MILL VALLEY] 1 r 2 3 STAFF REPORT 4 5 TO: Mayor and City Council 6 FROM: Danielle Staude, Senior Plann~ 7 VIA: Yin Smith, Director ofPlanning and Building 8 SUBJECT: Review and Adoption ofthe 2015-2023 Housing Element and 9 Finding ofExemption under the California Environmental Quality Act 10 DATE: May 4, 2015 11 12 Approved for Forwarding: 13 14 15 Ja es C. McCann, City Manager 16 ote: The 2015-2023 Housing Element can be downloaded online at 17 www.cityofmillvalley.org/generalplan. Hard copies are available for review at City Hall 18 (26 Corte Madera Avenue) and the Public Library (375 Throckmorton) during normal 19 business hours. 20 21 ISSUE: 22 Consideration of a Resolution to adopt the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element ("Housing 23 Element"). 24 25 RECOMMENDATION: 26 Receive presentation, conduct public hearing, review proposed modifications to the Draft 27 Housing Element and consider a Resolution to adopt the 2015-2023 Housing Element. 28 29 BACKGROUND: 30 The update to the current Housing Element began in October 2014 with a public release of 31 the draft document. The Planning Commission reviewed the Element on October zs", then 32 the document was sent to State office of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to 33 receive their review and letter of support. On January 27,2015, the Planning Commission 34 reviewed and recommended approval ofthe final draft Element to the City Council. 35 There has been a significant increase in community interest since the Planning 36 Commission's review and recommendation ofthe Draft Housing Element in January 2015. 37 On April 20, 2015 City Council conducted a public hearing on the Draft Housing Element. 38 Council considered over sixty written comments received prior to the hearing and over 40 39 verbal comments received at the public hearing including nine e-comments. 40 ITEM 5 Staff Report: Review and Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element May 4, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 2 of 6
41 Many residents have expressed that certain components recommended in the Element are 42 inconsistent with the community's desires and expectations. Specifically, most comments 43 have focused on the Capacity Analysis contained in Appendix C of the Element, raising 44 concerns about the relationship of the Analysis with the need to satisfy State-established 45 housing numbers. The comments have focused mostly on the following topics, requesting 46 changes as follows: 47 • Establish a housing capacity number that is less than the current capacity of363 and 48 closer to the 129 units required by the State. 49 • Do not identify capacity on critical, local sites. 50 • Do not identify capacity in critically congested traffic areas. 51 • Eliminate the "supplemental" list of housing sites in Appendix C (Appendix C, 52 pages C-7 and C-8) 53 Other comments focused on: 54 • The Housing Advisory Committee (Housing Program #37, page II-31), both in 55 favor and opposed to establishing the Committee. 56 • Environmental and resource constraints to housing, such as schools, infrastructure 57 and water supply. 58 • Maintaining and preserving the existing rental and affordable housing stock within 59 the City and exploring creative options for affordable housing in Mill Valley for 60 residents, including seniors and local workforce. 61 • The importance ofthe City's two primary General Plan goals, which are to 62 1. Protect and enhance the natural beauty and small town character of Mill 63 Valley; and 64 2. Encourage continued diversity of housing, income levels and lifestyles in 65 the community. 66 After receiving information presented by staff and considering the abundant public 67 comment, Council indicated their support for the Housing Element policy document with 68 some revisions primarily to Appendix C detailed in the "discussion" section below. 69 70 DISCUSSION: 71 At the conclusion of the April 20th Council meeting, Staff was directed to revise the Draft 72 Housing Element pursuant to Option 2 contained in the supplemental memo provided with 73 the Council Report, and to further reduce the Capacity Analysis results to equal 150% of 74 the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) number for a total of 194 units. City 75 Council established a Council subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Ken Wachtel and 76 Councilmember John McCauley to provide input into the modifications to the Capacity 77 Analysis. 78 Staff Report: Review and Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element May 4, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 3 of 6
79 Proposed Revisions: Direction Received at the April 20, 2015 City Council Meeting 80 Council directed staffto revise the Draft Housing Element as follows: 81 1. Start with "Option 2" as described in a supplemental memo dated April 20, 2015 by 82 Yin Smith, Director of Planning and Building Director, amending the Housing 83 Element's Capacity Analysis to add to the approved set of criteria established as 84 part ofthe Capacity Analysis to include: 85 • Commercial sites located along the East Blithedale Corridor from Ryan Avenue 86 up to Highway 101. (Council modified this criterion at the April 20th meeting 87 changing Ryan Avenue to Park School). 88 • Commercial sites adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands and Highway 101. 89 • Commercial sites that result in 2 or less new units. 90 2. Further review the Capacity Analysis to consider "Walk Scores" as part of the 91 filtering criteria. 92 3. Further review the Capacity Analysis to reduce the ''buffer'' to approximately 50% 93 over the 129 units (or a total ofapproximately 194 units in the Capacity Analysis). 94 4. Remove the "supplemental" list ofproperties (Appendix C, pages C-7 and C-8). 95 5. Maintain Housing Element Program #37, "Housing Advisory Committee" (page II- 96 31), with further review and discussion by City Council later this year.
97 Summary of Revised Capacity Analysis (Appendix C). Based on Council direction and 98 the City Council subcomririttee review, the Capacity Analysis methodology in the Draft 99 Housing Element (Appendix C, page C-3 and C-4) has been revised to include the 100 following new criteria: 101 • Do not include sites on East Blithedale from Park School up to Highway 101 . 102 • Do not include sites adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands and Highway 101 corridor. 103 • Do not include commercial sites that result in 2 or less new units. 104 • Do not include sites located adjacent to the Miller/Montford/La Goma Intersection. 105 • Do not include vacant single family sites that are less than the minimum lot size of 106 6,000 squarefeet (Municipal Code 20.16.040). 107 • Do not include sites with a "Walk Score" less than 50 points. A parcel with a walk 108 score less than 50 points is considered "car-dependent" in which most routine 109 errands require an automobile. 110 • Do not include singlefamily residential sites with average slopes over 70%. 111 • Do not include site #46, which is part ofthe City's right ofway. 112 Staff Report: Review and Adoption ofthe 2015-2023 Housing Element May 4, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 4 of6
113 The resulting sites and units associated with the revised Capacity Analysis methodology 114 are summarized in the table below.
Revised Capacity Analysis based on Additional "Criteria"
Number of Number Housing Related Sites of Sites Units Remove commercially zoned l,2A,5,8A1A2 parcels located along the East 7 59 Blithedale Corridor from Park Avenue up to Highway 101
Remove commercially zoned 3,6,7 parcels adjacent to 3 17 jurisdictional wetlands and Highway 101 corridor
Remove commercially zoned 9,39 (other sites taken off the list based parcels that result in 2 or less on other criteria) 2 4 new units Remove commercially zoned 20,13AO,36,30,15,38 parcels at Miller/LaGoma/ 7 31 Montford Intersection
Remove properties with "Walk 61,64,65,67,68,72,73,74,76,78,83,84,85, Scores" less than 50 points 86,87,92,94,103,104,105,106,107,108, 41 41 110,113,114,115,117,118,119,120,121, 122,123,124,125,128,129,130,131,132
Remove single family zoned 54,55,56,57,71,97,98,99,100,101,102, 13 13 parcels less than 6,000 sq ft 112,126 Remove singe family zoned 58,60 (other sites taken off the list parcels with average slope based on other criteria) 2 2 greater than 70%
Remove Site #46 (part of the 46 1 3 City's Right of Way)
TOTAL 76 170
DRAFT CAPACITY ANALYSIS 132 363
ADDITIONALCRITERIA 76 170
REVISED CAPACITYANALYSIS 56 193
RHNA ALLOCATION N/A 129
" BUFFER" (EXCESS UNITS BEYOND 129 RHNA) N/A +64 units or49%
115 116 Staff Report: Review and Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element May 4, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 5 of 6
117 HCD Feedback. Staff has discussed the City Council's direction with HCD staff. The 118 revised Capacity Analysis results in a number of sites being removed from the Analysis, 119 including a number of larger sites and sites identified for potential lots consolidation that 120 were originally identified to illustrate the ability to accommodate a diverse range in 121 housing affordability. While the revised Capacity Analysis continues to illustrate that the 122 City can accommodate its housing needs, HCD has raised concerns with the proposed 123 revisions in terms of types and size ofparcels and the potential for accommodating lower 124 income housing as part ofpotential housing sites (a larger site can typically accommodate a 125 wider range of income levels including low and moderate income housing). The smaller 126 number of sites included in the Capacity Analysis that result in the ability to yield more 127 than ten units concerns HCD in terms of the City's ability to to illustrate that it can 128 accommodate the various levels ofaffordability. 129 Although HCD accepts that we can achieve our RHNA requirements, as a result of the 130 proposed changes, HCD requests that the City add a Housing Program to Chapter 2 of the 131 Housing Element that would require the City to monitor its sites inventory to ensure that 132 there are adequate sites available throughout the planning period to accommodate the 133 City's housing needs. 134 To address the concern, staffrecommends the addition ofthe following housing program to 135 the Housing Element under the goal of "Housing Supply and Diversity" (see pages II-7 136 through II-13): 137 14. Maintain and Monitor Capacity in Sites Inventory: 138 Program Objectives: The City shall ensure that adequate sites are available 139 throughout the planning period to accommodate the City's RHNA. On a project-by- 1 140 project basis, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 , the City will monitor 141 available residential capacity and evaluate projects on sites within the inventory. 142- Should approval of a project on a site listed on the Capacity Analysis result in a 143 reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the 144 City's housing needs, the City will identify and zone sufficient sites to 145 accommodate the shortfall. 146 147 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: 148 The 2015-2023 Housing Element remains very similar to the 2009-2014 Housing Element- 149 utilizing a Capacity Analysis to address the City's housing needs and relying on the mainly 150 the same Housing Programs to implement the Housing Element's goals and policies. There 151 are only two new Housing Programs--Program #9, "Junior Second Units" and Program #14 152 "Maintaining and Monitoring Capacity in Sites Inventory". Thus, after careful review, it 153 has been determined that ''the project" (2015-2023 Housing Element) could not have 154 significant impacts beyond those identified in the MV2040 General Plan Environmental 155 Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013052005) and therefore is exempt from further 156 review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et 157 seq.) and 14 C.C.R. § 15061(b)(3).
I Government Code Sec. 65863(b) requires the following fmdings to be made to reduce residential density for any parcel identified in the housing element inventory: 1. The reduction is consistent with the adopted General Plan, including the Housing Element; and, 2. The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's RHNA allocation. Staff Report: Review and Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element May 4, 2015 City Council Meeting Page 6 of 6
158 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY: 159 State law requires the elements ofthe General Plan to be consistent. The Mill Valley 2015- 160 2023 Housing Element is consistent with all of the other elements of the General Plan, in 161 that it does not require any changes to the other elements, or modify land use or densities. 162 163 CONCLUSION: 164 Staffrequests that Council consider adoption ofthe Draft Housing Element dated "January 165 27,2015" with modifications to the document as contained in ATIACHMENT 2. 166 167 NEXT STEPS: 168 Should City Council adopt the 2015-2023 Housing Element, staff will submit the Final 169 Housing Element to HCD for certification and file the Notice of Exemption with the 170 County Clerk, as required by law. Progress reports will be submitted to HCD on an annual 171 basis, as required by law. 172 173 ATTACHMENTS: 174 1. City Council Resolution Finding that the Housing Element Update is Exempt from 175 CEQA and Adoption ofthe 2015-2023 Housing Element 176 2. Modifications to the Draft Housing Element (dated January 27,2015) 177 3. Public Comments Received from April 21, 2015 to April 28, 2015 178 179 ONLINE RESOURCES: 180 • April 20, 2015 City Council Staff Report and previous Planning Commission Staff 181 Reports: www.cityofmillvalley.orglgeneralplan. Staff materials and written public 182 comments submitted for the April 20, 2015 are under "meetings and events" 183 • To view April 20, 2015 City Council meeting go to: 184 http://www.cityofmillvalley.orgllndex.aspx?page=1167 1 RESOLUTION NO. __ 2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE MILL VALLEY CITY COUNCIL FINDING THE 2015-2023 4 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA 5 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING THE 2015-2023 HOUSING 6 ELEMENT UPDATE 7 8 WHEREAS, the Mill Valley 2040 General Plan serves as a basis for actions that effect many 9 aspects ofour community's daily life, reflects widely-held community values and preserves Mill 10 Valley's small town character; and 11 12 WHEREAS, on October 7,2013, City Council adopted the Mill Valley 2040 (MV2040) General 13 Plan (CC13-44), which includes a Land Use Element and the 2009-2014 Housing Element; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the Housing Element is one ofthe state-mandated elements ofa General Plan, and 16 has separate timing, content and process requirements as set forth in Article 10.6 ofthe 17 California Government Code; and 18 19 WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65588 establishes January 31,2015, as the due date for 20 the local Bay Area region to submit its 2015-2023 Housing Element Update to the State; 21 22 WHEREAS, the City ofMill Valley must adopt 2015-2023 Housing Element within 120 days of 23 the above-referenced due date in order to remain on an eight year planning cycle (Senate Bill 24 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of2008); and 25 26 WHEREAS, the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element includes an analysis ofpotential sites that 27 indicates that the City ofMill Valley has adequate development capacity under existing zoning 28 designations to meet its 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of129 total 29 units and related -affordable housing needs for lower and moderate income households; and 30 31 WHEREAS, on October 21, 2014, the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element was released to the 32 community for public comment and review including the following groups receiving ongoing e- 33 mail notification on the Housing Element that represent lower income and special needs 34 populations in Mill Valley: Mill Valley Affordable Housing Committee, Public Advocates of 35 Marin, The Redwoods senior community, Lilypad Homes (junior second units), League of 36 Women Voters, and Fair Housing ofMarin; and 37 38 WHEREAS, on October 28, 2014, Planning Commission conducted a community meeting to 39 receive input from the Mill Valley community and residents on the Draft 2015-2023 Housing 40 Element update, at which time the Planning Commission provided final comments and 41 recommended the Draft Housing Element be forwarded to the California Department ofHousing 42 and Community Development (RCD); and 43 44
ATTACHMENT 1: CC 15-_ 1 Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element ATTACHMENT 1 45 WHEREAS on October 30,2014, the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element was submitted to HCD 46 for its initial 60-day review period for determining compliance with state housing element law 47 and related policies; and 48 49 WHEREAS on December 23, 2014, HCD staff member Melinda Coy provided verbal 50 comments to Planning Staff, requesting that the additional information on the public process be 51 added to the Draft Housing Element and Housing Program #30 (Homeless Assistance) be 52 modified, and indicating that Mill Valley Municipal Code § 20.40.051 ("Property Development 53 Standards-Emergency Shelters") required amendment in order to comply with state law 54 regulating emergency shelter operations; and 55 56 WHEREAS, City staff subsequently made the modifications to the Draft Housing Element 57 requested by HCD and prepared an amendment to Mill Valley Municipal Code § 20.40.051, 58 which ordinance amendment is ready to be brought forward to the Planning Commission and 59 City Council this spring; and 60 61 WHEREAS, on December 30, 2014, HCD reviewed the revised Draft 2015-2023 Mill Valley 62 Housing Element and found it met the statutory requirements; and 63 64 WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, the Mill Valley Planning Commission held a duly-noticed 65 public hearing to consider the revised Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element, at which meeting the 66 Planning Commission adopted a resolution (PC15-01) recommending the City Council adopt the 67 Draft 2015-2013 Housing Element; and 68 69 WHEREAS, on February 17, 2015, the Mill Valley City Council held a duly-noticed public 70 meeting to consider the revised Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element; and 71 72 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, codified at Public 73 Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), the 74 City is the lead agency for the adoption ofthe 2015-2023 Housing Element (the Project); and 75 76 WHEREAS, on October 7,2013, the City Council certified and adopted an Environmental 77 Impact Report (EIR) for the MV2040 General Plan and 2009-2014 Housing Element (State 78 Clearinghouse No. 2013052005) based on the written findings, Statement ofOverriding 79 Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in accordance with 80 CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and as set forth in Mill Valley City Council Resolution CC13- 81 43; and 82 83 WHEREAS, the 2015-2023 Update to the Housing Element remains substantially similar to the 84 2009-2014 Housing Element (with the sole exception noted in the following paragraph). No new 85 development is permitted under the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update where it is not currently 86 permitted in the General Plan, and all new development analyzed in the Housing Element Update 87 is in areas already designated for residential or mixed .use. The 2015-2023 Housing Element 88 update addresses: 1) the new RHNA 2014-2023 cycle (Chapter 1 and Appendix C); 2) progress 89 on implementing Housing Programs and the addition oftwo new programs-Program #9 "Junior 90 Second Units" (Chapter 2, Appendix D and Appendix E) and Program #14 "Maintain Capacity
ATTACHMENT 1: CC 15-_ 2 Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 91 in Sites Inventory"; 3) data and statistics for the review the existing housing needs of the 92 community (Chapter 3, Appendix A and Appendix B); 4) sites to accommodate the 2014-2022 93 RHNA in which no new sites have been added since the 2009-2014 Housing Element (Chapter 4 94 and Appendix C). These are not substantial changes from the 2009-2014 Housing Element, nor 95 have substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will 96 be undertaken. In addition, no new information ofsubstantial importance has surfaced since the 97 certification ofthe MY 2040 General Plan EIR. Accordingly, no further environmental review is 98 warranted under CEQA; and 99 100 WHEREAS, compared to the 2009-2014 Housing Element, the Draft 2015-2023 Housing 101 Element contains only two new programs (Chapter 2, Program #9 "Junior Second Units" and 102 Program #14 "Maintain and Monitor Capacity in Sites Inventory"), which does not substantively 103 modify the City's land use. This new program can be judged with certainty to carry no 104 possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment, it is exempt from further 105 environmental review by virtue of 14 C.C.R. § 15061(b)(3); and 106 107 WHEREAS, on April 20, 2015 the Mill Valley City Council conducted a public meeting to 108 review and consider adoption ofthe 2015-2023 Housing Element, and at which meeting, they 109 considered additional information provided by Staffand input provided by the community and 110 determined modifications were needed to the Capacity Analysis (Chapter 4 and Appendix C); 111 and 112 113 WHEREAS, at its April 20, 2015 meeting, Council directed staffto revise the Draft Housing 114 Element based on the following: 115 1. Start with "Option 2" as described in a supplemental memo dated April 20, 2015 by Vin 116 Smith, Director ofPlanning and Building Director, amending the Housing Element's 117 Capacity Analysis (Appendix C ofthe Housing Element) to add to the approved set of 118 criteria established as part ofthe Capacity Analysis to include: 119 • Remove commercial sites located along the East Blithedale Corridor from Park 120 School up to Highway 101; 121 • Remove commercial sites adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands and Highway 101 122 corridor; and 123 • Remove commercial sites that result in 2 or less new units. 124 2. Further review the Capacity Analysis to consider "Walk Scores" as part ofthe filtering 125 criteria. 126 3. Further review the Capacity Analysis to reduce the ''buffer to approximately 50% over 127 the 129 units (or a total ofapproximately 194 units in the Capacity Analysis). 128 4. Remove the "supplemental" list ofproperties (Appendix C, pages C-7 and C-8). 129 5. Maintain Housing Element Program #37, "Housing Advisory Committee" (page II-31), 130 with further review and discussion by City Council later this year. 131 WHEREAS; modifications to the Draft Housing Element dated January 27,2015 are contained 132 in "ATTACHMENT 2", and are based on City Council direction and continued coordination 133 with HCD as part ofthe State's review process. 134
ATTACHMENT 1: CC 15-_ 3 Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 135 WHEREAS, in light ofthe foregoing, and after careful review, the City Council determines that 136 the Project could not have significant impacts beyond those identified in the MV2040 General 137 Plan Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2013052005) and therefore is 138 exempt from further review under CEQA. 139 140 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 141 OF MILL VALLEY, having considered all evidence in the record, does hereby make the 142 following findings: 143 144 1. The recitals set forth above are adopted as the City Council 's findings as ifrestated in full 145 here. The 2015-2023 Housing Element is not subject to further environmental review 146 under CEQA because (a) the majority ofthe document is substantially similar to the 147 2009-2014 Housing Element that was adopted as part ofthe MV2040 General Plan, 148 which was reviewed under an EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2013052005) and none of 149 the conditions set forth in 14 C.C.R. § 15162 requiring further environmental review are 150 met. Furthermore, to the extent the 2015-2023 Housing Element differs 151 programmatically from the 2009-2014 Housing Element; that is, through the inclusion of 152 the new Junior Second Unit Program and Maintain Capacity in Sites Inventory Program, 153 said Programs do not carry the possibility ofany significant impacts on the environment 154 and is thus exempt from further CEQA review by virtue of 14 C.C.R. § 15061(b)(3); and 155 156 2. The update ofthe 2015-2023 Housing Element Update has been prepared to meet the 157 requirements ofState law and local housing objectives, and is consistent with the other 158 elements ofthe current MV2040 General Plan; and 159 160 3. The Capacity Analysis (Appendix C) methodology as adopted as part ofthe 2009-2014 161 Housing Element and MV2040 General Plan has been amended as outlined in 162 ATTACHMENT 1 with the overall intent ofthe Capacity Analysis remaining the same 163 wherein all parcels within Mill Valley have been filtered through a series ofcriteria to 164 identify those sites with the capacity for housing under existing land use and zoning 165 regulations. Using the updated filters, a new calculation provides the resultant number of 166 housing units that could reasonably accommodated on such parcels. The analysis does 167 not imply that any ofthe units must be built, or that any ofthe sites or units are ''pre- 168 approved" for development, nor does the analysis imply that parcels not included in the 169 Capacity Analysis are "denied" or not allowed to develop. All future projects must go 170 through planning and environmental review (CEQA) processes as established by the City 171 and State. 172 173 4. The 2015-2023 Housing Element has been reviewed by HCn and their comments and 174 recommendations have been incorporated into the document resulting in a finding by 175 HCn that the 2015-2023 Mill Valley Housing Element meets all ofthe statutory 176 requirements ofGovernment Code Article 10.6, and by adopting said Housing Element, 177 the City ofMill Valley will have a "rebuttable presumption", per Government Code 178 Section 65589.3, as to the validity ofthe Mill Valley Housing Element in the event ofa 179 legal challenge to said element. 180
ATTACHMENT 1: CC 15-_ 4 Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element 181 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council ofthe City ofMill Valley hereby adopts 182 the 2015-2023 Housing Element as amended by ATTACHMENTS 1 and 2; directs City staffto 183 transmit a copy ofthe adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element to HCD for final certification, and 184 further directs that a Notice ofExemption from CEQA be filed with the County ofMarin. 185 Motion by Councilmember: 186 187 Second by Councilmember: 188 189 THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at a regular meeting ofthe City Council 190 held.on May 4,2015, by the following vote: 191 192 AYES: 193 NOES: 194 ABSENT: 195 196 197 Kenneth R. Wachtel, Mayor 198 199 ATTEST: 200 201 202 Kelsey Rogers, City Clerk!Administrative Analyst
ATTACHMENT 1: CC 15-_ 5 Adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element City Council Review: 2015-2023 Housing Element ATTACHMENT 2: Final Edits to the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element
2015-2023 Housing Element
Acknowledgements: Jim McCann, City Mangger Amend acknowledgements Zoning and Design Guidelines Advisory Committee Section to include Michael Dyett. FAICP, Chair. Resident-at-Iarge Zoning & Design Ken Wachtel. Vice-Chair. City Council Liaison Guideline Advisory Ricardo Capretta. Planning Commission Liaison Committee Bruce Dorfman, Chamber of Commerce Liaison Burton Miller, FAIA, Architect/Neighborhood Liaison Jim Parrinello, Resident-at-Iarge Stephanie Witt. Realtor, Property Development Liaison
Poge 11-13: Add Add Program #14 "Maintain Capacity in Sites Inventory" under the Housing Element Program to reflect HCD Goal of "Housing Supply and Diversity" and renumber all pragrams after new Verbal Comments program #14. Update all references to Housing Programs in the document with Received 4/23/15 new program numbers.
14, Maintain and Monitor Capacity in Sites Inventory: Program Objectives: The City shall ensure that adequate sites are available throughout the planning period to accommodate the City's RHNA. On a 1 project-by-project basis. pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 , the City will monitor available residential capacity and evaluate projects on sites within the inventory. Should approval of a project on a site listed on the Capacity Analysis result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the City's housing needs. the City will identify and zone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall.
1 Government Code Sec. 65863(b) requires the following findings to be made to reduce residential density for any parcel identified in the housing element inventory: 1. The reduction is consistent with the adopted General Plan, including the Housing Element; and, 2. The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's RHNA allocation.
ATIACHMENT 2 1 Final Edits to the 2015-2023 Housing Element City Council Review: 2015-2023 Housing Element ATTACHMENT 2: Final Edits to the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element
Page IV-2: Revise Table Note: Table 4.1 summarized below with modified data in underline. 4.1 "Mill Valley's 2014 2023 Housing Needs Income Levels Low (51 TOTAL Analysis" 80% AMI)
A Total New Units in 2014 Permitted or Entitled B Potential new units identified in Capacity Analysis RS Q 32 32 RM 20 20 Q 40 CN/C-G/C-R/P-A H6 H6 ~ ~ 60 60 a 123 Total New Units He He :;- 84 363 Projected based on 80 80 ~ 30 193 Site Capacity Analysis and Existing Residential Zoning C Additional Projected 22 25 14 3 64 Second Units (2015 2022) G ~N~itO~:r~1! ( 'f!B- ) Remaining Needl Unaccommodated RHNA
Page IV-4: Revise b. Residentially Zoned Sites numbers in association ...{RS, RM, RSP, RP, RMP respectively) curre ntly yields a total of 89 32 parcels that with the Capacity are considered good candidates for infill residential development. On these parcels Analysis it is estimated that ~ 70 new residential units could be built in the future under existing zoning regulations.
c. Commercially Zoned Sites
ATIACHMENT2 2 Final Edits to the 2015-2023 Housing Element City Council Review: 2015-2023 Housing Element ATTACHMENT 2: Final Edits to the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element
Page IV-5: Revise Table Table 4.3 4.3 "Summary of Zoning Districts Number of Parcels Potential Unit Capacity Capacity Analysis for Residential All RS, RSP, RP, RM, 8932 H9-70 2015-2023 Planning RMP Period" Commercial C-G, C-N, C-R, P-A 4324 ~123 _.'t-". n<"'"'~' Total ~" S S iii_'.193
Page IV-6: Revise Table Table 4.5 4.5 "Comparison of Income Levels Very Low (Sl- Moderate Above 1:1 TOTAL RHNA to Total Built Low 80% AMI) (81-120% ~ M od Units and Zoning (50% AMI) ,,(>120% a Potential" AMI)~ ~ AMI) RHNA 41 24 26 38 129 Total Projected 4Q. Ii4 ~ ~ 4i5 Units: Projects with 105 108 23 59 295 Permits/Entitlement s; Capacity Analysis/Existing Residential Zoning; and Additional Second Units in 201S-2022 Remaining Need/ ~ ~ ~ -iii II!lI 4 5 Unaccommodated -64 -84 ~ c -21 -166
RHNA .. ,.." ,-.. .,,~ ill " " Appendix C: Modify site Thefollowing sites deletedfrom the Capacity Analysis: numbers based on City 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,15,13,20,30,36,38,39,40,41,42,46,54,55,56,57,58,60,61,64,65,67, Council Direction (see 68,71, 72,73, 74,76,78,83,84,85,86,87,92,94,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106, Resolution) 107,108,110,112,113,114,115,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,128,129, 130,131,132
The Housing Element will be updated to reflect: • Page numbersfor llX17 pages for "Sites in the Capacity Analysis" • Revised site numbers based on the above • Revised maps based on the above • Revised site numbers in Table C.1 "Parcels with Potentialfor Consolidation"
ATIACHMENT 2 3 Final Edits to the 2015-2023 Housing Element City Council Review: 2015-2023 Housing Element ATTACHMENT 2: Final Edits to the Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element
Page C-3 and C-4: i. Had an average slope of less than 50% in commercially zoned areas and less Modify_"Criteriafor than 70% in residentially zoned areas (eJu;ept t hese iRsiRgle f.a FRiI'/ E1 istri£ts). Realistic and Near-term Development Potential" iv. Had a parcel size of at least 3,000 square feet for commercial areas and at least based on City Council 6,000 square feet for residential areas. Direction (see Add last sentence to the paragraph under item iv: The minimum allowable lot size Resolution) of 6,000 square feet was used for residential areas (Municipal Code 20.16.040l.
vii. Would yield one unit if in a single-family residential district, or at least twe three units if in a multi-family or commercial district. In districts that allow multi- family residential development, a 9f\etwo-unit yield is unlikely to result in redevelopment;
xll, Were not commercial zoned parcels on East Blithedale from Park SChool up to Highway 101,
xiii, Were not commercial zoned parcels adjacent to jurisdictional wetlands and Highway 101.
xiv. Were not commercial zoned parcels located within the Miller Avenue/Montford/LaGoma intersection,
xv. Had a "Walk Score" of 50 points or less. A parcel with a Walk Score of lessthan 50 points is considered "car-dependent" wherein most errands require an automobile. Page C-7 and C-8: Delete Section 6 (including Additional Potential Sites Table) and renumber Delete Section 6 subsequent sections and tables accordingly. "Additional Site Potential"
ATIACHMENT 2 4 Final Edits to the 2015-2023 Housing Element ATTACHMENT 3: Public Comments Received April 21-April 28. 2015
ATTACHMENT 3: Public Comments ATTACHMENT 3 Danielle Staude
From: Mary Ann Sinkkonen
Attention: % Danielle Staude, Senior Planner
RE: 2015-2023 Housing Element
With regard to the Housing Element and the number and placement of the units, I am in support of staying with the required number of units, which is around 130, rather than aiming toward and seeing approval of over 350 units.
Ceaseand desist from equating public input around this issue with a lack of appreciation for affordable housing in Mill Valley, I am opposed to requiring increased housing based on a formula. Rather, take a look at the access into and out of Mill Valley. We have two access roads, E. Blithedale and Miller Ave. Those two streets feed to HWY 101. That is it. In an emergency, how will help reach us? What will evacuation look like? Housing along HWY 101 will be at a standstill and that is THE only way in or out of town. Emergency vehicles will be blocked. Exiting persons will be blocked. Disaster is waiting to happen with increased traffic on our accessroads. Density only compounds the problem. These streets are already jammed on a typical day. Have Council members driven the streets around noontime on weekdays? Around 9:30 to 11 a.m. on weekend? What about accessfrom HWY 101 at the Blithedale/Tiburon Blvd exit? Density! Traffic jams! We already have crisis. Please, do not add to this dangerous condition.
It is a foregone conclusion that the City Council will approve increased housing. So, approve the minimum. Under no conditions should the Council go beyond the minimum. And, Council members, spread the minimum density around . Those 120+ units should be divided and distributed around available parcels. Let's not have another Corte Madera with units all on one parcel. Traffic jams alone should affect this decision.
Thank you for the consideration.
Mary Ann Sinkkonen 14 Tennyson Dr., Mill Valley, CA
1 Bruce Corcoran 184 Great Circle Drive Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-383-5340
April 21, 2015
Mill Valley City Council Mill Valley Planning Commission Via e-mail: [email protected]
Prepared Remarks for the April 20, 2015 Mill Valley Town Council Hearing about the 2015 - 2023 Housing Element
Good evening.
I'm Bruce Corcoran, a 38-year resident of Strawberry. I've had many years of experience analyzing development plans and the Housing Element for the unincorporated areas of the County.
I'm here this evening because Strawberry and Mill Valley share the same roads and the same public schools. Peak-hour traffic on our roads is intolerably congested now, and our Strawberry Point public school is over-capacity now, even before you approve your Housing Element.
It took my wife 30 minutes to drive from our house to the Mill Valley Post Office two Saturdays ago. It normally takes less than 10 minutes. Some of our children, who could walk to Strawberry Point School, can't attend because there's no room [so their parents have to drive them across the freeway to school in Mill Valley, which creates even more unnecessary traffic].*
When I analyze RHNA, I usually find that most communities take a myopic view of their own Housing Elements, without coordinating with the development plans in surrounding communities.
For example, are you aware that tiny Strawberry, with a population of 5,400 and a total area of only 1.3 square miles, will likely have more development over the next 7-year housing cycle than you will?
The Fasken Trust recently purchased the former Seminary property, on which it intends to build 300 new market rate apartments, and provide space for The Branson School to build a new commuter high school for 600 to 1,000 students.
A traffic study commissioned by the Seminary Neighborhood Association concluded that this development would generate an additional 4,000 new vehicle trips per day. If you think our traffic congestion and public school over-crowding is bad now, just think how much worse it will be if this project is built.
I also find that there is little coordination between ABAG's housing allocations and the funding available from the various transportation authorities to widen our roadways and fix the peak-hour delays at our gridlocked intersections. In my opinion, if the transit authorities would improve our roadways, there would be less resistance to more housing.
May I also provide some prospective about the County's Housing Element. There are at least 33 unincorporated areas in Marin which are governed by the Board of Supervisors, but the Supervisors assigned Supervisor Kinsey's entire District 4, the largest by area, only two housing units; Supervisor Arnold's entire District 5, only 8; and Supervisor Rice's entire District 2, only 10. This means that unincorporated areas such as Kentfield, Greenbrae, Sleepy Hollow, and Cal Park, which is still designated as one of the two remaining County PDAs, will have no RHNA housing obligations over the next 7 years.
This begs the question: If some communities have no obligation at all, then why is Mill Valley volunteering to provide almost 3 times its required RNHA? Is that realistic given current conditions?
[In my view,]* To be fair, every community should be required to make best efforts to at least provide some housing. [There should be no "free rides. T'
In general, I favor local control, and I'm very wary of mandates from appointed and unaccountable regional bodies [of officials who don't live in or understand our communities].*
Your Housing Element should be your decision. There are creative ways to meet housing needs, such as making second units count as one unit [instead of a fractional unit].* We wish you well in making your determination because it will impact all of us along the Highway 101 corridor.
By the way, your own Susan Kirsch is one person who understands the big picture. Strawberry thanks her for helping us eliminate our PDA.
Thank you.
* Due to the 3 minute time limit per speaker, I deleted the words in brackets from my oral presentation.
END Kelsey.!2P.e.fS •
From: Gayle Delaney
Dear Guardians, Energetic Creators and Sustainers ofour city,
Here is a comment on last night's HE meeting:
Very interesting City Council meeting last night! Bravo to all who came and to those who sent in comments. And to those who will come on May 4th for the TRAFFIC meeting! I shall leave to those better versed to summarize the results from last night. I just want to say I met some wonderful, caring neighbors who got themselves up and out for a SRO gathering. You really can meet some ofyour best, most generous and focused neighbors at these meetings! There was even some humor in the evening as many ofus applauded various speakers and our mayor, Ken, kept "gavelling" to discipline us into silence to speed things along. Even he laughed at the futility ofsuch efforts. Everyone seemed to understand that ifthe council wanted to get out before 2 am, they just had to let us clap, or everyone who was there would have had to get up for our 3 minutes to express our opinions. I was, however, glad to hear comments that booing and derisive laughter was out of order.
IF YOU COUNCILMEN AND WOMAN do not, or no longer feel that it is a waste oftime to read this thread, I would like to offer a suggestion: When we entered the hall, and throughout the public input section ofthe meeting, your faces were all devoid ofpleasure and you seemed to be steeled against an onslaught from enemies. The feeling in the air was extremely unpleasant. YET, when finally the time came for you all to comment, every one ofyou was responsive, friendly, and likable. Why not open the meeting with an expression ofwelcome that is backed up by a few genuine smiles? We are neighbors. We COULD all be working for the betterment ofour beloved town, and you have already given MILL VALLEY much ofyour time and effort. If your neighbors came with a load ofanger in addition to their concern, a GENUINELY friendly welcome would have improved the chances ofclarifying misunderstandings, and undo some ofthe anger engendered from dismissive responses we had already received (and shared) from the council in writing and on the phone. Too often at the meeting, we were scolded for not having been active sooner rather than welcomed as the fabric ofour town democracy that fmally got organized. We want to like you and to feel you are working toward the same goals. But we have a few issues to clarify, and that should not threaten you nor lead you to dismiss our concerns unless your goals are really different from what you say they are. Underlying much ofour concern and discontent was a LACK OF TRUST triggered by the large buffer surplus, not to mention your dismissiveness ofour concerns about traffic and growth in general. Many ofus fear that the huge buffer may in fact be an invitation to UNWISE development to the detriment ofthe well being ofour town AND TO THE benefit ofcontractors, developers and their friends. Comments SUPPORTING the destructive developments in Larkspur/Corte Madera and the lack ofreassurance that similar would never happen here certainly did not add to our confidence. Unfortunately, although we stayed to the very end ofthe meeting, we left still not knowing why or how the original HE element proposal could possibly be in the best interests ofMill Valley.
P.s. to our City Council and Jim and Yin, 1 It seems that our big turnout last night might represent a cluster of neighbors who could help you in your work ifwe can keep up the connections with real welcome and invitation! Best, Gayle Delaney
Gayle Delaney, PhD SmartDreams.net ChooseRomance.com 415-389-1218
2 Kelse~_e_rs _
From: Danielle Staude Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 12:52 PM To: Elena Cc: Kelsey Rogers Subject: RE: MEETING
Hi Elena,
Thank you for your comment, it will be forwarded to City Council as part of the Staff report I am currently working on ofr the upcoming May 4th meeting.
Thank you,
Danielle L. Staude Senior Planner City of Mill Valley 26 Corte Madera Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 (415) 388-4033 www.cityofmillvalley.org
From: Elena [mailto:[email protected] sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:46 AM To: Danielle Staude Subject: MEETING
Dear Ms. Staude:
I attended last night's MV City Council Meeting last night, and while I appreciate the efforts of the council to address the ongoing traffic/building issues, I'm very disappointed that a moratorium on building was not seriouslydiscussed.
The small town character of MY is already being lost due to excessive traffic, and it is a very simple conclusion that more building equals more people and more cars, not to mention the water hook-ups that are required for new building. Also, please note that the Goodman's exit is becoming a traffic hazard because cars queue-up at the gas station, forming one line that sometimes backs onto the freeway, an accident waiting to happen!
I urge the City Council to seriouslyconsider a moratorium on building and new water hook-ups. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Elena McClain 16 Tennyson Drive Mill Valley, Ca. 94941
1 Kelset.!!2P.e...rs.... _
From: Francine Millman
Hello, everyone:
First, I would like to thank you all for re-evaluating your initial plans for the Housing Element based on community feedback. While I was not able to physically attend the meeting, I was able to watch all 4+ hours ofthe meeting via the webcast. I recognize that it must be difficult to hear all of what was said by the citizens who intensely disagreed with the initial stance and appreciate all of you for hearing, ultimately listening to the concerns and shifting gears.
Second, the reduction of a buffer to what is currently being considered (max 50%) is far more aligned with the sentiment of our community, as you now recognize, although I do have a concern about it arbitrarily SWitching from 24-25% (what was said by all councilmembers) to 50% (stated by Ken Wachtel) once the majority of the audience already left the meeting. (see below)
Third, I applaud the councilmembers, especially Stephanie and John, for making sure that the spirit of what our citizens/taxpayers want is included in the Housing Element; Stephanie in favor ofthe CVP recommendation that language be added to both the HE and the Land Use Element to suggest that development along Miller Avenue be "mixed use" and not just housing that could replace local businesses, which was seconded by others and John for his on-point list of items that he wants to make sure are addressed and included. Thank you!
I do have a couple of concerns I would like to address. I am not alone in my observations and concerns.
1) After the public comments portion ofthe meeting, the councilmembers all made their comments. Each councilmember was very clear about the buffer percentage remaining at a 24%-25% buffer. However, at the n" hour, Ken Wachtel decided unilaterally to state 50%. I am concerned by how this appeared to come out of nowhere when the rest ofthe councilmembers were very clear asto their statements (24%-25%). At first I thought this was an error of statement on our Mayors part, but then he repeated that number. I was saddened, quite frankly to see this happen. I do not think the Mayor should be able to over-ride the rest of the councilmembers when it was clear that all councilmembers were consistent in what they stated. It was just such an obvious statement out of alignment with the rest of the councilmembers and different than the discussion had gone.
I am truly wondering why the Mayor would a) ignore what the rest ofthe councilmembers stated and b) I am now concerned that what the Mayor stated is now going to somehow creep up to 75% or 100%?
In all honesty, I found this last minute switch quite disconcerting and I am hoping the rest ofthe councilmembers felt the same way. I know that other residents noticed this, too. Behind closed doors, I am hopeful you all manage to get this back to a 24-25% buffer. 1 2) I also found it especially interesting that after unilaterally making this statement about 50%, the Mayor then decided to appointment himself and John McCauley to this special "committee". Ifind this completely inappropriate and would ask that the Mayor not be involved in this. I believe this committee of two should not include the Mayor, but rather two councilmembers instead. I have nothing against the Mayor whatsoever. Idon't personally know him. This is the first time I have actually seen him in action. However, given the above (switching from 25% to 50%) and given how he quickly decided to appoint himself - without any discussion and without allowing anyone else to be appointed, my gut sense is that there is something not kosher about this. Sorry. I don't see as much oversight in this area otherwise. There may be nothing to be concerned about, but Ican say that Iand others found this quite noticeable and it has put us on alert to watch what comes from this ifthe Mayor continues to be one of the only two on this "committee".
Again, thank you very much for responding to the majority of people, via public comments and letters, in a way that better and more accurately reflects what Mill Valley is. Last night demonstrated that the Cityis able to consider and adjust accordingly and far more appropriately to the needs of the community and the overall betterment of Mill Valley, as well as your own legacy. Those efforts are much appreciated and Ihope that behind closed doors what is executed continues to reflect what was intended.
I hope my comments and observations were taken in the spirit in which they were meant. Those who know me at all know that Itend to remain quiet and observe until something is so far off-track that it becomes necessary to voice my concerns. This was/is one of those issues.
Thank you again for all of your hard work and efforts. We all look forward to seeing what ultimately makes it into the Housing Element and most importantly, what was removed.
With kindest regards,
Francine Millman 18 Midhill Drive Mill Valley 415-388-5809
-----Original Message----- From: Francine Millman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2915 2:92 PM To: 'Jim McCann' Cc: 'Vin Smith'j '[email protected]'j 'Garry Lion'j 'Stephanie Moulton-Peters'j 'John McCauleY'j 'Jessica Jackson'j 'Kelsey Rogers'j 'Oanielle Staude' Subject: RE: Objections to the inclusion of the Richardson project in the Housing Element for 12 units
Hi there, Jim:
Thanks so much for your reply. A dialogue with the City is always a good thing, especially since so many people tend to come to me or those of us on the Scott Valley Board asking for information and guidance when things seem to be 'off'.
After sitting in traffic yesterday and watching it come into and leaving Mill Valley from all directions (not just residents of Mill Valley), and then receiving over a dozen emails from
2 residents complaining about the same, it really drove home just how out of control things already are.
I know this is something you are all aware of, are trying to deal with and appreciate the open dialogue.
Vin just emailedme.soIwill set something up with him for further conversation.
I think the City and Council know that I am reasonable and care tremendously about our environment, as I know you all do.
Thank you again for taking time to reply. Francine
-----Original Message----- From: Jim McCann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 9:54 PM To:
Hello Francine,
We will be sure that the Council receives your email and will include it as a part of the packet of materials for the public meeting.
I'll ask Vin to contact you to discuss your concerns and comments on the Housing Element. Probably a phone call would be best to explain the function of the capacity analysis (it does not grant or guarantee any property owner development entitlements or provide any advantage) and the provisions built into the General Plan to ensure that all development is of an appropriate density, scale and style to fit its site and the larger context of the community. Thanks for sharing some of your thoughts Francine.
Best regards,
-Jim Jim McCann City Manager City of Mill Valley 415.464.7085 Sent from my iPad
On Mar 26, 2015, at 12:39 PM, Francine Millman Hello, Vin: I was sadly surprised to learn that despite all of the obvious concerns of building such a highly dense project on the Richardson parcel of land that the City has included 12 units in the Housing Element as a number of units that seem to be acceptable to the City f~r Richardson to build. 3 I am curious why the City has selected the number 12 as the magical number you all feel is appropriate, other than Richardson saying that he cannot make his money back if it is less than 12 units - something he has said to us on more than one occasion during meetings we have had with Phil. Is that really the motivation for the City to buckle and allow so many units in such a small parcel of land? I would hope not. However, it is difficult to imagine what the reasons would be, especially since the EIRs submitted by Richardson have been reviewed by independent people in the industry contradicting its findings in the area of traffic (which we all know is already outrageous), safety (how are fire trucks really going to get in and out of that complex?) and a number of other considerations. When things like this happen, it makes me wonder if anyone from the City sits in the ridiculous amount of traffic, whether the City has concerns for its existing residents and taxpayers and their safety and the fsmall town character' or if the revenue for the City becomes the paramount motivation for such a complete disregard to the concerns that the majority of residents have for this blatant disregard of our consistent request to not allow more than 5 reasonably sized units on this parcel? It is very concerning that this has occurred; once again quietly added this without any consideration for its current residents. The City Staff is supposed to be working on behalf of its residents. The feedback to a plan like this has been unanimous. The residents of Mill Valley do not want this. How is it that the City could possibly be working on our behalf if this outrageous number of units has been added to the Housing Element? Prior to your joining the City, we took surveys of the residents to see if they were concerned about this. You may not be aware of just how many residents have signed petitions objecting to the over-building on such a small parcel, but within a week, we were able to easily obtain over 1,000 signatures opposing this over-development. This is the only issue in Mill Valley that has had such a unanimous response from the majority of residents in Mill Valley. Those signatures have all been submitted to the City at past meetings. I and many are curious why the needs of one surpass the needs of the community at large? There is no doubt in my mind Richardson believes that he is ucompromisin~' from his even more ridiculous number of 20 units. This may have always been his strategy - suggest something beyond ridiculous (20 units) and they will think that 12 is more acceptable. That may have worked with the City, but to the community, that lot cannot handle more than 5 reasonably sized units that do not go up the hill to block Kite Hill. It's all been pretty obvious to the residents. And, while I understand there are many who never want anything to change, we have not taken that approach. We have just wanted something reasonable. 12 units is not reasonable. Friends of Kite Hill, 1,000 neighbors throughout Mill Valley and anyone who has driven down East 8lithedale knows that what is being accepted by the City is just too much for too small of a lot and seriously brings into question whether the best interests of the residents of Mill Valley are truly being represented. Ask anyone about placing 12 units in that location and there is no doubt in my mind that you would receive a very consistent response. NOI I would hope that the City would reconsider this number and align with those who are already here - no more than 5 reasonably sized units on that parcel. Thank you, Francine Millman Scott Valley 415-388-5809 4 P Please consider the environment before printing this email This transmission is intended for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential and/or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender if you have received this transmission in error. 5 Kelse~_e_rs... _ From: Daniel G Archer A few thoughts on the City Council meeting last night: • Buffer: It appears the statements from the City Council were 'allover the board' trying to determine what "buffer" you need for your Housing Element Site List and you seemed to be headed toward some arbitrary percentages last night (25%, 50%?). Ifyou had no 'buffer' for your 2003(?) Housing Element Site List and stated that did not work, how many units (or percentage) did you fall short then? It would appear based on those records you could come up with a reasonably accurate 'buffer' for 2015. • Traffic Infrastructure: As probably stated most eloquentlyby Donald Herzog last night, Mill Valley does not have the infrastructure to support additional housing in many areas, particularly close to Downtown. We cannot widen Blithedale Avenue-without ironically removing existing housing-and we have ignored potential traffic solutions for many decades, including possible 'roundabouts' or other alternatives at Camino Alto/Miller Avenue and Camino Alto/Blithedale: o Do traffic signals really work? We observe that when signals are out (malfunction/storms) traffic appears to move better when simply using courtesy as done at a four-way stop signs; o Blithedale/Park signal simply on timer and even late at night will turn red with no cross traffic; o Seven Blithedale/Tiburon Blvd signals between downtown and Strawberry School, including two Highway 101 signals. Can any traffic engineer make this work properly? No. o MillerAvenue will probably continue to work reasonably well between Downtown and Tamalpais High, but has the same poor infrastructure as Blithedale as a two-lane bottleneck, with three traffic signals and increased Muir Woods traffic, particularlyin summer, as one tries to access Highway 10l. • Traffic Studies: We can continue with traffic studies, but the reasons for the increased traffic appears simple: o Increased construction requiring commuting contractors, sub-contractors. o Housing in Mill Valley is very expensive, requiring both parents to work, in many cases; o Ifboth parents work, we import services with more vehicles; • Nannies • Gardeners • Housekeepers o Schools are close to capacity, indicating more 'families' in Mill Valley; o Increased child activities after school and weekends, sports, cultural, day care, etc. requires more vehicle use o During school breaklast week, Mill Valley was a virtual 'ghost town'; downtown had many available parking spaces and traffic on Blithedale and Miller was like it was 10-20 years ago. 1 • Low-Income Housing: Who is going to provide 'affordable' housing units? Will developers or landowners voluntarily reduce their profits for lower income rental units? Can the City, or other public entities, develop affordable units? One parcel identified a long time ago was the Miller Avenue City 'commuter' parking lot adjacent to the Marin Theatre Company and across from Whole Foods, which is on a transit corridor. While you would probably need to have below grade parking (encouraged in flood plains-see San Anselmo flood studies) plus parking in back at grade ofassumed street front commercial, you could provide substantial housing on the upper two or three levels. • ShortTerm Rental Housing: We are guilty of providing short-term housing in the past, but phasing into long-term rentals this fall. It is with mixed feelings this is happening, since despite being able to count our unit in your Housing Element Site List, there are some existing benefits to the community and, if policed correctly could assist the City in other ways, including affordable housing: o Our short-term housing historically-more than 7S%--has primarilybeen rented to relatives of Mill Valley citizens when visiting children or parents for birthdays, holidays, anniversaries, weddings, graduations, etc. • Currently we are hosting a couple from Hawaii who are staying with their parents in our unit, since the parents were temporarily displaced due to construction work on their unit at the Redwoods; o Short-term rentals allow our children, and their friends, and Michelle's 91year old father, to use it when visiting, or when our daughter is home from college during the summer or holidays; o The City could collect the Mill Valley Transient Occupancy Tax -which we believe is 10% or more, and use that tax money to subsidize Low-Income Housing (see above); o While short-term rentals can be more profitable to Owners--although due to the expensive rental market and additional short-term expenses--not substantially more, it can help older residents, like us, stay in their homes as they 'age-out' of their prime earning years but still have large mortgages and property taxes to pay. • 'Personalizing' Multi-Family Design/Development: We are perhaps wrong, and certainly confused, since there are so many changes, but this appears to be the personal result of our property at 65 Sunnyside Avenue due to recent changes in the Multi-Family Residential and Development Standards: o Existing RM-2,s allowing two units for 6,250 SF, requiring four (provided) parking spaces (although tandem), minimum 15' exterior setback; o 20.24.010 changes zoning to RM-3.5 Permitted Use, allowing one unit, requiring minimum 3,sooSF per unit, minimum 15' exterior setback, reducing parking to three spaces; o 20.24.040 Property Development Standards, changes Land Use to MFR-2 (Higher Density MF Residential), now allowing: • 2.4 to 4.2 units, 17-29 units/acre (existing 2 units) . • Minimum 5' exterior setback; (existing 15' setback) • 4,68zSF FAR; (existing dwelling is 2,6soSF) • Increases parking up to eight spaces (existing four tandem spaces) Although certainly not historic, our dwelling is a Victorian Cottage built in 1919-perhaps from a Sears andRoebuck catalog -- and although it needs substantial maintenance, many describe our dwelling as 'charming'. There are five 'charming' dwellings on the North side of our block all built between 1900 and 1930, all with 15' front setbacks and all original single family dwellings, four converted to two units, one to four units and another single family dwelling created at rear of a split parcel. Our small block has 17units on it, but always challenged for street parking since halfof street has 4-hour maximum residential parking and 2 the other halfthe City dedicates to Employee Permit parking. Ifwe are reading the code correctly, our neighborhood could change dramatically, although hopefully not in our lifetime. It appears to Michelle and I that the majority of citizen's do not understand the direction the Cityis taking on planning density. We do need additional housing, but the applications we continually see are large single-family dwellings (some teardowns) in the canyons and hills. We understand the City is under pressure from the State, however, as we understand it, 90%+ of Mill Valley is built-out. In our opinion, there is a choice between preserving Mill Valley as the infrastructure allows-we appear to have already exceeded its limitations--orjust continue to increase densities and suffer the consequences. We are sure the City is listening to its citizens; however, in our opinion sadly they appear to be heading down a path that will eventually destroy Mill Valley, at least historically as we have known it to be in the last 40+ years. Sincerely, Daniel G and Michelle G Archer 65 Sunnyside Avenue Mill ValIey, California 94941-1924 emailDaniel: [email protected] mobile: (415) 999-5593 emailMichelle: michelle [email protected] [michelle_archer] mobile: (415) 794-2148 3 Kelsey Rog.e.rs.... _ From: [email protected] Sent Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:33 AM To: city clerk Cc: [email protected] Subject Housing Issue I absolutely disagree with the intent to add more housing to the already state mandate. Our traffic has tripled, roads are full ofpot holes and the homeowners are paying huge taxes while renters do not. Enough already! Must we follow Corte Maderas path with the likes ofthat disgusting houseing complex? Or follow San Rafael with all oftheir massage/sex parlors and massive Bio-Marin structures. Mill Valley is close to becoming overwhelmed and I as a native ofMarin Co born at Ross Hospital and 63 years old I intend to oppose these ill sited ideas that keep being proposed by supposed cash strapped municipalities . Furthermore I would not be surprised ifthis isn't a ploy to shift more housing to MY to compensate for the outrage that Strawberry and Marinwood are feeling. They don't want it, we don't want it. So STOP IT!! Nothing you propose regarding more housing is going to happen without a big fight! Once again it is all about the money, MY City and developers! So sad---- Sent from AOL Mobile Mailf 1 Kelse~_e_rs _ From: Susan Kirsch Dear City Council, Thanks for your patient consideration ofthe 38 speakers at the 4/20 meeting, your thoughtful deliberation, and the direction you're moving re: the Housing Element. In contrast to Rick Halstead's reporting in the Marin IJ {4/22} that you were "responding to pressure," you demonstrated thoughtful and open-minded consideration ofthe issues. And in contrast to Friends of Mill Valley being an "anti-growth" group, we're a mechanism to educate and activate the community about pending decisions that impact quality of life. The beauty of Monday night was the standing-room only crowd that came out - not for a feel-good Little League appreciation award, free food, or a celebrity, but/or a City Council meeting about a Housing Element!! It's of mutual credit to see the informed and respectful way our community came together around an important topic. The "us against them" tone Halstead reported missed the mark. And far from being an effort to "inflame and frighten residents" as Schonbrunn claims, this was a fine and proud moment of "working together to get it right." Thanks for your service, Susan Kirsch Ryan Avenue P.S. I urge you to adopt a 25-30% buffer. 1 KelseY..!!2P.e.rs • From: Charles Ziegler At this latest MY council meeting, attendees (standing room only) ofcourse overwhelmingly were in support ofthe 129 state number which the mayor voiced against in favor ofa number that is at least 50% higher. Thank goodness one council member acknowledged the work that has been done by Community Ventures and he has revised his conclusion. So this seems to go completely against at least 90 =% ofthe residents in the town. There was not a council member who made a commitment to the environment. When asked about the vote on the mosquito initiative, there was not a comment on their vote.. I would have liked the council to at least acknowledge how the developers are involved with all ofthis . It is not a vision that is very hopeful. No one from MMWD was even there to participate, so seems short sighted in my opinion ifpast is prelude. Chuck Read the P Coyote piece. and the comments below. http://www.pacificsun.comlfeature-looking-back-and-moving-onl New Posts • • Peter Coyote Bails On MV: Traffic, Water, Incivility • Wakeup Call: City of Dublin Rethinks "Green" • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • New Posts (}rHANK @REPLY @PRIVATE MESSAGE Peter Coyote Bails On MV: Traffic, Water, Incivility [@ Peter Hensel, Chapman Park [J http://www.pacificsun.comlfeature-Iookin... Q . Speaking of time, you've lived in Marin for many years. But now you are moving. Why? A. Yes. I am moving to Sonoma County. I've had it with Mill Valley. It's become so crowded, so much traffic, and so little responsibility has been devoted to the carrying capacity of the area. We are seriously overpopulated just with respect to water. As far as I'm concerned, every successive group of supervisors and commissioners have been bought off by developers. I saw some of that with my own eyes. I first came here in 1965, and loved it, and then moved to Zen Center in the city. I returned in 1983, as my daughter was getting mugged for her lunch money in the Fillmore. Twenty-five years ago J... Read more Apr 25 in General to 33 neighborhoods @THANK @REPLY @PRIVATEMESSAGE [@ Sara Biancalana. Chapman Park Peter is absolutely right. Corte Madera used to be even more "hometown" than Mill Valley, and now has become a giant parking lot for over privileged self-obsessed narcissists. Way to ruin a once super place to live. Buy yourself a city council person and go build something else... 3h ago THANK [@ Jim Andrews, Madera Gardens It is all about failing to make developers internalize the costs of their externalities. 3h ago THANK [@ Peter Hensel, Chapman Park P Coyote is a fascinating dude. Pretty mind-boggling that after all these years, he's still walking his talk. Good for him for standing on principle. And being unafraid to speak out and take a potential liberal/developer bashing. I remember when he was a hippie, leader of the Free City commune in SF (offshoot of the Diggers), and he used to bring his tribe down to the steps of city... Read more 2 3h ago THANK [0 Judy Youngman , Larkspur Isle I so agree with Peter. I've been in Marin for 30 years and have seen this once peaceful, beautiful little paradise slowly but surely being savaged by greedy developers eager to build ~ore massive structures to satisfy the whims of such self centered classless moneybags who need to feel that their pile of crap is bigger than anyone else's pile of crap and thus be entitled to whatever... Read more 2h ago THANK [0 Peter Hense', Chapman Park No word mincing on your part, Judy. What you say is way too sad and way too true. The question in a lot of minds is: when does it all stop, the crowding and the profit-driven push for more and more development? But the next and even more important question is: when and how do we make it stop? I think the answer to both involves more grassroots folks showing up at meetings--Iocal and... Read more 1h ago THANK [0 Jana Haehl, Christmas Tree Hill It's not just greedy developers who are the problem, it's also the folks who buy a nice little house in a friendly neighborhood and then tear it down to construct a mega-house that looms over the homes on either side. There are so many applications for doubling the size of single-family homes, often with just 6 foot sideyard setbacks. 1h ago THANK Wakeup Call: City of Dublin Rethinks "Green" [0 Peter Hensel, Chapman Park [J .Dublin City Council rejects Dublin Green projectBy Jeremy Thomas [email protected] Posted : 04/22/2015 12:27:32 AM PDT1 Comment I Updated: 3 days agoDUBLIN - Marking a dramatic shift in policy, the City Council on Tuesday did something this city hasn't seen in quite some time: It rejected a large development. Citing concerns over building more houses and further burdening overcrowded schools, council members voted down a large transit-oriented, mixed-use development in the heart of the city.Councilman and Vice Mayor Abe Gupta called the decision historic. The vote, along with the landslide defeat of the pro-growth Measure T initiative in November, he said, represent ''two monumental watershed moments for Dublin."Council members voted... Read more Apr 25 in General to 33 neighborhoods [JrHANK @REPLY @PRIVATE MESSAGE 3 3h ago THANK [0 Judy Youngman, Larkspur Isle I so agree with Peter. I've been in Marin for 30 years and have seen this once peaceful, beautiful little paradise slowly but surely being savaged by greedy developers eager to build more massive structures to satisfy the whims of such self centered classless moneybags who need to feel that their pile of crap is bigger than anyone else's pile of crap and thus be entitled to whatever... Read more 2h ago THANK [0 Peter Hensel, Chapman Park No word mincing on your part, Judy. What you say is way too sad and way too true. The question in a lot of minds is: when does it all stop, the crowding and the profit-driven push for more and more development? But the next and even more important question is: when and how do we make it stop? I think the answer to both involves more grassroots folks showing up at meetings--Iocal and... Read more 1h ago THANK [0 Jana Haehl, Christmas Tree Hill It's not just greedy developers who are the problem, it's also the folks who buy a nice little house in a friendly neighborhood and then tear it down to construct a mega-house that looms over the homes on either side. There are so many applications for doubling the size of single-family homes, often with just 6 foot sideyard setbacks. 1h ago THANK Wakeup Call: City of Dublin Rethinks "Green" [0 Peter Hensel, Chapman Park LJ .Dublin City Council rejects Dublin Green projectBy Jeremy Thomas [email protected] Posted: 04/2212015 12:27:32 AM PDT1 Comment I Updated: 3 days agoDUBLlN - Marking a dramatic shift in policy, the City Council on Tuesday did something this city hasn't seen in quite some time: It rejected a large development. Citing concerns over building more houses and further burdening overcrowded schools, council members voted down a large transit-oriented, mixed-use development in the heart of the city.Councilman and Vice Mayor Abe Gupta called the decision historic. The vote, along with the landslide defeat of the pro-growth Measure T initiative in November, he said, represent "two monumental watershed moments for Dublin."Councii members voted ... Read more Apr 25 in General to 33 neighborhoods (}rHANK @REPLY @PRIVATEMESSAGE 3 Unsustainable Growth in Mill valley [0 Bobbie Steger. Sycamore Park For those who have been rightly concerned about the issue of overbuilding and continued unsustainable growth here in Mill Valley, please read Peter Coyote's candid and blistering critique in this week's issue of the Pacific Sun. In it he explains why after living here for 40 years, he is leaving. He spares no words and in real terms expresses what many of us have been feeling. It's the last column of the interview on page 13. Very sad but true. On another note, did the City Council make any substantive changes as a result of last week's meeting and if so, does anyone know where they can be found? Thanks. Apr 24 in General to 12 neighborhoods ~THANK ~REPLY ~ PRIVATE MESSAGE [0 Dorte Bot, Tamalpais Valley Here is a link to the article. http://www.pacificsun.com/feature-Iookin... 7h ago THANK Charles Ziegler 180 Harbor Drive Suite 205 Sausalito, Ca 94965 office:(415) 339-8878 cell : (415) 342-0752 Charles Ziegler 180 Harbor Drive Suite 205 Sausalito, Ca 94965 office:(415) 339-8878 cell : (415) 342-0752 4 Burton Miller FAIA 211 Elm Avenue Mill Valley, California94941 [email protected] April 26, 2015 City Council City of Mill Valley 26 Corte MaderaAvenue Mill Valley, California 94942 Re: Draft Housing Element Update 2015-2023 City Council Hearing To Members of the Mill Valley City Council: First, I reference and support points raised in CVP's April 21 ,2015 "Mill Valley Takes the Lead in Addressing Our Sustainable Growth Challenges in Marin" commentaryon the recent City Council Hearing concerning proposed revisions to the Housing Element. My thanks to the Council - the community was heard. Second, I reference our City Manager's "City News: Draft 2015-2023 Housing Element to City Council May 4" posted April 23, 2015. The City Manager's report omitted two key points and didn't quite capture what I heard on two others: 1. CVP Page 2 - Number 2 concerning "mixed-use" language pertaining to Miller Avenue development- a recommendation proposed by Council MemberMoulton-Peters and acknowledged by the Council. 2. The City Council's intention to revisit the Land Use Element and Zoning to effect meaningfulchange in support of Housing Element issues raised- a recommendation proposed by Council Member McCauleyand supported by the Council. 3. iI•• • reduce the Buffer to approximately 50%" - Council MemberLion proposed24%-50%. The community heard 24%, Mayor Wachtel heard 50% and The City Manager heard "approximately 50%." That sounds like "buffer-creep." I urge that the City develop a buffer between 24% and 50% and not a point more. Anything more than 50% will be perceived as "not listening" and not following CC direction. 4. There seem to be differing takes on where the Affordable Housing Committee discussion ended. I understood that the City Council agreed to carefullyframe the proposed committee, its composition and charge, so that the committee not become a platform for county housing advocates to usurp what should be a Mill Valley-centric advisory. group with specific, task-based assignments. I got the impressionthat the City Manager, Planning Director and City Council all agreed that the committee should be more a CC/PC sub-committee and not a "citizen's committee," They seemed to understand the risks and moved to define the committee and its role more carefullywith greater 1 of 2 specificity. I urge the City Council to add clarifying language to "Housing Element Program #37: Housing Advisory Committee"now, not "later this year." In addition, I offer the following comment concerning Mayor Wachtel's statement as reported in the Mill Valley Herald April 22, 2015: "Absolutely nothing gets built without going through our planning process. Nothing gets pre-approved." Not entirely true. For example, we cannot deny a second unit - second units are "pre-approved." They are subject to design review only. State Housing Law has removed second unit discretionary authority from "local control." The point isn't that we have a planning process, but rather that State Housing Law is trending to limit and constrain that planning process at every turn. One only need observe what our "planning process" has produced to recognize how thin the statement can be and how thin assurances from Planning have proven to be - witness Lovell Avenue and 500 Miller Avenue to name two. The community has battled the "planning process" for over a decade to right-size and shape development proposals put In motion by the 2003 Housing Element. The Planning Commission is constantly reminded by Staff of what it shouldn't or can't do, or worse yet that "it doesn't matter." I've attached an excerpt from a Pacific Sun interview with Peter Coyote dated April 23, 2015: "Speaking of time, you've lived in Marin for many years. But now you are moving. Why?" His comments capture public sentiment voiced in the hearing. "It's become so crowed, so much traffic, and so little responsibility has been devoted to the carrying capacity of the area." I applaud the Councils direction to Staff and remind all - "eternal vigilance ." Now it's about follow-through and execution. Burton Miller FAIA 2 of 2 ••• ••• PaclficSun Feature: Looking back and moving on By Steve Heilig Peter Coyote reckons with hrs life as actor, author, activist priest and soon-to-be Marin expatriate Speaking of time, you've lived in Marin for many years. But now you are moving. Why? Yes, I am moving to Sonoma County. I've had it with MillValley. It's become so crowded, so much traffic, and so little responsibility has been devoted to the carrying capacity of the area. We are seriously overpopulated just with respect to water. As far as I'm concerned, every successive group of supervisors and commissioners have been boughtoff by developers. I saw some of that with my own eyes. I first came here in 1965, and loved it, and then moved to Zen Center in the city. I returned in 1983, as my daughterwas getting mugged for her lunch money in the Fillmore. Twenty-five years ago I participated in a series of meetings called Take Back Our Town.' Over 700 peopleshowed up, and we wanted to use water as the basis of determining population, Wanted to cut down traffic. We even ran people for office, but the developers outspent us six to one, and have been building ever since. Now traffic has reached critical mass, IT money is coming in and bidding houses for hundreds of thousands over asking price, all cash. It feels like the town is filling with people who ruined and fled the last place they lived. I walk on the marsh path with a plastic bag picking up organic yogurt cups and Kleenex and all sorts of trash our newly enlightened denizens fling away at will. I've seen people in Whole Foodsyelling at a young motherfor being too slow to move her cart due to trying to corral two children, and so manytimes people honking and screaming at one another in their cars for no reason-IN MILLVALLEY! Weill they're all stressed because it takes so much moneyand so much work to live here. Couple that with the entitlement that dictatesthat we are entitled to the bestof everything and you have a toxic broth in a paradisiacal setting. I have friends here who are not that, but we are like the proverbial frogs in the water that is being heated slowly. Meanwhile I am spending too much time in traffic, and it's maddening. The water issueswill only get worse. I feel I've spent 40 years fighting for this great place, trying to preserve it, and I'm goingto spend what is likely my last Vigorous decade not fighting anymore, perhaps helping others, and leave before I get cooked. Ask Steve what Coyote taught him at [email protected]. Danielle Staude From: Stella Sutherland Dear Danielle, I wish to mention that I oppose any building on the current open land close to 563 East Blithdale near Camino Alto just before the first house on the right coming from the freeway along East Blithdale. I'm guessing at the exact house number. Where there is the sign saying they do not want a multi unit building going up on the open land that slopes up away from East Blithdale, on the north side of the street. I currently live at 231 Elm Ave and drive past there all too often. I love the beauty and nature you see on the hill, deer and birds often are there and I'm sure we would all would hate the extra traffic it cannot but create. I am happy to provide further details and thoughts if you wish, thanks so much, Stella Sutherland 4152184248 1 Kelset!!2P.ers _ From: Susan Conklin Hello, First, thank you for listening to the community members who sent emails and spoke at the meeting on 4120. Agreeing that no new units should be considered for the E. Blithedale corridor is a good and necessary step. I am writing to ask that the new units be capped at a 20-25% margin and no higher. Density is a big issue in Mill Valley and we all know it has to be smart and not just done to satisfy quotas. A 25% cap would still allow developments the flexibility to build proper1y but I cannot understand why there should be more. Please strongly consider a lower cap than 50%, with a max at 25%. I think we all agree we need to remain smart and vigilant about the growth of Mill Valley. Thank you, Susan Conklin 16 Altamont Ave Mill Valley. 1