Larkspur: The Carrots and Sticks are Out

In today's Marin Independent Journal I welcomed the Marin Voice piece by Ann Morrison, the mayor of the city of Larkspur seeking to address concerns and achieve a healthy dialog on the 920 unit so-called "station area plan" (SAP). 

However, at the same time I wanted to convey caution and specific requests and clarifications:

1. Larkspur is Not Approving Development of 920 New Housing Units
Technically Mayor Morrison is correct. But this is almost being pedantic. I have learned a lot talking to council members and planners in San Rafael. In theory the process goes through a number of steps:
a) Station Area Plan (SAP) is adopted
b) Environmental Impact Report is adopted
(At this point stand by for developers to start buying the land because they know the deal is nearly done)
c) Zoning changes are made to the city's general plan
d) A developer requests approval for an actual specific development proposal

In San Rafael and other "station area plan" engagements these were just "visions" - but still visions that we now know set development expectations. However Larkspur is different in that it is a "specific plan".  No, it is not a specific proposal by a developer to build something specific. But it means, depending on wording in the city's general plan, that once the SAP  and EIR pass that zoning will change. It is not "just a vision".

Talking at length to a councilor and city planner in San Rafael I learned that the likelihood of residents successfully opposing any kind of 920 unit development significantly diminishes at each step in the process. I was clearly told if the opposition is in principal to 920 units then now is the time to fight this proposal, and not to step back and wait for specific development proposals.

2.  Larkspur SAP is  Not About Achieving Housing Quotas
Ann Morrison states "there are no mandates to approve specific numbers of units"
Citizen Marin and Planning for Reality have both ensured there is no miscommunication here. 

a) Win Cup was built to meet mandates. 
Win Cup simply serves as a monument as to what a 5 story 180 unit high density housing development looks like. Unless developed in adherence with ABAG's (erroneous)  Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) quota Corte Madera faced significant risk of being sued by housing advocates.

b) Larkspur's Station Area Plan is not about meeting housing mandates. However, while it may not be affected by penalties or "sticks" such as quotas, Larkspur is incentivized via transportation funding "carrots". 

Here we can be quite specific. The city of Larkspur's own FAQ concurs on page 1 that it was ABAG and MTC (architects of Plan Bay Area) that provided $480,000 in funding to "prepare the Station Area Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report".  

I ask that the city of Larkspur publishes all documents related to this grant. Why? The San Rafael ABAG and MTC documents clearly hamstrung the city with obligations by stating that the plan must "maximize housing" and be must adopted by the city council or the city would be left with some of the bill (which is extremely challenging for cities already facing funding challenges with pensions).

I talked about precisely how the station area planning process was rigged by ABAG, MTC and the oversight committee in my Patch article "How to Rig the Community Input Process".

Given this pattern while I would concur with Mayor Morrison that the plan is not about meeting mandates, I'd like transparency to understand if there are contractual obligations as historically ABAG and MTC station area planning grants have come with heavy strings attached, and pressure via phone calls to council members.

Furthermore ABAG and MTC control the dispersion of transportation funding. The rules of the game are build high density near transit and get funding. This funding can then be matched. So what looks like $1m from MTC can then get doubled via other funding sources. One must not underestimate the power of this "carrot" as cities and their planners are strongly incentivized to secure such funding.

3) Mayor Morrison States that ABAG and MTC Fund Plans to Promote Transit Ridership

This is by far one of the most dangerous and flawed policies to be imposed on Marin and the entire Bay Area. Here are some facts:

• despite massive investment in transit in the Bay Area since the 1980s per capita transit ridership has fallen

• ferries are some of the worst emitters of greenhouse gases

• cars and light trucks have overtaken transit and are much greener

• the gap between transit emissions and car emissions is only growing (cars are becoming even greener)

• one in every 10 new cars sold in the Bay Area is a hybrid with very low emissions (Source: Forbes magazine). So the gap between cars and transit in the Bay Area is even greater
  
  
• New technology such as car chaining and adaptive cruise control can significantly help address congestion without requiring expansion of freeways

• the new residents will drive their cars. The Los Angeles Times produced an excellent report "Near the Rails but on the Road" disproving that the new residents would use cars significantly less.
  
  
• the new development will significantly add to congestion and cause more standing traffic leading to greater emissions and more greatly inconveniencing everyone who drives through Marin past Larkspur

The Discussion is Being Framed