4. Nazari Property
 
  On street
  1. Magnolia Avenue between Ward/Crystal Circle
  2. Larkspur Plaza
  3. Doherty Drive between Magnolia/Riviera Circle

Return To Top

CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN COMMITTEE
Steering Committee Meeting #2

City of Larkspur

Central Larkspur Specific Plan

Steering Committee Meeting #1

City Council Chambers
City Hall

July 29, 1999
7:30-9:30PM

AGENDA

    7:30PM
  1. Welcome
    • Purpose of the Meeting
    • Agenda Overview
    • Self Introductions

    8:00

  2. Orientation
    • The Charge to the Committee
    • What is a Specific Plan?
    • The Work Program
    • Meeting Guidelines
    • The Brown Act

    8:30

  3. Reading Assignment
    • General Plan
    • Downtown Specific Plan
    • Downtown Parking Plan
    • Excerpts from the Niven CAC's Report to the City Council
    • City Council Goals for the Niven Property

    9:00

  4. Logistics
    • Calendar

    9:15

  5. Next Steps
    • Consultant Selection
    • Our Next Meeting

    9:30

  6. Close

***************

CENTRAL LARKSPUR SPECIFIC PLAN COMMITTEE

Meeting Notes
Meeting #1

July 29, 1999
City Hall

Specific Plan Committee
William Broughan
Scott Churchill
Nancy Curley
Monte Deignan
Susan Gilardi
Helen Heitkamp
Deborah Lundberg
Joan Lundstrom
Chris McCluney*
Cyndi Niven
Myles O'Dwyer
Maurice Palumbo
Joe Prickett
Neil Reeder*
Gary Rulli*
Judy Saffran
Molly White
Sallyanne Wilson*
*Alternate member

Absent
Mary Davi
Larry Lanctot
Shawn Nazari
Joe Stone

City of Larkspur
Robert Pendoley, Planning ConsultantAndy Pendoley, Recorder

Welcome

Bob Pendoley opened the meeting at 7:30PM. he introduced himself as the project manager who will be providing the staff support for the Committee and facilitating meetings. He welcomed everyone and outlined the purpose of the meeting:

  • to get to know each other;
  • to get a basic orientation to the project.

Pendoley briefly went over the agenda:

  • self introduction
  • orientation
  • review the reading assignment
  • discuss our schedule and next steps

Councilmember Joan Lundstrom thanked everyone on behalf of the Mayor and City Council for volunteering to serve. She said that the CLASP Committee is part of a long tradition in Larkspur in which community members develop the most important plans. Joan stressed the importance of the Committee's work; the City Council is looking to the Committee for its best advice on these properties, which are critical to the community's future. The City Council will definitely listen to what the committee has to say. Joan urged members to keep the groups they represent informed and to reflect the views of the organizations they represent. She also encouraged members to balance the concerns of individual interest groups with community-wide needs. Joan concluded her remarks by pointing our that the City Council unanimously adopted the goals and work program for the project.

Committee members introduced themselves and commented on their reasons for volunteering. Five members were on the Niven CAC; they expressed a desire to see the process through to a conclusion, and hoped there would be less acrimony in this process. Other members said they hope we will work as a team. Several people said they volunteered because they want to make a contribution to the City. Others stressed a concern to build community awareness and to support the people. CLASP committee members come from a range of backgrounds, including:

  • homeowners
  • architecture
  • Citizens for Rational Growth
  • mortgage finance
  • Larkspur School District
  • the Planning Commission
  • the Library Board
  • transportation planning
  • law
  • finance
  • the Heritage Board
  • the Downtown Parking Committee
  • an Elm Crest appellant
  • the Boardwalk

Orientation

We reviewed the City Council's charge to the Committee: to oversee the preparation of a draft specific plan and a draft EIR. Staff and consultants will actually do the writing; the Committee will review material as it is drafted and provide input. The Committee will also be responsible for soliciting community comments as the plan and EIR are developed. The draft Specific Plan and the Draft EIR will be delivered to the Planning Commission and City Council for public hearings.

Pendoley explained the General Plan and Specific Plans. California cities and counties are required to adopt General Plans, which must cover specified topics including land use, housing and circulation. All of the City's land use decisions, infrastructure spending and physical development must be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan is the constitution for development in California. The General Plan can be amended by the City Council.

Specific Plans can be thought of as "mini General Plans," covering specific areas within the city. Unlike General Plans, they are not required by law, but if the City chooses to adopt a specific plan, it must be consistent with the General Plan, and it must be followed.

Pendoley also reviewed the work program (attached) adopted by the City Council for the project. The work program has two parallel tracks: the EIR and the Plan. The Plan and the EIR will be prepared simultaneously, so that the Committee can assess the environmental effect of plan proposals as they are developed. The Plan and the EIR will be prepared by separate firms to assure objectivity. The ten month schedule is tight but "doable." However, the City Council wants the Specific Plan and EIR done right and will allow more time if necessary. The work program will be refined in September when the project consultants are hired.

The consultant selection process started in May. A request for Qualifications was circulated through out the state, and 12 firms were invited to submit proposals. Nine firms will be interviewed on August 5. The interview panel will include Monte Deignan and Scott Churchill from the Committee as well as two City staffers. Cyndi Niven expressed her dissatisfaction with the consultant selection process. She felt that the property owners should be on the interview panel.

We discussed draft guidelines for our meetings:

  • We will have balanced conversations and hear from everyone
  • No one should dominate the conversation
  • We will listen as allies
  • Keep interruptions to a minimum

Several members were concerned that other ideas may need to be added. Several former members of the Niven CAC felt that some members of the public had not respected these guidelines during last year's meetings. Other members suggested adding one or more of the following ideas:

  • the meetings should provide a supportive and inclusive forum for discussion
  • avoid repetition
  • recognize the right to disagree
  • strive for consensus
  • vote on all major decisions

    Pendoley felt there would likely be controversy during the Specific Plan process, but that the process would be less acrimonious than the Niven CAC experience because it would have more focus. For example, we will have all of the necessary data to get a clear understanding on issues, even if we do not have 100% agreement. Molly White said that in her opinion a certain amount of acrimonious controversy is almost inevitable, and we should expect it. We are a small community where everybody rightly sees that they have a stake in the issues that we will be discussing. Strong feelings should be expected.

    The Committee asked Pendoley to work on the Meeting Guidelines to respond to the concerns we discussed.

    We briefly reviewed the Brown Act. We are a Brown Act Committee, which means:

    • we must have an agenda available before each meeting;
    • we must follow the agenda, and it must include a brief description of each agenda item;
    • we must provide an opportunity for people to speak briefly on agenda items;
    • we will make our decisions openly;
    • video and sound recording is permitted, and meetings can be broadcast;
    • our meetings must be held in Larkspur, and they must be accessible to the disabled.

      Reading Assignment

      Reference documents were distributed including,

      • the General Plan
      • the Downtown Specific Plan
      • the Downtown Parking Plan
      • excerpts from the Niven CAC's Report to the City Council
      • City Council Goals for the Niven Property

      Logistics and Next Steps

      We agreed that for now we would schedule our meetings for the third Thursday of the month. Our next meeting will be on September 16, 1999. By then, our consultants should have been selected and be under contract. The Committee asked Pendoley to revise the roster to list the organization each member represents.

      Close

      We went home at 9:30 PM.

      Return To Top

OPEN LETTER FROM DAN HILLMER, MAYOR

To the residents, business and property owners of the City of Larkspur:

The City of Larkspur has been conducting a public process to identify community desires for the future use of three major properties at the north end of the Downtown:

  1. The Niven Nursery property
  2. The "Nazari" property
  3. The Lucky Shopping Center property

The Central Larkspur Area Specific Plan (CLASP) process will provide opportunities for the general public, as well as residents living within or near the planning areas, to assist in the planning of the center of our community. Public involvement helps define the community's vision of the future.

In a separate, but related public process, the City is moving ahead to identify community priorities for City facilities and infrastructure improvements. This information will be developed through the formation of a citizen's Planning and Finance committee and a series of "Town Meetings" where the community is invited to participate, ask questions and give comment.

The policy and planning decisions, which will be made, will have a significant effect on the entire City. We urge you to become involved in the future of Larkspur, and attend as many meetings as possible in order to understand the process and issues that are being discussed. We need your help and the City wants your input!

The next City Council meeting to discuss the CLASP process will be May 12th at 7:30 p.m. Mark your calendars. Meetings are typically held on the first and third Wednesdays of each month. If you wish to receive a staff report and council agenda, leave a self addressed stamped envelope at City Hall and it will be mailed to you.

We need your help!

Sincerely,
Dan Hillmer, Mayor
City of Larkspur


Volunteers Needed
Citizen Advisory Committees City of Larkspur Planning Projects

The Larkspur City Council is seeking volunteers to serve on the Citizen Advisory Committees that will oversee the preparation of two important planning projects. If you are a Larkspur resident and think you might be interested in a challenging opportunity to contribute to your community, read on to learn how you can become involved.

The Central Larkspur Specific Plan

The Specific Plan will provide detailed direction for the planning of approximately 29 acres in the heart of Larkspur. The planning area covers the Niven Nursery site, the Lucky shopping center (Larkspur Plaza) and property on Magnolia Street directly across from the Lark Theater including the American Legion Hall, the city parking lot and nearby historic buildings. The Specific Plan will determine control traffic measures (street layout, circulation, walkways and bikeways, parking, signals), the land uses allowed on the properties (for example, market rate/senior/below market rate/ work force housing, retail and office uses), protect environmental resources (wildlife, wetlands habitat, plant life) and views, consider geology and soils, drainage, air quality, noise and provide for public services and utilities. The Specific Plan will also include guidelines and programs to implement the plan. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared on the plan.

The Advisory Committee for the Specific Plan will have 19 members, some nominated by local organizations and others appointed directly by the City Council to represent the community at-large. The Advisory Committee will oversee and provide input to the work of planning consultants and city staff to develop a draft Specific Plan and EIR. The Planning Commission and City Council will review the draft Plan and EIR at public hearings. Once the Specific Plan has been approved by the City Council, it must be followed in all decisions relating to development in the project area. All Committee meetings will be open to the public.

The Capital Improvement Plan

A Planning and Finance Committee will be appointed by the City Council to assess Larkspur's current and future community facility and services needs, to evaluate funding options and to recommend priorities and a course of action for the next twenty years. Here are just a few of the issues the Committee will study:

The Public Library   Should it be expanded? At its present location or
somewhere else?
Downtown Fire Station and City Hall   These older buildings need substantial seismic repairs; how should they be funded?
Twin Cities Police Station   The existing building is not structurally sound. Should it be rebuilt in Piper Park, in another part of the community or possibly in Corte Madera?
Community Center   Should Larkspur build and maintain a community center? If so, how should it be funded and where should it be located?
Road Maintenance,
Storm Drains and Flooding
  What standard should we set for safety and convenience? What can we afford?

The Planning and Finance Committee will have approximately 25 members. Neighborhood groups and other local organizations will nominate many of the Committee members. The City Council will directly appoint five or more residents as at-large members to represent the community as a whole. The Committee will oversee and provide input to the work of consultants and City staff who will do the necessary research and draft the Plan. The Planning and Finance Committee will also sponsor three Town Meetings that will be held to gather ideas from the community about projects, priorities and funding sources. The Planning and Finance Committee will be asked to balance competing needs in making its recommendations to the City Council. All Committee meetings will be open to the public.

The City Manager of Larkspur will hold a public briefing on Monday, June 28, 1999, beginning at 6:30 PM at City Hall to explain the planning projects and the role of the advisory committees, and to answer questions. If you would like more information before the meeting, or if you would like an application form for an at-large position on one of the advisory committees, please call Ms. Barbara Stephens (415/927-5002) or visit her at Larkspur City Hall, 400 Magnolia Street. You may also fill out an application form online for this committee.

  • I live at the end of Boardwalk One, for the past 20 years; I was on the Citizens Action Committee (CAC).
  • Niven is key in Downtown.
  • The report (Larkspur's Waterfront Restored, a Niven Opportunity) to CAC - looked at Niven in relation to surrounding area. Water, properties, paths: take advantage of water, restore Redwood Marsh.
  • Can give presentation of this report.
  • Traffic on Doherty is a big component, so is Redwood High School.
  • Consider the corporation yard between the high school and the area, there are several corporation yards in the area.
  • I encourage you to include the high school, Marin Municipal Water District, etc.
  • Include the marsh behind Redwood.

    City Council comment: the City has attempted to include Redwood, but has been turned down.

  • I like that the City is the lead agency on this.
  • I live on Riviera Circle. I was on the CAC.
  • It's time to think comprehensively.
  • I like the expanded scope of the (expanded) Specific Plan.
  • Include Niven, Piper Park, Lucky, the transportation corridor that include Niven, Redwood High School.
  • A balance is needed.
  • The Warnum Drive Extension is obvious.
  • Expanded waterways. Revitalize the existing waterways.
  • Increase commercial development
  • We've reached critical mass with business.
  • Handle this with the Downtown Traffic solution (Downtown Traffic report).
  • Our recreational needs: Larkspur or regional?
  • Reach beyond Larkspur if regional.
  • I'm in favor of the expanded area.
  • I'm a real estate broker, I represent Nazari. (Read some goals of Downtown Specific Plan).
  • Niven site is not studied in same detail.
  • Don't restudy same areas.
  • Support Downtown Plan so stay with focus on Niven.
  • I'm concerned with cloud with Expanded Specific Plan.
  • Families (Nazari) object strongly (to an Expanded Specific Plan).
  • I live on Riviera, the Marina.
  • I'm concerned with school, traffic from school, no overall plan.
  • I support the Expanded Specific Plan.
  • I've been with Lucky Stores for a long time.
  • I met with City, Niven owners in 1996 - discussed property, later consider remodel of Lucky. Lucky is now going through merger and Larkspur may be chosen for interior/exterior remodel.
  • Please delete Lucky Shopping Center in the Expanded Specific Plan.

    City Council: It's possible to fold in Lucky improvements in this process. City Council: Regarding the Expanded Specific Plan: while area being studied, we can look at proposals for interior remodel (some exterior) for consistency with work plan.

  • I live on Walnut.
  • I commend the staff on the staff report and the City Council on the Expanded Specific Plan.
  • Question: If the Expanded Specific Plan was expanded to include Piper Park, what would be the cost?

    Answer (City Manager): If the City owned the property the City may pick up some of the cost.

  • I live on Larkspur Plaza Drive.
  • The City is studying issues that affect the Downtown area, including Niven: it will impact traffic and schools.
  • Citizens for Rational Growth (CRG) support the Expanded Specific Plan; we hired an attorney that also supports this.
  • Take care with Larkspur Landing, to include it as well. I live on Meadowood, I'm with the CRG, a 50 member group.
  • Consider Niven in light of other properties' application.
  • I want upgrades on Lucky.
  • Question: What are the timelines in the staff report?

    Answer (City Manager): Timelines were from September meeting; new timelines will be submitted if City Council adopts the Expanded Specific Plan.

  • Support expansion with new timelines.
  • I live on Hooper Lane in San Anselmo and am with Marin Family Action, an affordable housing group The members live/work in Larkspur.
  • We want affordable housing/mixed use with open space.
  • We support a long range integrated approach.
  • I live on Ardmore Rd. - I'm speaking for myself and the Marin Audubon Society.
  • I want to comment on the Report (Larkspur's Waterfront Restored). It looks like a boating plan, it has several water problems. I want the Society taken off the report.
  • Redwood and marsh and public resources.
  • I live on Wilson.
  • I endorse the Expanded Specific Plan as long as you look at Piper Park and Redwood high school.
  • I suggest opportunities for nature areas.
  • I'm a Meadowood resident.
  • The staff report dated November 10, page 3 reads "up to 5 units per acre." On page 2 regarding the school population: not large enough to house enrollment, more classrooms are needed.
  • I'm with the CR0; look at the whole, not parts, community use.
  • We have a member that can raise $750,000 for this use.

    City Council comment: new families are part of Corte Madera (some will go to Reed School district) and will impact our school district; staff.

  • I live on Meadowood Drive, I'm part of the CR0.
  • I support the Expanded Specific Plan which support the CAC discussions and responds to major concerns.
  • I'm active with the CR0.
  • Regarding the Larkspur school attendance, more schools (3) opened in the 60-70's -crowding was therefore less of an issue then.
  • Thank you for including Doherty Drive.
  • See the curve in the road? The road exists on paper, and was intended to go all the way through. Lucky Drive is on stable ground. Put Lucky Drive where it belongs.
  • I live on Riviera Circle.
  • I want to thank Mr. Hlllmer for bringing in Doherty.
  • Environmental impact studies are helpful for the road.
  • I live on Wilson Way, and am with the American Legion - I want to ask that the Legion be removed from the Report (Larkspur's Waterfront Restored).
  • I'm the developer from Niven. We faxed you a letter.
  • We are opposed to the Expanded Specific Plan.
  • There have been several years of discussions with the family and the City.
  • After you adopted the Downtown Specific Plan the City did not take leadership in '96 of the Niven Plan.
  • We have been proceeding in good faith for over a year with City staff and the CAC.
  • We participated in 9 separate meetings, and spent much time and did much work.
  • We want to work with the CAC goals, not the Expanded Specific Plan. The development team does want another lengthy delay.
  • We are asking that the application move forward.
  • I'm the attorney for the Nivens.
  • What happens to the timing with the application?
  • What about a moratorium? The fairness to the community, the sponsors, and family needs to be considered. The City is ignoring the General Plan regarding the Niven property, changing the rules. It's not fair.

    Answer: City Council: In the resolution the is no word "moratorium" If the Expanded Specific Plan is adopted, the family can make the application.
    City Attorney: A moratorium should be considered and you can exempt certain properties, have an interim ordinance.
    City Council: there is no moratorium as part of the resolution tonight.

  • You are in essence doing a moratorium.
  • Can't make the findings, current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare.
  • Exempt Niven from the Expanded Specific Plan.

    City Council: The Council can make the findings. We're not adopting a moratorium, we can't predict tomorrow.

  • I hear application wont be processed (from Nivens).
  • I'm a Magnolia resident, Mr. Nazari.
  • I participated in the public process on the Specific Plan adopted in 1992-93.
  • It's a waste of time to do another specific plan.
  • We're ready to go on.

    City Council: The Downtown Specific Plan, there is no entitlement, no guidelines for applications.
    City Council: Parking was studied for Downtown after the Downtown Specific Plan. Staff: The Council will look at the Downtown Parking Plan in early 1999.

  • I live on Larkspur Plaza Road. I'm a 20 year resident and parent of a Hall child.
  • Consider entrances and exists to Hall and Piper Park. The development will add to that, kids crossing.
  • I'm a Chanticleer resident.
  • The City has a huge interest, fairness is issue but can't undo once it's developed.
  • I live on Hawkins Way. I haven't been involved in the process for long.
  • I thought we were just to address the Expanded Specific Plan.
  • Don't be afraid of a moratorium, there are many big issues to consider.
  • Consider fairness to the total community, what will affect the community welfare.
  • I ask that the Expanded Specific Plan be approved.
  • I live on Meadowood. I presented a plan to the CAC.
  • I'm pleased to see the Expanded Specific Plan.
  • Regarding fairness: if there is no intent to include citizens comments and concerns, then there is no need to go through the process we went through.
  • I live on Meadwood. I was a member of the CAC.
  • Slow down the process, don't piecemeal the project; it'll look like it.
  • I'm a Garden Way resident.
  • I support the Expanded Specific Plan, especially that you included Doherty. Include Ward if you are going to talk about public safety.
  • Don't hurry.
  • I'm a Meadowood resident.
  • This is a public process, include the CAC. Developers are unrealistic if they don't include the public's concern.
  • There are plenty of issues to invoke a moratorium.
  • Meadowood rejected the developer - agreed to a public process.
  • I'm speaking for myself and CR0; I'm here because I care about Larkspur.
  • The developer made no accommodations. I hope it can work with the City, Nivens, developers.

END OF COMMENTS
 Return To Top   Back To Previous
50361