City of Larkspur, California, City Council, Current Issues, CLASP, CLASP Archive

No documents available.

Meeting #17 November 2, 2000

Agenda November 2, 2000

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

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.

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!

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:

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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.)

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).
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).
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).
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