A "Specific Plan" is the first step in the redevelopment of the site from a wholesale and retail nursery to low density residential. A Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) has been appointed by the City Council to develop policy and guidelines for the development of the property to be considered when reviewing a formal application. No application for development has been filed yet. The next meeting is May 7, 7:00 to 10:00 pm. At Larkspur City Hall.
The Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in 1992, sets many goals for the development of the site, including preservation of two historic railroad buildings on the site and creation of permanent, public bike path along the former railroad right-of-way which is private property now. Buildings fronting Magnolia Avenue will be required to be located at property line, and at street level, provide retail and services like the rest of the Downtown.
An option has been taken on the property. No development application has been filed.
A 15-lot subdivision has been filed, but the application is presently incomplete and no public hearings are scheduled. Four of the proposed lots would be access from Elm and the remainder from Lakeside and Birch in Corte Madera.
The General Plan designates the closed sewage treatment plant site for medium density residential and office development. The District would like to change the General Plan to office and hotel. Permits for the demolition of the plant and associated grading have been filed. The applications are under staff review and no public hearings have been scheduled.
WELCOME
Bob Pendoley, facilitator, welcomed every one and opened the meeting at 9:15 AM. He said his role at today's meeting would be to act as the "Master of ceremonies." He said that recently, after more than 70 years in the community, the Niven family approached the City and said it was time to redevelop the nursery property to a different use. They said that before they applied for a "Specific Plan" - a concept that will be explained this morning - they would like to set up a process that would give the community an opportunity for input to their plan. The City agreed and negotiated a process. Today's workshop is the first step in the process.
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) will oversee the process. Their role will be to provide a forum for the property owners' consultants to develop a "conceptual plan" that will subsequently be developed into a Specific Plan that will be submitted as an application to the City to develop the property. The CAC will evaluate the concept plan and make recommendations to the City.
The CAC members introduced themselves. Councilmembers Dan Hillmer and Larry Lanctot thanked the CAC members for volunteering and expressed confidence in this process for getting the community's thoughts on the future of this critical property.
THE PROCESS
Pendoley explained the three phased planning process that has been designed for the Niven property:
1. Public Planning Process - a conceptual plan for the property will be developed. This will include a map showing the planned street system and where different land uses would be located on the property. The Concept Plan would also have draft policies for the Specific Plan including:
land use policy
community design policy
circulation policy
open space/conservation policy
infrastructure
public safety
implementation
phasing
parcelization
2. Technical Planning Process - during this phase, the Niven's consultants will prepare the Specific Plan based on the ideas developed in the concept plan. At the same time, the City will begin the environmental review process. the specific Plan will be a fairly technical and legal document, compared to the Concept Plan which will focus more on basic ideas and values.
3. Public Review and Approval Process - during this phase the Planning Commission and city Council will hod public hearings on the Specific Plan and the environmental document.
(Flow charts of the process are attached)
Today's workshop is the first step in the
Public Planning Process phase. We will be getting up to speed on the General Plan policies that apply to the property, information on the porperty itself and the surrounding area,exploring what the land uses are like that the General Plan has planned for the property, and making a list of issues that need to be addressed. We will try to come up with principles to guide the preparation of the Concept Plan.
THE GENERAL PLAN
Jan Vazquez, Planning Director for the City of Larkspur, explained that all cities and counties in California are required to have a General Plan. It is a plan for the City's overall development, and while it can be changed, it must be followed. Our Plan was developed in a two year process that was completed in 1990. Our plan truly "represents an agreement among the citizens of larkspur on basic community values, ideals, and aspirations to govern a shared environment."
The General Plan recognizes the importance of the Niven property. The Plan says that before an application to develop the property can be considered a Specific Plan must be prepared and it must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and city council after public hearings. Today's workshop is the first step in the public planning process that will develop the concepts that will be the basis of the Specific Plan.
The general Plan designates the property for Low Density Residential development. The Low Density designation permits up to five homes per acre. On the 17.9 acre Niven property this means up to 90 homes. The General Plan also says, "some parts of this site may have the potential for higher density residential - such as housing that is affordable to seniors and others - and commercial development, but potential problems with traffic, as well as transition to adjacent uses, must be addressed first."
Vazquez went on to say that the General Plan sets a standard for traffic. The amount of development permitted, and planned road improvements, have been designed to assure that the traffic standard will be met. Also, new development is required to pay for the planned traffic improvements.
If 90 homes are built on the Niven property, the traffic standard will be met.
Vazquez also explained the Housing Element of the General Plan which requires that 10% of the homes be "affordable." In Marin, a family of four with an income up to $82,000 can qualify for affordable housing.
Other regulations, including zoning and subdivision rules will apply to the property. These rules are pretty detailed, and won't come into play until after the Specific Plan has been approved.
SPECIFIC PLANS
Vazquez explained that Specific Plans are detailed plans that usually cover an area smaller than the land area covered by the General Plan. The purpose of a Specific Plan is to carry out the policies of the General Plan. Specific Plans are more detailed than the General Plan but they can be very flexible. They tend to concentrate on design issues. At a minimum, a Specific Plan must include:
- a land use plan
- an infrastructure plan
- design guidelines
- an implementation plan
- an analysis of the relationship between the Specific Plan and the General Plan.
QUESTIONS and COMMENTS
We opened up for questions and comments from the CAC and the audience. Points that came up:
- The Niven Specific Plan will be similar to the Downtown Specific Plan. Different things will be emphasized, since Downtown was already developed, but the topics and the level of detail will be similar.
- There is no plan to do a specific plan for the Nazari and Luckys lots, but development on those properties can be coordinated with the Niven Specific Plan
- The General Plan assumes 90 homes will be on the property for purposes of planning traffic capacity. This does not mean that 90 homes are guaranteed. The number of units could be higher or lower than 90 depending on what is approved in the Specific Plan.
- Lot size - if the property were built with conventional zoning and single family homes, individual house lots would have to be at least 7,476 square feet each. Lots can be bigger than 7,476.
- Could we consider really large lots, like one acre? Yes, but remember, many factors go into figuring lot size.
- We need more information on traffic - how is it planned, what are the conditions today, and what will the impact be from development on this property?
- Extensive traffic studies will be required before the Specific Plan goes to public hearings to decide whether it should be approved.
- All of the applicant's studies will be reviewed and evaluated by independent experts working for the City.
- Is it fair to treat the new comers differently from those of us that are hear already? We all generate traffic....
- Traffic improvement will include a signal light on Doherty.
- The time of day matters. Traffic studies focus on the peak hour - 60 minutes during the evening commute when traffic is heaviest.
- Traffic is more than peak hour. It is also about noise and vibration - especially construction vehicles - that can damage property. One man told how his house was damaged by settlement cause by vibration from truck traffic on Doherty.
- We won't be doing detailed traffic or acoustical studies at the concept level. Those will come later when the Specific Plan is prepared.
- The Niven family still owns the property; they have optioned it to a developer. This means that if the developers' project is approved, they will buy the land.
- The General Plan is used as a reference for designing the specific Plan, the specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan, but it will be more detailed. The purpose of this workshop is to try to develop some guiding principles for the Specific Plan.
- Open space will definitely be part of our discussions.
- Access to the property is an essential part of this process.
- We can definitely discuss issues that are outside the scope of today's General Plan policies for the property.
- The emphasis in this part of the Process - the Public Planning Process - will be on concepts and guidelines, not the details.
- There is no time frame for completing construction on the Niven property.
- some CAC members feel we need a mechanism to tie together planning for the Niven and Nazari property.
- We have to consider school impacts. 90 units of family housing would really have an effect on our already crowded schools. This point was mentioned several times by the audience and CAC members.
- We should put our meeting notes on the new Larkspur web site!
THE SITE & ITS SURROUNDINGS
Bob Odermatt, presenter for the next portion of the Workshop, introduced himself. Bob is an architect by training and a planner by practice. He advised the Niven family for several years as they considered their future plans for the property, and is now working for the prospective developer (fill this in).
Odermatt gave an overview of the site and surrounding conditions:
The Site
- Total acreage is 17.9 acres, in two parts:
* Niven Family Parcel, 1 acre
* Residential parcel. 16.9 acres
- Most greenhouses on the site are no longer in use; Sloat Nursery outlet at the northeast corner of the property
- Surrounding uses:
* North - Mt. Tam Racquet Club, Hall Middle School, sewer pump station, Twin Cities Police station, Piper Park
* East- Tam High School district offices and Redwood High School campus
* South - Meadowood neighborhood
* West - American Legion Hall, Nazari property Larkspur Plaza, Lucky Store
* Arroyo Holon Creek borders the southern and eastern edges of the site
- The Downtown Specific Plan provides policies for the preservation and restoration of Downtown. Important considerations affecting the Niven property are the railroad right of way bike and pedestrian path, the potential for a mixed use project on the Nazari property and expansion and redevelopment of the Lucky Store.
- Zoning on the Niven property and to the north, east and south is R-1, Single Family. Adjacent Downtown properties are zoned Transitional Downtown (Larkspur Plaza and Tam Racquet Club) and Storefront Downtown (Nazari and the American Legion).
- Views
* Great views of Mt. Tam
* Pleasant views of riparian vegetation along the creek to the south and east
* Interesting long views of Bon Air Hill and Greenbrae Hills
* Liguidambar trees on Doherty are a view asset
* Views of the back of the Lucky Store and the convenience store in Larkspur Plaza are not attractive.
* Views into the site from Meadowood are limited
Topography/Flood Protection
- Almost flat
- Upstream drainage is from Madrone Canyon; Arroyo Holon Creek borders the site on the south and east
- Tidal flooding follows Doherty Drive
- the site hasn't flooded except for the very lowest part, but some filling will be necessary
Plants and Animals
- No threatened or endangered species
- typical wetland plant species in the creek, but not enough to provide habitat for threatened or endangered species
- Lots of deer....
- Recommendation: Preserve the small stand of redwoods & amp; oaks along the western edge and the Liquidamber on the north boundary. Relocate the deer humanely.
Soil Conditions
- Site was originally bay; filled in late 1800's/early 1900's
- Bay mud under the site; 1' to 15' deep
- expect settlement problems with these soils
- Recommendation: incorporate strategies such as surcharging and wicking to reduce differential settlement. Structures should use post tensioned slabs and other approaches to deal with settlement. Detailed soil analysis will be needed.
Traffic
The developer's team has looked at four aspects of traffic that would be affected by development on the property:
- Alternative land uses
- land use alternatives were studied to determine how much traffic might be generated by various amount and types of development.
Two residential alternatives for the entire property were studied -
• 90 units of single family residential
• 99 units -- 33 single family homes
| -- 66 senior units
Four alternatives for the 1 acre Niven Family Parcel were examined -
• retail nursery
• 12,000 square feet of retail
• 20,000 square feet of office
• 18 apartment units
Findings:
• 90 Single Family homes creates substantially more traffic than a combination of 99 senior and Single Family homes
• Neither all single family or the combination of Senior and single family significantly changes the performance of 10 key intersections during the evening commute
• All of the key intersections would meet the General Plan standard
- Potential ingress and egress to the site
The developer's team recommends:
• Access to the 1acre "Niven Family Parcel" from Ward St. next to the railroad right of way
• Access to the rest of the property off of Doherty Drive, opposite Larkspur Plaza Drive and the entry to Piper Park
• There should be no interconnection between Doherty and Ward
- Impact of added traffic on intersections
Intersection Data:
• Ten intersections were studied
• Three scenarios were examined
A. existing conditions
B. existing conditions plus 90 single family homes
C. existing conditions plus 33 single family's and 66 senior homes
• Changes under the "B" and "C" alternatives were minor and within the General Plan standard
- Pedestrian circulation
Pathways
Creating a pedestrian connection between the railroad right of way bike trail and the hall Middle School through the site would improve pedestrian circulation and safety - and provide enhanced pedestrian access from the site to Downtown.
Hazardous Materials
Preliminary studies for hazardous materials conditions have been completed.
- No off-site contamination sources identified
- Some Dieldrin, DDT, lead at shallow levels (less than 1' deep). Some shallow soils at the greenhouses will have to be mitigated
- Other than at the greenhouses, no toxic substances above threshold levels
- No metals or pesticides in sediment samples from the creek
- Elevated levels of metals or pesticides in drainage ditch at northwest corner of the site. Drainage ditch should be mitigated.
- Underground tanks have been removed. No detectable leakage in former underground tank locations.
- Ground water samples found no metals, organochlorine, TPH as gasoline or BTEX above laboratory thresholds. Ground water was not affected by nursery operations
- Two above grade transformers - no PCB's detected in soils around poles
- Asbestosi n the greenhouses in boiler and pipe insulation, mastic and exterior siding
- Recommendations: All hazardous materials should be mitigated prior to development in conformance with a Mitigation Plan approved by the Marin County Environmental Health Services Division and the State of California
Noise
The General Plan sets "acceptable" noise levels for interior and exterior spaces.
Recommendation: When the plan is developed, test for noise at building locations to determine required mitigation measures.
Infrastructure and Services
- Water - a 24" transmission line and two 8" main lines border the site
- Gas&electric - PG&E
- Telephone - PacBell
- Solid waste - Marin Sanitary
- Police - Twin Cities Police Department; offices at Piper Park
- Fire - Larkspur Fire Department station 1/4 mile to the southwest on Magnolia Ave
- Parks - 22 acre Piper Park just across Doherty Drive
- City's Park Dedication ordinance requires dedication of land and/or fees for parks
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
We had an extended question and comment period before the lunch break.
Many comments focused on traffic. A number of people said there is too much traffic already, and that 90 homes would have too much impact. Conflicts between traffic flow and pedestrians at both schools were cited. Concerns were raised about construction traffic including noise and vibration, safety and congestion. Worries were raised about traffic impacts on the Meadowood neighborhood. Several CAC members asked for a workshop on traffic and base data on existing traffic conditions.
Several CAC members and the audience pointed out that the schools are crowded and that a single family project would add more students to the pipeline. There is a related concern with the impact of traffic from this property on the nearby schools
A representative of the environmental community said that the creek has important habitat value and must be protected and enhanced. Several speakers echoed this concern.
A minister from Unity-in-Marin, a spiritual community, said her group is looking for a 21/4 acre site, and that Niven seems ideal.
A range of issues were brought up relating directly to the design of the Specific Plan. The traffic projections raised some confusion about exactly which parts of the property would be included. The entire 17.9 acre property will be in the plan including the 1 acre Niven Family Parcel. Several speakers urged that the CAC look at the "big picture," i.e., don't take the General Plan assumptions and policies as givens, including the planned density. Other ideas for the Specific Plan:
- a nursery of some type could be a good transitional use on the Family Parcel
- could the Family Parcel be used for Downtown Parking?
- is the location of the 1 acre Family Parcel flexible?
- there should be easements to Meadowood, especially for pedestrians and bikes
- the Ward St frontage should be treated as a front door to Downtown - use it to enhance Downtown
- development must relate to the creek, existing roads and homes, and the Meadowood view
- consider impacts on Ward St. when planning for the Niven Family parcel. It should be low traffic generating to avoid conflicts with bikes and pedestrians on the railroad right of way
- The Sloat Nursery is on a month-to-month lease and will leave when the property is ready for development.
We took a thirty minute break for lunch.
LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS
Bob Odermatt described the approach his clients have in mind for the land uses the General Plan calls out for this property.
Single Family Housing
The builder plans to deliver a quality residential product. Homes would be semi-custom, including multiple floor plans and unique facades, with a variety of designed color pallets. Homes would be 3,000 to 4,000 square feet depending on the size of the lot.
For details of R-1 zoning district rules, please see the "Land Use Characteristics" sheets attached to these Meeting Notes.
Senior Housing
The developer proposes a market rate senior housing project. It would be designed for independent living with some services, but it would not be an assisted living, congregate care or life-care facility. Important characteristics:
- Typical resident
* age 62-80
* retired
* independent/active people
- Typical unit
* 1,100 to 1,800 square feet
* 1-3 bedrooms
* full service kitchen
* minimum of two bathrooms
* all units ADA accessible (all living spaces on one contiguous floor)
- Building concept
* two story with elevator
* owner parking enclosed (1+ car/owner)
* guest parking
* common facilities, icluding a gathering area for social events, exercise facilities, swimming pool and landscaped gardens
- Secured environment
Odermatt showed slides of a senior housing project in Los Altos built by incorporating many of these concepts.
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS
Points that came out of question and comments from the CAC and the audience:
- the builder will not be selling "custom" or empty lots
- the project will have affordable housing as required by the General Plan
- deed restrictions will limit the age of residents in the senior housing
- the builders have not made any commitments yet (they are waiting for the outcome of this planning process) but they are leaning toward senior condominiums for the higher density portion of the project
- the senior housing would not be designed for "aging in place"
- there is a bottom line on density - it depends on economics. The property needs more than 2 or 3 lots per acre to be economically viable
- some speakers were concerned about the size of the single family homes. They felt that 4,000 square foot homes would be out of character with larkspur's small town ambiance
- if the project mix were 1/3 single family and 2/3 senior housing, 12 acres would go to single family, and 4 acres would be taken up by senior housing
- the developer is not interested in offering care services with the senior housing
- some speakers said density should be used to make housing available for our children; higher density would be easier on the taxpayer
- new housing pays 30% more property tax than older homes
- the City relies on the sales tax to keep it afloat, not the property tax
- another speaker objected that residential doe not pay for its services
- more commercial development should be considered for the property
- the two homes recently built in Meadowood are an example of what the .4 floor Area Ratio allowed by R-1 zoning looks like
- could the senior housing be done as affordable units?We would like to see a comparison of density and costs
- the School District reports that the baby "boomlet" will continue. The district is concerned about projects that will bring more children
- if the schools are overcrowded, we should be considering senior housing or even light industrial
COMMUNITY DESIGN
Pendoley invited the CAC to brainstorm the character of a project they would like to see on the site. What should it look an feel like? What are characteristics of other larkspur neighborhoods that ought to be in a project on the Niven property? Ideas and concerns that came out of the Committee and the audience:
Big Ideas
- a pedestrian walkway along Doherty
- plan for the off-site traffic impacts -
* the railroad right-of-way
* safety and congestion at the schools
* community based solutions
- the nursery was an integral part of our community's history - use bike paths and pedestrian trail to keep it tied to the other residential neighborhoods
- can the people of Larkspur buy the land?
- the nursery was an integral part of our community's history - use bike paths and pedestrian trail to keep it tied to the other residential neighborhoods
- can the people of Larkspur buy the land?
- a pedestrian focus and parks - that's our identity
- 4,000 square foot houses would be unusual in this community
- mini-parks and low density
- an ideal location for a community center integrated with Downtown
- when we have the traffic session, let's discuss alternatives - walking trails and bike paths
- why is Doherty closed during storms? How will the project impact and be impacted by flooding? How would ingress and egress be affected by periodic flooding?
- does the congestion at Hall and Redwood mean that Doherty needs to be widened?
- can commercial be considered?
- can we have a walking tour?
- who can buy 4,000 square foot homes? Would a neighborhood like that really fit into the rest of the community?
- put a park in this neighborhood
What neighborhoods do we like?
We discussed the characteristics we particularly like in Larkspur neighborhoods
- the character of Baltimore Park
- the scale of Magnolia Ave. Downtown
- check with the Heritage Board
- it shouldn't look like everything was built at the same time
- Monte Vista (and most of Larkspur) is diverse; the scale should be varied over the 18 acres
- the scale of Creekside is too big; it doesn't fit the streetscape
- look at European examples where areas are set aside as exclusively pedestrian
- Heather Gardens is warm with a diversity of home sizes and architecture - gives it personality and makes it a family neighborhood
- you can get around Heather Gardens on foot; it's pedestrian friendly
- the looping roads and pathways in Terra Linda are good
Integration
- Creekside isn't integrated into the rest of the community
- don't let this development be an enclave
- we need connections to and through this neighborhood that offer choices
- don't worry about creating a shortcut to Doherty
- the street at Heather Park could be connected to provide access
- put a road through the property connecting Doherty and Ward. It shouldn't be a bypass - use traffic calming techniques to allow the connection but discourage through traffic
- tie the new neighborhood to Downtown and Nazari
- tie it in to Downtown
- restricting the ingress and egress to Doherty will isolate this neighborhood from the rest of Larkspur
Other ideas
- how about a Twin Cities community Center on Doherty?
- extend Wornum Dr. straight through to alleviate Doherty traffic
Nuts & Bolts Design
- garages can be at the back of buildings
- it's all about scale!
- we need to think about the openness and "closedness" of streetscapes for this project
- changes in grade - berms - would help
- street trees
- we don't need big setbacks
- it shouldn't look like a bunch of garage doors
- take a different approach to designing the streets. No curbs; use parking bays; design a street section similar to older neighborhoods
- don't use the R-1 standards to design the neighborhood - be more creative; design a new set of rules
- are our standards for paths and bikeways appropriate? Do we need new standards?
FINAL BUSINESS
Pendoley thanked everyone for their patience. He asked, "What did we miss today?"
- several members felt we covered too many items too quickly, and that the focus of discussions was too narrow.
- There was a concern that the Committee should be restricted from considering land uses beyond what is specified in the General plan or proposed by the developer.
- The Committee would like to have alternatives developed by staff for various issues.
- It was suggested that alternatives be developed for consideration in an Environmental Impact Report. The alternatives could range from open space to commercial.
- The Committee also asked that advertising for workshops be more effective. They want to be sure that the process is truly public.
- Judy Saffran said she did not necessarily agree with the density that was discussed or the idea of 66 senior condos
- 3-D simulations were suggested as a technique
Scott Churchill, Chris McCluney and Molly White were elected as the Steering Committee.
We adjourned at about 3:30
AGENDA
Citizens Advisory Committee
for
the Niven's Property
Larkspur City Council Chambers
City Hall, 476 Magnolia Ave.
April 13, 1998 - 7:00 to 10:00 PM
1. Getting Started
- Agenda overview
- Approve the Meeting Notes, March 18 and March 21
2. Discussion: Reviewing the Process
We will review the process and consider some adjustments that are being recommended by the Steering Committee and staff.
3. Traffic, traffic, traffic
Bob Harrison, the City's traffic consultant, will give us an orientation to traffic planning. Bob will focus on how traffic and land use are "modeled," the City's traffic policies and existing conditions. this will be an "interactive" presentation - everyone is encouraged to ask questions.
4. Close
we will adjourn no later than 10:00 PM
Niven Property
Citizen's Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
April 13, 1998
City Hall
Citizens' Advisory Committee
William Broughan
Scott Churchill
August Colenbrander
Maryjane Dunstan
Darryl Foreman
|
Kathy Hartzell
Kathleen Kearly-Green
Ron Kuntz
Chris McCluney
Hi Patton
|
Judith Saffran
William Sibbern
Fred Simons
Jesse Smith
Thomas Wertz
Molly White
|
Liasons
Dan Hillmer, City Council
Larry Lanctot, City Council |
Helen Heitcamp, Planning Commission
Jeff Stahl, Heritage Preservation Board |
City of Larkspur
|
Jan Vazquez, Planning Director
Robert Pendoley, Consulting Planner |
Karlena Palomares, Contract Planner
Ulla-Britt Jonsson, Recorder |
Molly White, member of the Steering Committee, opened the meeting at 7:05 PM and welcomed everyone. She said there were two desired outcomes for tonight's meeting
- to come to agreement on some changes in the process and
- to learn about traffic issues.
White turned the meeting over to
Bob Pendoley, the meeting facilitator.
Pendoley asked whether the Meeting Notes for March 18 and 21 were ok; the Notes were accepted with out discussion.
REVIEWING THE PROCESS
Pendoley explained that staff and the Steering Committee (Scott Churchill, Chris McCluney and Molly White) had reviewed the March 21 workshop and recommended two additional meetings:
- tonight's meeting to talk about the process and traffic
- April 23 for a discussion of land use and design.
The CAC agreed to the schedule changes. Questions and comments from the CAC on process:
- We are on track.
- We need to look at alternatives - City-purchase with an assessment district, a community center, or a bandstand.
- The CAC should make recommendations for a plan that would implement the General Plan.
- The CAC is also empowered to look at alternatives to the General Plan policy for the property; in fact, if there is an EIR, alternatives must be studied.
- The City can not mandate a custom home subdivision, but it can set design standards that would accomplish many of the things that would be realized with a custom subdivision.
- We need to know what the property is worth if we are going to discuss alternatives.
- This would be easier if we had a plan from the developers to react to.
The developer will present a concept plan at the May 7 meeting if we stay on schedule
We took questions and comments from the public:
- How can we affect density?
The CAC will be making recommendations on density; the City Council will make the final decisions
- My experience is that when the crowd says no, the City Council does it anyway.
This City Council has made a very up front commitment to provide a forum for the CAC to try to come to agreement on a plan that would be best for the entire City. The nature of this process shows that they are willing to be very accountable.
- The facilitator is misleading you - the General plan puts a ceiling of 90 units on the property.
The General Plan says that higher density and/or commercial uses may be considered if benefits such as senior and/or affordable housing can be offered and if traffic problems can be resolved
- The CAC knows it has latitude in making its recommendations, including for density - this was made clear at the March 21 workshop.
- We need to look at the assumptions in the 1990 General Plan - things have changed since then.
- How will we know the traffic impact if we don't know the density?
Traffic studies will be done after a density has been recommended but before a final decision is made.
- Is affordable housing required?
- Yes - 5% of the units must be affordable to people with low incomes, and 5% affordable to moderate income households.
- Will traffic from outside Larkspur be considered?
Yes
- Glad to hear alternatives to the General Plan policy will be considered - you should look for other ways to get citizen input
- Are they planning an 18-unit apartment complex on Ward St.?
No; an 18-unit project was discussed at the March 21 meeting only as a way to compare the traffic impacts of different types of development
TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC
Bob Harrison, the City's traffic consultant, gave a short presentation on traffic planning and conditions in Larkspur. Main points from the presentation:
* Larkspur is served by 3 main corridors:
- Sir Francis Drake
- Magnolia
- Doherty
* Drake is maxed out, and is exempt from City standards
* When 101 slows down, Magnolia fills up; on the other hand, Magnolia is Downtown's main
street, so it's ok if it's slow.
* Doherty is unique in that Larkspur and Corte Madera must work together to control conditions.
* Traffic congestion at intersections is measured by "Level of Service" (LoS) ranging from A to F,
with "A" representing no congestion at all.
* The City's standard is to maintain LoS D - this means the average wait at a signalized intersection
is no more than 40 seconds.
* LoS C is the standard for stop sign intersections. Some of these are exempt, for practical reasons.
* The King/Magnolia intersection operates at LoS E. It could be corrected with a signal, but the
council has been reluctant. A roundabout is being studied as an alternative solution.
Harrison answered questions from the CAC and the audience. Important points:
- People questioned the accuracy of analysis based on 1996 data - many felt traffic had gotten noticeably worse since then.
- Schools, both public and private, have become big traffic generators because school bus service is no longer available.
- The CAC asked for a comparison of the 1988 traffic projections from the General Plan to the 1996 traffic counts and 1998 counts.
- The traffic projections in the General Plan assume 90 units at Niven, and the Plan includes mitigation measures to assure that the LoS standard will be reached.
- If a project is approved for the Niven property, the developer will be required to pay a Traffic Impact Fee which would be used to mitigate the impact of the development.
- Many speakers were particularly concerned about the impact of development at the Niven property on the Riviera/Doherty intersection. They questioned the accuracy of the City's data that says it is operating at an acceptable level.
- Is the queue at Magnolia/King acceptable? Seems to happen more often.
- Roundabouts could be the answer for some of our problem intersections, but there is almost no experience with them in the U.S.
- What's the effect of having two exit/entrances on Doherty?
This would not effect Level of Service at any of the intersections because the amount of additional traffic is the same irrespective of where it comes into the system
- As a general rule, a single family home generates one trip during the most intense hour of the evening commute. Senior housing generates traffic at a lower rate.
- People asked for historical information on accident rates.
- The CAC asked for comparisons of Niven traffic projections to total build out.
- Staff will bring back information on alternative routes that were considered but rejected in the past, i.e. Wornum Drive extension.
- Downtown has more potential growth and traffic impact than Niven.
- Staff will try to bring updated counts and LoS analysis for King/Magnolia
WRAP UP
Pendoley asked the CAC whether we had achieved the two out comes we set at the beginning of the meeting. Feedback -
On the process
• Next time we need to talk about alternatives to the General Plan.
• Some members feel the charge to the Committee is vague.
• Bring us information on the City facilities study that is being reviewed by the City Council.
• We need to set goals for the property.
• The schedule is too restrictive for the amount of work we have to do.
On traffic
• Bring us information on Downtown parking.
• Bring updated traffic information.
• We have to focus on Niven - we can't make this property solve all of Larkspur's traffic problems.
• Bring back information on the impact of residential at 3, 5 and 7 units to the acre
We adjourned at 10:00 PM.
AGENDA
Citizens Advisory Committee
for
the Niven's Property
Larkspur City Council Chambers
City Hall, 476 Magnolia Ave.
April 23, 1998 - 7:00 to 10:00 PM
7:00 PM
1. Getting Started
- Agenda overview
- Accept the Meeting Notes, April 13
7:10 PM
2. Traffic Updates
Bob Harrison, the City's traffic consultant, will provide supplementary traffic information requested by the Committee
7:40 PM
3. Discussion: Land Use(s)
What are the most appropriate land uses for the site? What alternatives should be considered? The Committee and the audience will be invited to participate in a discussion and exercise to identify and evaluate possible land uses (including alternative approaches), set goals and indicate tentative preferences.
4. Close
We will adjourn no later than 10:00 PM
ACCESS TO MEETINGS: MEETING FACILITIES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES. IF YOU REQUIRE SPECIAL ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACT ANY STAFF MEMBER PRIOR TO THE MEETING. AN ITERPRETER FOR THE DEAF WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST TO THE STAFF AT LEAST FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
Niven Property
Citizen's Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
April 23, 1998
City Hall
Citizens' Advisory Committee
William Broughan
Scott Churchill
August Colenbrander
Maryjane Dunstan
Darryl Foreman
|
Kathy Hartzell
Kathleen Kearly-Green
Ron Kuntz
Chris McCluney
|
William Sibbern
Fred Simons
Thomas Wertz
Molly White
|
Liasons
Dan Hillmer, City Council
Larry Lanctot, City Council |
Helen Heitcamp, Planning Commission
Jeff Stahl, Heritage Preservation Board |
City of Larkspur
|
Jan Vazquez, Planning Director
Robert Pendoley, Consulting Planner |
Ulla-Britt Jonsson, Recorder
|
WELCOME
Chris McCluney, Steering Committee member, opened the meeting at 7:05 PM and welcomed everyone. He asked Committee members who went on the field trip to comment. Several members reported their very favorable reaction to the affordable project at Cecilia Place in Tiburon, and Steve Seely's market rate senior project in Los Altos
McCluney turned the meeting over to Bob Pendoley, the meeting facilitator.
Pendoley asked whether the Meeting Notes for April 13 were ok; the Notes were accepted.
Pendoley reviewed the recommended outcomes for tonight's meeting:
- receive traffic updates
- evaluate land uses
- set goals for the property
The CAC accepted the recommended outcomes.
TRAFFIC UPDATE
Bob Harrison, the City's traffic consultant, gave an update on traffic data as requested from the last meeting (summarized on attached sheet).
King/Magnolia intersection
At the last meeting, people had questioned the accuracy of 1996 traffic counts at this intersection. Harrison updated the counts, and reported that traffic has increased at this intersection over the past two years. The Level of Service has gone from E to F.
Riviera/Doherty intersection
This intersection was also recounted. There has been no significant change since 1996
Projections compared
The CAC had asked for a comparison of 1988 projections to 1996 and '98 traffic counts. The four relevant intersections -
*Magnolia/King
*Magnolia/ Ward
*Doherty/Magnolia
*Doherty/Riviera
were performing about as projected in 1988 (allowing for changes in measuring methodology).
In 1998 Doherty/Riviera is still on track, but Magnolia/King is performing at LoS F, the projected level at buildout.
All four intersections can be mitigated to meet General Plan standards The City has not determined whether or how Magnolia/King should be upgraded (a traffic signal or, possibly, a roundabout, would work).
Impact of Niven
At 91 trips, Niven would contribute 6% to the total amount of new traffic that will be generated in Larkspur if every property is built out. Niven would represent 14% of new traffic west of the freeway and south of the creek.
Discussion
Comments from the CAC and audience-
- are the traffic impacts so bad that we (the CAC) want to keep traffic at the forefront of our discussion?
- Niven's traffic can be accommodated even at build out with the planned mitigation measures
- morning traffic may be worse at Riviera Circle - the school adds to the flow at that time of day
- a stop light may be the answer at Doherty/Riviera - probably isn't room for a roundabout
LAND USE(S)
We built a Land Use Evaluation Matrix to do a preliminary assessment of possible land uses. The completed Matrix is shown at the end of these Meeting Notes.
The CAC and the audience had comments that didn't "fit" the "pro's" and "con's" format of the Matrix; these points are listed below.
- the General Plan can be changed to allow land uses that aren't consistent with the current plan
- the City's annual budget -- $7,000,000 - is small and can not absorb large new expenses without cutbacks in other areas
- the City is studying the cost to retrofit City Hall, Police, and Fire Dept facilities to meet seismic standards. Costs are estimated at $12 million
- any new public facility, or public open space, will require a bond issue for purchase, which must be approved by 2/3's of the voters
- open space would require a renewable maintenance assessment (tax), which would have to be approved by 2/3's of the voters periodically
- various community facilities could be combined on the site
- data on the cost to purchase open space was questioned
- several uses - parking lot, post office and civic center - would have a high traffic generation rate, but initially they would be moving existing traffic from one property to another. Over time there would be a net increase in traffic if the relocated use were bigger than at the original location, or when the original location were put into a new use
- 10% of all housing projects must be affordable
- several people commented that a housing project should be diverse - a mixture of types, sizes and affordability ranges
- Baltimore Park and Meadowood are closer to the 5 unit/acre model on the matrix
- there are other possibilities than on the matrix - clustering, altering FAR, mixing land uses
That's right - the matrix is just a way to do a "first cut" analysis. We will do more refined work as the concept plan is developed
- large home - 4760+ sf - are out of scale with the community and don't belong here
- it would be insane to say no to 3 units/acre - lower density is more desirable
- I want mixed use - don't assume this should be an all residential project
- what happens when grandchildren move into an age restricted project?
- workforce or below market rate housing has to look good or else it will be stigmatized
- BRIDGE Housing could help with affordable housing
- we need a mix of workforce and senior housing
When the matrix was finished,
Pendoley asked the CAC for their assessment. Several themes emerged:
- we need a dialogue as a committee before we make decisions on preferred land uses
- several members favored a mix of land uses and/or housing types
- members agreed when Bob Odermatt said we need design criteria - CAC members expressed this as a need for goals
- members wanted more info on some of the land uses
- we need a mechanism to evaluate the developer's proposal
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 PM
LAND USE EVALUATION MATRIX
| Church: Unity-in-Marin has proposed a church with meeting facilities available to the community |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
yes
|
6
|
•consistent with our values
•could benefit a large % of the community if it includes a community center |
•tax exempt
•benefits small %
of community
|
| Community Center: A primarily recreation oriented facility |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
no
|
50
|
•high demand from all sectors of the community
•potential $ from MCF
(tied to affordable housing)
•potential rent revenue |
•traffic
•tax exempt
•operating costs
•competes with other facility needs and bonding
capacity |
| Nursery: Assumes a retail component |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
maybe
|
8
|
•revenue
•could enhance the creek
•good transition to Downtown and Nazari
|
•could be a problem with the bike path
•this part of the property should be for a pedestrian oriented use - not a nursery |
| Open Space: Assumes minimum amenities - emphasis on environmental resource preservation |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
no
|
very low
|
•traffic
•environmental resources
•public support (depending on the cost)
|
•high purchase price
•would compete with other school and city funding priorities
•not consistent with neighborhood pattern
•lost revenue options to city and schools
•on-going maintenance and operations costs |
| Parking Lot: Up to 125 spaces to service Downtown; emphasis on long-term employee parking with permits. |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
maybe
|
200 (but...)
|
•addresses an urgent community need
•an opportunity for employee parking
•traffic and safety
•promote sales tax $'s |
•not everyone is convinced there's a need
•not close enough to Downtown to be useful
•visual impact
•tax exempt |
| Single Family @ 3/acre: 12,000 sf. lots; homes 4760 sf and up |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
yes
|
4
|
•would look like Baywood in Fairfax / Kent Woodlands / the new development off Paradise Drive
•revenue
•good location |
•an all-single family project would not include senior housing
•not consistent with the size and pattern of housing in Larkspur
•we need diversity |
| Single Family @ 5/acre: 7476sf lots; homes up to 3000 sf |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
yes
|
5
|
•quality of life - another Meadowood
•revenue
•good location |
•an all-single family project would not include senior housing
|
| Sr. Condo's: Market rate; age restricted |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
yes
|
7
|
•traffic
•big need
•no school impact
•a transition opportunity for seniors |
•a restrictive approach to housing
|
| Work Force Housing: This example assumes 20units/acre. Price controlled to be affordable to the Marin work force |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
yes
|
20*
|
•needed
•diversity - economic, social and architectural
•good for traffic: people could live and work in Larkspur
•subsidies are available
•emergency preparedness - safety workers could live here
•good location - close to schools |
•has to be subsidized
•service impacts, esp. schools
|
| Commercial Retail: Local serving retail; could be combined with housing |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
maybe
|
130-150
|
•expanded commercial base
•extension of Downtown
|
•traffic
•would compete with, not complement, Downtown
•what would it do to the "feel" of Downtown? |
| Post Office: Moves the P.O. from Ward St. |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
no
|
130-150
(but...)
|
•P.O. wants to relocate - handicap access, truck access
•gathering place
•community need
•traffic is a "wash"
•would help parking on Ward |
•scale and character problems
|
| Civic Center: A multi service center including city hall administration, Fire, Police, indoor pool and tennis, and other recreation/cultural uses |
General
Plan
Consistency |
Traffic
(trips
per acre) |
Pro's
|
Con's
|
no
|
50-100
(but...)
|
•community need
•better parking
•identified need for a pool |
|
Niven Property
Citizen's Advisory Committee
Meeting Notes
City Hall
May 7, 1998
| Citizens' Advisory Committee |
William Broughan
Scott Churchill
August Colenbrander
Maryjane Dunstan
Darryl Foreman |
Kathy Hartzell
Kathleen Kearley-Green
Chris McCluney
Hi Patton
Judith Saffran |
William Sibbern
Fred Simons
Jesse Smith
Thomas Wertz
Molly White |
Liasons
Dan Hillmer, City Council
Larry Lanctot, City Council |
Helen Heitkamp, Planning Commission
Jeff Stahl, Heritage Preservation Board |
City of Larkspur
Jan Vazquez, Planning Director
Karlena Palomares, Contract Planner |
Ulla-Britt Jonsson, Recorder
Robert Pendoley, Consulting Planner |
WELCOME
Molly White, Steering Committee member, opened the meeting at 7:00 PM and welcomed everyone. She said that the Committee has a challenging agenda tonight, and the meeting will be tightly run. The Steering Committee has instructed Bob Pendoley, the meeting facilitator, to keep everyone's comments to the point and to stick to the agenda and schedule. She stressed that everyone must be courteous and listen as allies.
Pendoley asked whether the Meeting Notes for April 23 were ok. Committee members had several corrections.
Pendoley said the meeting would focus on two major areas - identifying the preferred land uses and setting tentative goals
LAND USE
This part of the meeting had two sections:
- around table discussion of preferred land uses. Each Committee member was allotted two minutes to state his or her preferences. This was followed by comments from the audience.
- a dot exercise in which each member had five votes to indicate their preferred land use(s) form the list developed at the April 23 meeting
The round-table discussion -- preferences from the CAC
(repeated comments are marked
with asterisks *)
Jean Bonander, Larkspur City Manager, talked about points in her memo (distributed with the agenda) and answered questions. Bonander said the City
