Larkspur approves housing project that drew 5 appeals
The Larkspur City Council has rejected five appeals seeking to reduce the height of a four-story housing project despite agreeing that the development is too tall for the neighborhood.
The council voted 4-1 Wednesday, with Councilmember Kevin Haroff dissenting, to deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Magnolia Village development.
The project will build 20 for-sale townhouses, retain two retail businesses and add another pair of retails spaces at a 1.63-acre area across two lots at the corner of Magnolia and Estelle avenues.
“I won't support it; I cannot support it,” Haroff said. “It's inappropriate for this community. It will lead us down a path of transforming the character of this community into an urban landscape that I didn't move here to see.”
“Our hands are tied,” Councilmember Kevin Carroll said, explaining that the project is complicated by state housing laws such as the Housing Accountability Act and Senate Bill 330.
The combined laws provide the developer benefits such as unlimited waivers and a streamlined approval process. City officials are also precluded from using subjective design standards to deny the project.
The hearing Wednesday was the continuation of a four-hour session April 19. The City Council had pushed the hearing to take time to consider all sides.
The project calls for 16 market-rate townhomes with three or four bedrooms and two-car garages. Four below-market homes would have one-car garages. The complex would have 50 parking spots, including 36 garage spaces, two uncovered guest spots and 12 retail spaces.
Rustic Bakery and Gravity Salon on the southeastern half-acre lot will remain. The second lot features two commercial buildings, including the former site of the Corbet's Ace Hardware store that has been vacant for years. The developer plans to raze the structures on the second lot to make way for the residences in five buildings of three or four stories.
In their bid to overturn Planning Commission approval of the project, appellants argued there were insufficient findings to approve the project; that the city erred in granting concessions and waivers under the state density bonus law; and that it erred in issuing a circulation assessment permit and approving a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
One of the main sticking points for opponents of the plan was the height and bulk of the project. Residents who live across the street on College Court Avenue said the rooftop decks and mezzanine levels would peer into their backyards, swimming pools and bedrooms.
“I want to make very clear that none of us are asking you to deny the project, we are asking you to push for modifications to the project,” said appellant Julia Violich.
Violich said appellants wanted the structure to be reduced to three stories. Appellants also wanted a better plan for parking and bicycle and pedestrian safety.
The city staff said it could not find a legal basis to support denial of the project. Staff recommended the council reject the appeals and approve the project.