CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MILL VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER- CASCADE ROOM1
180 CAMINO AL TO, MILL VALLEY
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2022
6:30p.m.
John McCauley, Mayor
Jim Wickham, Vice Mayor
Urban Carmel, Councilmember
Sashi McEntee, Councilmember
Stephen Burke, Councilmember
CALL TO ORDER
Greg Hildebrand, Chair
Alan Linch, Vice Chair
Jon Y olles, Commissioner
Ernest Cirangle, Commissioner
Eric Macris, Commissioner
PUBLIC OPEN TIME: Persons wishing to address the City Council and Planning Commission on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. The Council and Commission cannot discuss or take action during open time, but Councilmembers and Commissioners may briefly respond to statements made or questions proposed by the public, ask for clarification from staff, refer the matter to staff, request staff to report back to the Council and/or Commission at a subsequent meeting, or place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council and Commission may establish a time frame to hear public comment dming this agenda item and continue the remaining public conunents to a later point in the agenda. When addressing the City Council and Planning Commission, please: 1) State your name and address; 2) Address the Mayor; 3) State your views succinctly; 4) Avoid repetition; 5) Limit your conunents to the specified time set by the Mayor.
Please note: The Mayor will allow time for public comment on each numbered agenda item.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA ORDER
NEW BUSINESS
Progress Report and Joint Study Session to Discuss and Provide Direction on the Housing Element Update, with Two Separate Recommended Actions:
1. Joint City Council and Planning Commission approval of the overall approach to the Sites Inventory, including the accompanying land use and housing strategies based on discussion items identified in the supporting staff report; and 1 Please note this meeting will not be held in the City Hall Council Chambers. Webcasting and broadcasting on the City's website and local cable channels will not be available during the meeting. A recording of this meeting will be made available to the public after the meeting has been adjourned.
Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission Agenda, Marclt 22, 2022
2. City Council approval of a Resolution to effectuate a Budget Adjustment and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute a consultant services agreement with EMC Planning to assist city staff with the required environmental review of the Housing Element Update.
ADJOURNMENT - The Council will adjourn to the next Regular City Cotu1cil meeting which will be held on Monday, April 4, 2022 and the Planning Commission will adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting which will be held on Tuesday, April 12, 2022.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council and Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at City Hall, 26 Corte Madera Ave during regular business hours. Such documents are also available on the City's website at www.cityofmillvalley.org subject to staffs ability to post documents prior to the meeting.
The City of Mill Valley does not discriminate against any individual with a disability. Upon request, City publications will be made available in the appropriate format to persons with a disability. If you require assistance or auxilia,y aids in order to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 388-4033 (!TY 711) at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. 2 STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
FROM: Danielle Staude, Senior Planner
VIA: Patrick Kelly, Director of Planning and Building
SUBJECT Progress Report and Joint Study Session to Discuss and Provide Direction on the Housing Element Update.
DATE: March 22, 2022
1 Issue: Joint study session to discuss and provide direction to staff on the overall approach to the 2 draft Sites Inventory, including the accompanying land use and housing strategies required to 3 satisfy the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements as part of 4 the Housing Element Update process.
5 6 Recommendation: Receive staff repmt and presentation on land use and housing strategies as 7 part of the housing sites analysis, including the community input and feedback staff already has 8 received through public outreach efforts. Staff is recommending the following two separate 9 actions:
10 11 1) Joint City Council and Planning Commission approval of the overall approach to the 12 Draft Sites Inventory, including the accompanying land use and housing strategies, or 13 direction with respect to housing strategies.
14 15 2) City Council approval of a Resolution (ATTACHMENT 1) to effectuate a Budget 16 Adjustment and authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute a consultant services 17 agreement with EMC Planning Group to Assist City Staff with the Required 18 Environmental Review of the Housing Element Update.
19 1
ITEM 1 & 2
Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
20 Summary: The Housing Element, which is one of the seven legally required chapters, or 21 ••elements/' of the City's General Plan, was adopted by City Council in May 2015 and is a policy 22 guidance tool containing community-based housing programs aimed at addressing the City's two 23 overarching General Plan goals: 1) to protect and enhance the natural beauty and small-town 24 character of the City, and 2) to encourage the continued diversity of housing, income levels, and 25 lifestyles within the community.
26 27 The Housing Element is updated by the City and reviewed by the State's Department of Housing 28 and Community Development (HCD) on a regular basis. Currently, staff is working to update the 29 Housing Element as part of the 6th Housing Element cycle for the 8-year period of 2023 - 203 l. 30 As noted previously, there are strict deadlines and severe penalties for those jurisdictions that do 31 not comply with State Housing Element law. 1 Staff is working to meet the State-mandated 32 deadlines and requirements, which include a 30-day public comment period, followed by at least 33 10 days for the City to incorporate public comments, then a 60-day review period by HCD for 34 the Draft Housing Element by HCD, with the adoption of the Housing Element effective by 35 January 31, 2023 (there is a 120-day grace period, if needed). To meet various state 36 requirements, staff anticipates that a Draft Housing Element will be prepared by June-July 2022. 37 38 Background - RHNA, Sites Analysis, and Sites Inventory: The Mill Valley Housing Element 39 Update aims to meet State mandates, achieve HCD ce1tification, and reflect the values and 40 desires of the community. An effective Housing Element provides the necessary conditions and 41 various policy tools for preserving and producing an adequate supply of housing affordable to 42 people at various income levels. Housing trends, demographics, zoning, and market constraints 43 are used to build an understanding of housing profiles in a community, which then help to 44 evaluate various approaches to meeting housing needs across income levels. Local governments 45 must involve the public from all economic segments of the community in developing the 46 Housing Element, using non-traditional outreach techniques if required to ensure that residents at 47 all income levels are contacted for participation.
48 49 An important component of the Housing Element is the identification of sites for future housing 50 development, and an evaluation of the adequacy of these sites in fulfilling the City's RHNA. 51 This Housing Element Update cycle includes new State regulations that restricts those sites that 52 can be used in a Sites Inventory and imposes changes to land use and rezoning for those 53 jurisdictions that cannot accommodate their RHNA.
1 https://www.cityofmillvalley.org/DocumentCentedView/2473/Conseguences-of-Non-Compliance-with-HousingLaws?bidid= 2 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
54 As part of the Housing Element Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA} 55 Update, the City is required to identify
56 available land within City limits that is
57 sufficiently zoned to accommodate its
58 share of new housing units. For the
59 2023-2031 Planning Period, the City of
60 Mill Valley has been allocated 865
61 new housing units.2 HCD also Very Low (<SO% AMI)
62 recommends that jurisdictions identify Low Income (S0-80% AMI) 413 $64K ~91K
$102K $146K
63 enough residential capacity within Moderate Income 126 $125K $179K 64 their boundaries that is above and (80-120% AMI)
65 beyond the required housing numbers
66 identified in lower-income categories, Above Moderate Income 67 to help offset sites that may ( or may (> 120% AMI)
326 Over $125K Over$180K
68 not) be developed during the planning TOTAL RHNA 865 69 period. Based on HCD guidance and
70 review of other Housing Elements, a + 15% "buffer'' for low 945 71 "buffer" or margin of safety of at least and moderate (80 units) 72 l5% above the City's RHNA
73 allocation for the lower and moderate-income categories is recommended to ensure future 74 compliance with "No Net Loss" requirements.3
75 76 Per HCD guidelines, the following may be used to
77 estimate the anticipated munber of new units
78 expected to be constructed during the 8-year RHNA
79 cycle as part of the Sites Inventory:
80 81 a) Pending Units: Total units from projects with
82 planning entitlements (final occupancy expected
83 after July 1, 2022), currently estimated at 54
84 units;
85 86 b) Projected ADUs: New accessory dwelling units
87 projected during the 8-year planning cycle, based
88 on the City's past trend of issuing building
89 permits for 16 new ADUs per year, resulting in
90 128 new units at a range of income levels; and SITES INVENTORY 91 2 The City of Mill Valley did file an appeal with the Association of Bay Area Govenunents ("ABAG") to challenge both the overall methodology used to establish the regional housing numbers and the actual number of W1its allocated to the City, as allowed under state Jaw. Both appeals were denied. 3 No Net Loss requires cities to demonstrate that capacity is available for affordable llllits throughout the 8-year planning period, including when a proposed development on a specific site results in fewer units than were assumed to be possible on that site in the Housing Element Sites Inventory (Government Code Section 65863, "No Net Loss" requirements).
3 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
92 c) Anticipated/Potential Sites based on Capacity Analysis: Potential sites identified as 93 "underutilized" or having additional "capacity" to incorporate new housing on the site. It is 94 important to note that the capacity analysis is a planning exercise and does not mandate the 95 elimination of existing use(s) or building(s) on a property. Instead, this analysis demonstrates 96 that the City's zoning and land use as applied to specific sites is adequate to accommodate 97 possible units on specific sites. This "capacity analysis" is a strategy that looks at the 98 community as it is today, applies the existing development rules, and calculates the resu)tant 99 number of housing units that could reasonably and realistically be provided. The adequacy of 100 each site - and the site's appropriateness for inclusion in the Sites Inventory - is based on 101 many criteria, such as the existing use on the property and general site characteristics. Those 102 sites that appear to be appropriate for redevelopment are then further evaluated to determine 103 the build-out potential and likelihood of development. 104
l 05 City staff and its consultant have determined that the City will not be able to identify an adequate 106 number of sites to meet its RHNA allocation at all income levels, based on a review of the City's 107 parcels, local topography, envirorunental constraints such as the FEMA floodway, under the 108 City's existing land use, zoning, and development standards. The City will therefore be required 109 to make further changes to its land use, density, and development standards to meet its RHNA. 110 Those sites that are subject to rezoning and identified as necessary to meet the City's lower111 income RHNA allocation will be subject to a by-right approval process without discretionary I 12 review4 if the proposed project meets certain standards, including a requirement that the project 113 reserve 20 percent of the units for, and offered at an affordable rent to, lower-income households 114 (80% or less than the average median household income). 115
116 Public input on various land use and housing strategies that could be used to help the City meet 117 its RHNA requirements was collected at the last online workshop on February 16, 2022 118 (approximately 100 participants in attendance) and as part of an online survey (with over 1,045 119 responses), which are summarized in ATTACHMENTS 2 and 3. 120
121 Discussion: This report focuses on the overall approach to the draft Sites Inventory identified by 122 City staff based on: 1) an extensive review of all 5,709 parcels within the City, including the 123 evaluation of site characteristics, location, and allowable development based on existing land use 124 and zoning standards; 2) input received from the community about possible land use and housing 125 strategies; and 3) requirements under State Law or to satisfy RHNA. 126
127 Sites have been grouped and categorized as follows, and are discussed further below:
128 A. Publicly Owned Sites (City-Owned, Religious and Educational Sites) 129 B. Underutilized sites less than Y:i acre5
4 By-right approval means that the project will be approved if it meets an established set of objective standards and guidelines. No discretionary review, public hearings. or environmental analysis will be conducted for a proposed project that is subject to the by-right approval process. 5 State law provides that to use sites smaller than half an acre to accommodate the City's lower income RHNA, the City must be able to show either that "sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower income housing units as projected for the site" or that other evidence supports the claim that "the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing." 4 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
130 C. Underutilized sites over 'h acre
13 l D. Office Conversions
132 E. Vacant Single-Family Zoned Sites
133 F. Sites Qualifying under SB 9
134
135 See ATTACHMEMT 7 for a draft map illustrating the proposed Sites Inventory. 136
137 A. Publicly Owned Sites (40 units)
138 Public owned sites include those tax-exempt properties owned by public entities, including the 139 City of Mill Valley, County of Marin, Public Schools, Religious Institutions and various utility 140 companies. In 2020, City staff worked with the Housing Advisory Committee and the City's 141 housing consultant to evaluate 150 publicly owned sites located in the City of Mill Valley. See 142 ATTACHMENT 4 for a list of publicly owned sites and the Housing Advisory Committee 143 website6 for further details about the review and discussion of sites. 144
145 City-Owned Sites. The City itself owns approximately 70 sites-17 residentially zoned sites; 47 146 sites zoned as open area, and 7 commercially zoned sites. On June 21, 2021 City Council 147 reviewed and accepted the Housing Advisory Committee's recommendations to select the 148 northern portion of the 1 Hamilton city-owned parcel and issue a Request for Qualifications to 149 solicit interest and partner with a non-profit home builder. This portion of land has been deemed 150 "exempt surplus land" for the sole purpose of building affordable homes on the property and the 151 City has an exclusive negotiating agreement with EAH Housing. 152
153 Other City-owned sites that are of interest but are not currently on the Sites Inventory include the 154 parking lot at Miller A venue and Edgewood Reservoir. These sites cannot be added to the list 155 due to environmental constraints (Miller A venue in the Floodway and Edgewood Reservoir 156 contains an open space easement operated by Marin Municipal Water District on the property). 157 However, both parcels are identified as longer-term parcels for further consideration based on 158 additional staff work. Staff has not proposed rezoning parks and active open space such as the 159 tennis courts and golf course based on the City's interest in maintaining active recreation on such 160 sites. Those city-owned sites that are zoned residential and commercial are also not on the Sites 161 Inventory due to these parcels being in the right of way or on a highly sloped and forested piece 162 of property in the high fire severity zones.
163
164 Other Publicly Owned Sites. There are approximately 20 parcels with religious and public 165 education institutions on site. All public schools are zoned "Commercial Facility (CF)" and 166 some religious institutions in Mm Valley are zoned "Open Area (OA)." 167
168 TABLE 2: School and Religious Institutions Zoned OA and CF Use/ Facility Address Zoning
Our Lady Mt. Carmel 3 West Bithedale Single Family Residential Greenwood school and parking lot 17 Buena Vista OA
Community Church of Mill Valley 8 Olive St OA
6 www.ciLyofmjJlvaJley.org/housing
5 169
Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
Parish of Church or Savior 10 Old Mill
Edna Maguire Elementary School 70 Lomita
Mill Valley Middle School 411 Sycamore
Old Mill Elementary School 352 Throckmorton
Park Elementary School 360 E Blithedale
Tam High School 700 Miller
OA
CF
CF
CF
CF
CF
170 The OA and CF Zoning Districts do not permit residential use on the property. As part of the 171 online survey and workshop, staff asked the public if the Housing Element should include a 172 program that would allow the rezoning of school and religious institutions to allow housing to be 173 co-located on the property. There were mixed results and interest for rezoning from the public. 174 At the public workshop) those who favored the idea of allowing residential use on religious and 175 school sites saw it as an opportunity to make changes and room for housing. Concerns expressed 176 on this housing strategy specifically led to discussion of shifting the zoning or allowed 1 77 residential use for only some properties. Online survey responses were also mixed when asked if 178 those religious institutions and educational facilities zoned OA and CF should be rezoned to l 79 allow residential along with the existing use. Half of the survey responses indicated "no" with 180 another 25% "unsure" and 24% answering "yes".
181
182 Mt. Tam Methodist Church and First Church of Christ sites have generated the most discussion 183 and interest by the community members and the Housing Advisory Committee as has the AT&T 184 building at 300 East Blithedale. The draft Sites Inventory currently does not account for these 185 sites based on property owner responses to date ( either lack of response or tentative interest I 86 requiring additional input from ownership boards). These sites, however, are appropriate to 187 consider for the longer-tenn housing programs that staff is assembling for the Housing Element, 188 see discussion below.
189
190 Staff Recommendations/Discussion Items:
191 A. l. The Sites Inventory assumes approximately 40 units (20 very low and 20 low income) for 192 the northern portion of the city-owned property at 1 Hamilton Drive based on work and 193 Council direction to date.
194
195 A.2. Include a housing program to further evaluate housing opportunities on public owned 196 properties, including: a) further collaboration with educational facilities and religious 197 institutions to facilitate housing opportunities; b) further investigation of city-owned 198 parcels, particularly the Miller A venue and Edgewood sites, to remove existing barriers to 199 development (e.g. floodway designation and open space easement); and c) use of the 200 City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund to assist with feasibility studies to determine 201 redevelopment potential.
202
203 A.3. Establish a Housing Overlay Zoning District. Consider a housing program to allow a 204 "Housing Overlay Zoning District" for tax exempt public institutions. Establishment of an 205 overlay aclmowledges the City's interest and willingness to work with these public 206 facilities to build housing on their parcels in association with their primary use. 207
6 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
208 A Housing Overlay Zoning District must l) demonstrate that there is no additional 209 discretionary action needed above what is the base zone; 2) development standards are 210 consistent with those needed for the density allowed under the overlay to ensure that the 211 maximum densities can be achieved; and 3) the property owner may also access the State 212 Density Bonus law as part of the proposed project.
213
214 A.4. Rezone 300 East Blithedale from the existing Single-Family zoning designation to Multi215 Family ("RM-Passage'\ similar to the adjacent property at 10 Catalpa) to ensure that the 216 building can be converted into multiple units as opposed to one large single-family home. 217
218 B. "Underutilized Sites": Commercial and Multi-Family Zoned Sites Under Yt Acre 219 (up to 169 units with revised standards)
220 There are a significant number and proportion of multi-family and commercial parcels under Yi 221 acre. Of the 430 multi-family and commercially zoned properties in Mill Valley, 85% (365) are 222 less than Y2 acre, with the majority being less than 6,000 square foot parcels. 223
224 Based on State law and HCD guidance,
225 lots that are smaller than 0.5 acres may
226 not be considered to accommodate the
227 City's lower-income RHNA unless there
228 is substantial evidence that the sites are
229 viable. For purposes of this analysis,
230 staff has taken a conservative approach
231 and not utilized these sites as part of the
232 low- or very low-income RHNA
233 categories.
234
235 As part of the public outreach, staff asked the community to provide input on allowing additional 236 units on smaller sites of 6,000 sf or less to facilitate "missing middle" housing types, such as tri237 plexes, four-plexes and six-plexes in commercial and multi-family zones. Mill Valley has quite 238 a few examples of these housing types in downtown and along the Miller Avenue corridor, as 239 illustrated to the right. Feedback and interest in allowing more units on small sites were mixed, 240 with the largest concern related to parking. See ATT ACHlVlENTS 2 & 3 for details. 241 Meanwhile, staff has received interest from several property owners interested in providing 242 housing opportunities with many owners citing the need to modify development standards, 243 particularly parking, to facilitate the additional units on the property, see ATTACHMENT 5. 244
245 Staff Recommendations/Discussion Items:
246 B. l. Approve the draft list of sites less than Yi acre. Should the number of sites listed above be 247 reduced, the overall land use and housing strategies will need to be reevaluated. 248
249 B.2. Include a housing program indicating that "non-vacant sites" must replace units affordable 250 to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on non-vacant site. 251 This program will help address concerns about tear down/rebuild scenarios that reduce 7 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
252 affordability of housing stock and also will allow existing non-conforming buildings that 253 exceed current density standards to maintain the existing number of units on site. 254
255 8.3. Consider a "Small Lot Housing Overlay" that would increase density in commercially 256 zoned areas from 29 units an acre to approximately 40 units an acre for those sites 257 identified on the Sites Inventory list (see Table 3 below). Application of the small lot 258 housing overlay would facilitate up to a tri-plex on parcels 3,000 sf or less and up to a six259 plex on properties 6,000 square feet or less and up to13 units for the larger sites identified 260 in Table 3 below. Should Plarming Commission and City Council support the concept of a 261 small lot overlay zone that increases density standards to 40 units an acre and reduced 262 parking standards. an additional 50 units could be captured and reported as part of the 263 RHNA Sites Inventory.
264
265 As part of the overlay zone staff would like Planning Commission and City Council 266 feedback on:
267
268 • Waiving inclusionary requirements for certain types of small lot projects. Currently 269 development projects with 4 or more units must build 25% of new housing at low 270 and moderate income. Waiving the inclusionary requirements may provide an 271 incentive to build certain types of units (such as four and six-plex units) while also 272 adding new "attainable" units to the City's housing stock For instance, the overlay 273 zone could indicate that the inclusionary housing requirement of 25% low and 274 moderate units be waived for all rental projects or for project that propose units that 275 are 1,000 square feet or less assuming that these smaller-scale 1,000 square foot units 276 facilitate more "attainable" housing for the community. 277
278 • Modifying multi-family parking standards. Existing commercial and multi-family 279 parking standards generally require 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 1/4 of a 280 parking space for guest parking when on-street parking is not available along the 281 immediate frontage. Parking requirements for a multi-family efficiency unit ( 450 SF 282 or less) shall require 1 parking space. In developments of more than 4 units, guest 283 parking must be provided on the site (unless the lot width is 25 feet or less). For 284 mixed use projects, shared parking is allowed but there is not an established ratio. 285
286 Staff recommends Plarming Commission and City Council discuss and consider 287 revised parking standards and direct staff to identify amendments to parking 288 standards. A reduced parking standard could be included as part of the "small lot 289 housing overlay" to facilitate additional units on site, or more generally as part of the 290 City's Multi-Family development standards.
291
292 Currently, state Density Bonus law allows V:z parking space per unit for those parcels 293 within V:z mile of public transit. However, Density Bonus only applies to projects 294 with five or more units. Meanwhile, Single-Family residential properties within a '12 295 mile of transit are permitted under state law to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit 296 without parking. As a result, smaller sized sites appropriate for "missing middle" 8 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
297 multi-family housing types such as four-plexes are burdened with larger parking 298 standards.
299
300 Staff acknowledges that there is community concern about parking and therefore 301 recommends balancing the parking standards based on size of units. This approach 302 may help to encourage and promote the development of smaller scale. "attainable" 303 units. Planning Commission and City Council may wish to consider applying the 304 above-referenced Density Bonus standard of Yi parking space per unit for multi305 family properties within a Yi mile of transit, or consider one parking space per unit 306 for units that are 1,000 Sf or less (recommended by local architects, planners and 307 developers in 2021 as part of the Objective Design and Development Standards 308 Stakeholder Group).
309
310 Table 3 identifies the proposed sites under Yi acre assuming the existing uses are maintained, 31 l with new housing added to the site in parking lot area or adding additional stories on the 312 building. The table identifies the number of "anticipated units" that could be built on each site 313 based on: 1) the existing density and development standards. and 2) the J!roposed increased 314 density (40 units/acre) and modified development standards, pa1ticularly parking and height 315 standards that would allow for additional units.
316
31 7 Table 3: Draft Sites Less than Yi acre
Address Existing Use Anticipated Units
Existing Revised
Standards Standards
lOWillow Office Building 7 9
124-130 Throckmorton Citibank 6 8
15 Locust Latitude 38 2 3
15 Montford Happy Feet Dance Studio 4 6
19 Sunnyside Bank of Marin 4 6
340 Miller Chevron Gas Station 3 4
35 Corte Madera Office Building 4 6
270 Miller Guidepost Montessori 5 5
225 Miller Architectural Offices 7 7
310 Miller Hair &Joy 7 10
338 Miller Tamalpais Paint & Color 3 5
374 Miller Jiffy Lube (for sale) 6 8
380-384 Miller/ 9 Montford 2AM, Joe's Taco Lounge, car repair (for sale) 7 13 390 Miller Buddhist Temple 3 4
433 Miller Upper Cervical 8 11
438 Miller Red Dragon Yoga 4 5
458 Miller Gas Station and adjacent lot 8 11
465 Miller Cafe of Life Chiropractic Center 1 3
493 Miller Grilly's/ Malugani tire 8 11
524 Miller Symmetry of Movement 2 3
530 Miller PH Studio 5 8
9 318
Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
l\'larch 22, 2022
Address Existing Use
546 Miller Pet Clinic
554 Miller Learning Center
600 Miller Tam Sport and Spine
64 East Blithedale West America Bank
71 Throckmorton US Bank
60 Throckmorton Bank of America {for sale)
10 Locust Parking Lot
19 Madrona Private parking lot
21 locust Parking lot adjacent to office building
Subtotat
Anticipated Units
Existing Revised
Standards Standards
6 9
4 5
5 7
8 11
2 2
2 3
2 2
3 4
2 2
140 195
319 C. "Opportunity Sites": Underutilized Commercial Sites Yi Acre or More (356 units with 320 revised standards)
321 Sites over Yi acre can be identified and used to accommodate the lower-income category of units. 322 The city must identify sites in this category to satisfy its lower income RHNA and cannot solely 323 rely on its robust Accessory Dwelling Unit program. These sites are referred to as "opportunity 324 sites" and are provided in detail in Table 4 below. 325
326 Of the 50 commercial and multi-family residential sites that are over Yi acre, there are a limited 327 number of parcels in Mill Valley that qualify for the Sites Inventory. Because more than half of 328 the required lower income sites are proposed on non-vacant land, the existing uses are presumed 329 to impede residential development unless there is substantial evidence that a site is likely to 330 develop for housing in the next eight years. Property owner interest in transitioning the site to a 331 residential or mixed-use development is one example of such substantial evidence As a result, 332 the larger commercial sites that contain CVS, Safeway, Rite Aide, 7/11 and Whole Foods have 333 been removed from the list of opportunity sites because they have long-term leases, which makes 334 it difficult for the City to illustrate that these sites realistically would redevelop within the next 8 335 years, as required by State law.
336
337 Most of these sites, if not all, are not vacant and will require "adaptive reuse" of the property by 338 adding a structure to the property, mainly associated with the parking lot area. In some 339 instances, adjacent parcels tmder the same ownership will be allowed to consolidate lots in order 340 to redevelop efficiently at Y2 acre.
341
342 Table 4 below identifies the proposed "opportunity sites," assuming the ex1stmg uses are 343 maintained, and parking lot areas will be used to build new housing. Table 4 identifies the 344 number of "anticipated units" that could be built on each site based on: 1) the existing density 345 and development standards, and 2) the proposed increased density (40 units/acre) and modified 346 development standards, particularly parking and height standards that allow for additional units. 347
10 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
348 Table 4: Draft Sites Y.t Acre or More
Address Existing Use
430 Miller Super Duper Burger
765-775 Redwood Hwy Goodman's Lumber {combined lots)
61 Camino Alto Behind Starbucks building, adjacent to
Safeway
45 Camino Alto Starbucks building, adjacent to Safeway
250 Camino Alto Office Center/Building
653 E Blithedale Urban Farmer Store/Sloat
16 La Goma Jolly King/Shapiro (combined lots)
401 Miller Eggar Plaza/Sloat (combined lots)
707 Redwood Hwy Travelodge
392-398-400 Miller and Private Parking Lot across from Whole 10 Evergreen Foods (combined lots)
107 Miller Adjacent to the Lumber Yard. Zoned
multi-family with 1 existing unit on site
42 Miller Law Offices
363 Miller/55 La Goma Tea Fountain/Office Building {combined lots)
413 Miller Trio Salon/Swirl
510 Miller KFC/Taco Bell
38 Miller Mill Creek Plaza
Subtotal
349
Anticipated Units
Existing Revised
Standards Standards
11 15
40 53
16 22
14 20
17 23
18 25
22 29
16 24
21 29
11 15
10 15
11 16
10 13
11 16
13 18
17 23
258 356
350 Staff provided an opportunity for the public to discuss various sites and locations for 351 consideration as part of the online survey and workshop. The 101/Redwood Highway Frontage 352 Road and Miller Avenue "Gateway'' areas were ranked the highest for housing opportunities. A 353 number of sites were mentioned in the survey, many of which are included in the Tables above. 354 The largest concern mentioned by survey and workshop respondents related to potential 355 increases in traffic and parking impacts that could come with increased density and new housing. 356 See ATTACHMENTS 2 & 3 for details.
357
358 Staff Recommendations/Discussion Items:
359 C. l. Approve the draft list of sites Yi acre or more. Should the number of sites listed above be 360 reduced, the overall land use and housing strategies will need to be reevaluated. 361
362 C.2. (Same as B. l .) include a housing program indicating that "non-vacant sites" with existing 363 housing developments must replace any demolished units that are affordable to the same 364 or lower income level as a condition of any development on non-vacant site. 365
366 C.3. Include a housing program to encourage properties under the same ownership identified in 367 the Sites Inventory to consolidate and rezone to commercial/mix-use or multi-family 368 based on adjacent land use to facilitate efficient redevelopment of the site. 11 Joint City Council/ Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
369 C.4. Include required rezoning program for streamlined approval. Because the City does not 370 have adequate vacant sites and therefore must rely on non-vacant sites to accommodate its 37 t lower income RHNA, State law requires that the City establish a process by which 372 projects proposed on those sites that designate 20% of the units as affordable to lower 373 income households are subject to by-right approvals without discretionary review.7 The 374 rezone must include a minimum density of 20 dwelling units/acre, a maximum density of 375 at least 30 units/acre, and be large enough to accommodate at least 16 units per site. 376 Rezoning must occur within 3 years of adoption of the Housing Element (January 2026) if 377 the City meets the state Housing Element adoption deadline (January 2023). If the City 378 fails to meet that deadline, rezoning will have to occur by January 31, 2024. 379
380 C.5. Include required rezoning program for all residential projects in commercial areas. 381 Because the City must rely on commercial and mixed use sites to accommodate over 50% 382 of its very low- and low-income RHNA, the City will be required to rezone those 383 commercial and mixed use sites that are identified in the Sites Inventory to allow fully 384 residential projects and require that for any mixed-use projects proposed on those sites that 385 50% of the floor area must be occupied for residential uses. Rezoning must occur within 3 386 years of adoption of the Housing Element (January 2026). 387
388 Some jurisdictions are applying an "affordable housing overlay" to address larger "opportunity 389 sites" and state rezoning requirements. A new affordable housing overlay zone should include 390 the following items and must be adopted within 3 years from adoption (January 2026)8:
391
392 • Requirements of at least 20% units deed restricted as low income units. 393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
• Available only to those sites Vi acre or more (not required but staff recommends). • Allow fully residential projects (commercial use not required as part of the project). • Reduced parking standards to facilitate additional units on site. Currently, state Density Bonus law allows Vi parking space per unit for those parcels within Y2 mile of public transit. Staff acknowledges that there is community concern about parking and therefore recommends balancing the parking standards based on size of units that can help encourage and promote smaller, "attainable" units while also scaling back parking to one parking space per unit that is 1,000 SF or less. • Revised development standards, particularly height and floor area to ensure the maximum allowable densities can be achieved.
7 Ibid, see above. 8 As noted above, the deadline would be January 31, 2024 if the City fails to meet the state housing element adoption deadline.
12 Joint City Council/ Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
410 D. Office Conversion (up to 60 units with new standards) 411 In order to fully accommodate RHNA and the buffer required, staff is investigating other 412 "adaptive reuse' strategies that go beyond the City's existing zoning standards. There was 413 overwhelming support as part of the online survey to incorporate this strategy as pait of the 414 Housing Element. While many individuals supported the concept of converting commercial 415 office space to residential use, there was some concerns expressed about parking during the 416 public workshop.
417
418 Table S: Draft Sites - Upper Floor Office Conversion Address Existing Use Anticipated Units
Assumes 1 Unit/1,000 SF of
Upper Commercial Space
103 E BLITHEDALE AVE Office Building parking on lower floor 5 125 CAMINO ALTO Camino Alto Vet Hospital 8
141 CAMINO ALTO Office Building 3
163 MILLER AVE Office in MFR Zone 4
20 SUNNYSIDE AVE Office Building 4
225 MILLER AVE Office in MFR Zone 3
238 E BLITHEDALE AVE Pharrnaca 10
24 SUNNYSIDE AVE Prabh Indian Restaurant 4
30 SUNNYSIDE AVE Lower Office Space in SFR Building 4
55 SUNNYSIDE AVE Old Post Office 3
650 E BLITHEDALE AVE Dentist/yoga studio 7
78 E BLITHEDALE AVE Sotheby's Realty 3
8 E BLITHEDALE AVE Phyllis' Burgers 7
Subtotal 60
419
420 Staff Recommendations/Discussion Items:
421 D. l. Approve draft list of sites for office conversions. 422
423 D.2. Include a housing program to pennit the conversion of upper floor commercial office 424 space to residential uses. Staff recommends allowing upper floor commercial/office space 425 to be converted to residential units l ,000 sf or less. This housing program should include 426 revised parking standards for office conversions. City Council and Planning Commission 427 may wish to consider one parking space per unit (similar to C.2.); shared parking allowed 428 between commercial and residential space; or waiving parking standards to grandfather 429 existing parking on site to streamline the conversion of space to residential. 430
431 E. Vacant Sites in Single-Family Zoning Districts (160 units) 432 Most vacant sites in Mill Valley are zoned Single Family; of which 80 are included in the Draft 433 Site Inventory with the anticipated 2 units per parcel counting toward the above-moderate 434 income category, under the HCD sites inventory guidance. These vacant lots have also been 435 assessed to detennine the potential of a lot split under the new SB9 law. Although cities are still 436 awaiting guidance from HCD on this matter, staff and the City's consultants have detennined 13 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
1\'larch 22, 2022
437 that eight of the lots potentially qualify for a lot split under the State law requirements. Those 438 sites have been counted under the "SB 9 section" below. 439
440 Staff Recommendations/Discussion Items:
441 E.l. Utilize those vacant sites in the Single-Family Zoning District listed in the Draft Sites 442 Inventory to support the above-moderate income RHNA category. 443
444 F. Anticipated New Units Allowed under Senate Bill 9 (up to 40 units) 445 On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 9, which requires cities and 446 counties in urbanized areas to ministerially approve up to two residential units ( either contained 447 in one structure typically known as a "Duplex" or in separate structures) and "urban lot splits" 448 for parcels located in single family residential zones. The following methodologies have been 449 established based on feedback received from Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 450 HCD's requirement of "trend" data, and consultant assistance. 451
452 Vacant Single-Family Zoned Parcels qualifying for "urban lot splits" (19 parcels evaluated, 10 453 parcels qualify, 40 units assumed)
454 State law now allows "urban lot splits" for single-family zoned parcels, which basically allows 455 qualifying lots to split into two parcels and allow up to four units total on the original lot. Staff 456 has determined that eight parcels qualify based on the State law criteria for a lot split. 457 o Zoned Single Family Residential
458 o Use Code is Vacant
459 o Gross Land Sq Ft is greater than 2400 (p~r state law) 460 o Not on the Historic Property List from City's Website (per state law) 461 o Not in a High Fire Hazard Zone (per state law)
462 o Average Slope is less than 40%(based on pending draft ordinance that prohibits 463 building on land 40% slope or more and community feedback to avoid new 464 development in environmentally constrained areas/conditions) 465
466 Single-Family Zoned Parcels with qualifying to add units under SB9 0 27 Parcels, 0 units 467 assumed)
468 State law now allows up to two units on qualifying single-family zoned parcels. Per the new 469 development standards established in the City's Municipal Code two-unit projects require one 470 parking space per unit and must meet the City's Floor Area and Lot Coverage development 471 standards.
472
4 73 Staff has detennined that there are 127 qualifying parcels for development of a duplex on the 474 single-family zoned property outside of the Very High Fire Severity Zone that are less than 40% 475 slope with one unit on the property. The resulting 127 parcels are mainly in RS-6 Zoning 476 Districts (lots 6.000SF or less). Existing homes on these smaller 6,000SF properties are in the 4 77 middle of the lot and therefore make it impossible to split the lot into two. The other option for 4 78 these properties would be adding a unit under SB9. However, based on a lack of trends and 479 regulations that require Floor Area to be counted towards the total Allowable Floor Area on a 480 parcel, staff assumes that these parcels will take advantage of the Accessory Dwelling Unit 481 regulations that exempt Floor Area, Lot Coverage and Parking as opposed to the more restrictive 14 Joint City Council/ Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
482 2-unit regulations under the Municipal Code. For that reason, no llllits have been assumed in this 483 category.
484
485 Staff Recommendations/Discussion Items:
486 F.1. Approve approach for SB 9, with the understanding that modifications may be made to 487 increase the number of qualifying sites based on pending guidance from HCD. 488
489 Summary of Results:
490 Based on the above-referenced housing and land use strategies, staff believes that the City can 491 successfully demonstrate that it can accommodate its Total RHNA (including the required buffer 492 of additional sites). City Council and Planning Commission should be prepared to discuss the 493 various strategies discussed and provide input and guidance on the overall approach for the Draft 494 Sites fnventory and accompanying housing programs identified by staff. There are additional 495 units identified that go beyond the total 929 units staff is projecting. This allows staff flexibility 496 to adjust the sites based on owner input or that of the community. Identifying lUlits above the 497 City's RHNA will also allow more flexibility in the review of projects, given '"no net loss" 498 requirements.
499
TABLE 6: Draft Sites Inventory and Summary of RHNA to Total New Units Projected Very Low Moderate Above Mod
Income Levels
and Low (81-120% {>120% Total
(30-80%
AMI) AMI) AMI)
RHNA 413 126 326 865
+15% "Buffer" (low and moderate) +51 +13 +64
(A) Total RHNA + Buffer 464 139 326 929
Projects with Permits/ Entitlements 5 9 40 54
Projected ADUs 95 28 5 128
Vacant Single-Family Zoned Sites 0 0 160 160
Projected SB 9 Lot Splits 0 40 0 40
City-Owned Site (1 Hamilton) 20 20 0 40
Underutilized Sites: Commercial and Multi- 0 91 49 140
Family Zoned Sites Under Yz acre
Opportunity Sites: Commercial Zoned Sites 258 0 0 258
over Yi acre
(B) Total Anticipated Units under Existing 378 188 254 820 Zoning and Development Stds
(C) Remaining Need/ Unaccommodated -86 49 -72 -109
RHNA(B-A)
Increased Density and Modified Standards for +98 +63 -8 +153 Underutilized Commercial/Multi-Family Zoned
Sites Listed on Sites Inventory
Standards to Facilitate Office Conversion 0 +65 +O +65
(O) Total Additional Units Based On Rezoning +98 +1.28 -8 +218 Total Projected Units (B+D) 476 316 246 1,038
15 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
500 Summary of Staff Recommendations:
501 Staff recommends City Council and Planning Commission discuss and provide direction on:
502 1. Overall approach to the Draft Sites Inventory;
503 2. Proposed Land Use and Housing Strategies to support the Sites Inventory discussed in 504 "staff recommendations" in the various sections above. 505
506 After providing guidance on the above-referenced items, staff requests City Council take action 507 to authorize the City Manager to execute a budget adjustment to allow City Staff to hire EMC 508 Planning Group to assist staff with the require environmental review for the Housing Element 509 Update.
510
511 Environmental Review: Once City Council and Planning Commission approve the Sites 512 Inventory; staff will be able to establish a project description that can be evaluated under the 513 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental review process will run 514 concurrently with the review and approval process for the Housing Element Update. 515
5 l 6 Staff has identified the need for planning and environmental consulting services for the Housing 517 Element Update to support staff in assembling a Housing Element for Planning Commission 518 review and City Council adoption in a timely manner. In December 2021, staff sent a Request 519 for Qualifications to obtain Statement of Qualifications from qualified firms to provide 520 environmental consulting services for housing related programs. On January 28, 2022, the City 521 received 3 proposals from environmental consulting firms which were evaluated by a review 522 panel. EMC Planning Group has the necessary expertise in the requested service and were 523 determined to be best qualified to meet the needs for environmental services and related 524 programs for the Housing Element Update. EMC Planning Group is uniquely qualified to 525 prepare specialized environmental studies and documentation for the Housing Element Update as 526 required by the California Environmental Quality Act and to assist staff in drafting the housing 527 element update. This consulting firm is also assisting other Marin jurisdictions on their Housing 528 Element Updates.
529
530 The EMC Planning Group's proposal is m an amount not to exceed $151,300. It will be 531 necessary to amend the City budget to accomplish the proposed scope of services; thus staff has 532 requested Council's authorization of a budget adjustment to allow City staff to budget and 533 execute a contract with EMC Planning Group.
534
535 Fiscal Impact: Total budget allocated to the Housing Element Update, including the pending 536 budget adjustment for EMC Planning Group for environmental services is $250,000 ( of which 537 $65,000 is eligible for reimbursement based on State grant funds awarded to the City). Funding 538 for the Housing Element Update is covered by the General Plan Maintenance Fee and will not 539 impact the General Fund. The City charges a l % fee on building permits on projects having a 540 valuation of $10,000 and greater. This fee is placed in the General Plan Maintenance Fund to 541 cover General Plan Amendments / Updates and related costs. 542
543 Next Steps: Approval of the overall approach to the Sites Inventory and land use strategies will 544 allow City staff to initiate the required environmental review for the Housing Element Update. 16 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
545 The draft Sites Inventory must also satisfy requirements under Affirmatively Further Fair 546 Housing laws9 to screen where housing should be located (such as near transit. schools and 547 parks) and avoid environmentally constrained locations (such as areas subject to wildfires). The 548 analysis will review integration and segregation patterns, acknowledge any racially or ethnically 549 concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, identify disparities in access to opportunity, and 550 discuss disproportionate housing needs, including displacement tisk. Staff will return with 551 modifications to the draft Sites Inventory, as needed, based on the above-referenced analysis. 552
553 Staff is working on an aggressive timeline with a Draft Housing Element anticipated for public 554 review by June/July 2022.
555
556 Table 7: Housing Element Project Timeline
557
Tasks
Identification of Housing Needs
Sites Analysis and Inventory
Affirmative Housing Analysis
Constraints Analysis
Housing Goals and Policies
Environmental Review
Draft Document
Draft: Initial Public Review Draft with a Minimum of 30- day review + 10 business days to respond to comments
Revised Draft: HCO 90-day review
Revised Final Draft: incorporate HCD comments
Final Draft: Local Adoption
Final Draft: HCD Certification
September-November 2021
November 2021-March 2022
January-April 2022
March - April 2022
April - May 2022
March - December 2022
June-July 2022
July-October 2022
October-December 2022
January-March 2023
March-May 31, 2023
558 The City must work diligently to update the Housing Element in a timely manner and must be 559 prepared to potentially increase allowable densities and establish a set of objective design and 560 development standards to evaluate qualifying "by-right" projects that are likely in the years 561 ahead.
562
563 Public Comments and Outreach: There has been extensive outreach during this phase of the 564 Housing Element Update, including two online workshops (November 10 and February 16) and 565 an online survey. Over 200 individuals registered to attend the latest online workshop held on 566 February 16> 2022 and over 100 participants voiced their interests and concerns about various 567 housing and land use strategies discussed above at the meeting, see ATTACHMENT 2 for 568 details. Approximately 1,045 individuals completed the online survey. which also focused on 569 housing and land use strategies, see ATTACHMENT 3 details. 9 More detailed infonnarion on the AFFH process and requirements is available at:
htlps://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-developent/affi1/index.shtml 17 Joint City Council / Planning Commission Meeting
Housing Element Update: Sites Inventory
March 22, 2022
570 The project team also attended the Farmers Market, provided an overview at the Mill Valley 571 School District Meeting in February, and hosted a focus group with the private Affordable 572 Housing Committee group and members MV Free (Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity and 573 Empowerment).
574
575 Staff has also reached out to property owners in commercial and multi-family areas and all 576 property owners associated with the above-referenced housing categories to gain input and gauge 577 property owners' interest in providing housing on their property. See ATTACHMENT 5 for 578 written public comments received in anticipation of the Sites Inventory. 579
580 Attachments:
581 1. Resolution to effectuate a Budget Adjustment and authorize the City Manager to finalize 582 and execute a consultant services agreement with EMC Planning Group to Assist City 583 Staff with the Required Environmental Review of the Housing Element Update 584 2. Summary of Workshop 3 (video and break out session notes available on the project 585 website listed below)
586 3. Summary of Online Survey (full survey results available on the project website listed 587 below)
588 4. Public-owned Properties
589 5. Public Comment Letters
590 6. SB 9 Guidance from HCD and ABAG
591 7. City of Mill Valley Sites Inventory
592
593 Online Resources:
594 • HCD Guidance on the Sites Analysis and Inventory Process:
595 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing596 element/docs/sites inventory memo final06102020.pdf 597 • Housing Element Project Website: www.cityofmiLlvalley.org/housingelement 18 Summary of Discussion Items fo1· ltem 1
A Public Owned sites
1 The Sites Inventory assumes approximately 40 units (20 very low and 20 low income) for the northern portion of the city-owned property at 1 Hamilton Drive based on work and Council direction to date. 2 Include a housing program to further evaluate housing opportunities on public owned properties. 3 Establish a Housing Overlay Zoning District for tax exempt school and religious institutions identified in Table 2.
4 Rezone 300 East Blithedale from the existing Single-Family zoning designation to Multi-Family {"RM· Passage", similar to the adjacent property at 10 Catalpa).
B Underutilized Sites": Commercial and MultHamily Zoned Sites Under~ Acre 1 Approve the draft sites list identified in Table 3. Should the number of sites listed above be reduced, the overall land use and housing strategies will need to be reevaluated. 2 Include a housing program indicating that "non-vacant sites" must replace units affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on non-vacant site. (required by state law} 3 Consider a "Small Lot Housing Overlay" for those sites identified in Table 3.
C "Opportunity Sites": Underutilized Commercial Sites Y2 Acre or More 1 Approve the draft sites list identified in Table 4 to support the lower income RHNA category. 2 {Same as B.1.)
Include a housing program to encourage properties under the same ownership identified in the Sites 3 Inventory to consolidate and rezone to commercial/mix-use or multi-family based on adjacent land use to facilitate efficient redevelopment of the site.
4 Include required rezoning program for streamlined approval. (required by state law) 5 Include rezoning program to allow residential projects in commercial areas. (required by state law) 6 Consider an "affordable housing overlay" to address larger "opportunity sites" identified in Table 4 and state rezoning requirements.
D Upper Floor Office Conversion
1 Approve draft list of sites contained in Table 5.
2 Include a housing program to permit the conversion of upper floor commercial office space to residential uses.
E Vacant Sites in Single-Family Zoning Districts
Utilize those vacant sites in the Single-Family Zoning District listed in the Draft Sites Inventory to support the above-moderate income RHNA category.
F Anticipated New Units Allowed under Senate Bill 9
Approve approach for SB 9, with the understanding that modifications may be made to increase the number of qualifying sites based on pending guidance from HCD. l RESOLUTION NO. 22-_
2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
4 OF MILL VALLEY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
5 TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AND ANY AMENDMENTS
6 THERETO WITH EMC PLANNING GROUP TO
7 PERFORM PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND
8 PLANNING SERVICES FOR THE 2022-2031 HOUSING
9 ELEMENT UPDATE FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
10 $155,070.
11 )2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILL VALLEY HEREBY FINDS AND 13 RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
14 15 SECTION 1. The California Department of Housing and Community Development 16 determines the Bay Area Housing needs for an 8-year cycle, and the Association of Bay Area 17 Governments allocates this need to local jurisdictions through the Regional Housing Needs 18 Allocation (RHNA), which is then approved by the State. 19 20 SECTION 2. Local jurisdictions are required to update their Housing Elements on an 8- 21 year cycle to accommodate RHNA numbers and submit to the State for approval. 22 23 SECTION 3. The previous 8-year Housing Element Cycle (2014-2022) is nearing an end 24 and planning for the next 8-year Housing Element cycle (2023-2031) is underway. 25 26 SECTION 4. The Planning and Building Department has determined the need for 27 environmental and planning services to complete the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, and 28 as such, in December 2021, released a Request for Qualifications to qualified environmental 29 firms to provide environmental consulting services for housing related programs. 30 31 SECTION 5. On February 23, 2022, EMC Planning Group submitted a proposal with a 32 detailed scope of work and budget for preparation of environmental and planning services for the 33 Housing Element Update.
34 35 SECTION 6. Funding for the required service will be expended from the General Plan 36 Maintenance Fee and will not impact the General Fund. 37 38 NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby 39 authorized to execute a professional services agreement with EMC Planning Group in a form 40 satisfactory to the City Attorney to perform professional environmental and planning services for 41 the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update for an amount not to exceed $155,070. 42 43 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Mill 44 Valley on the 22nd day of March 2022, by the following vote:
45 46
47 ATTACHMENT #1
48 AYES:
49 NOES:
50 ABSENT:
51 ABSTAIN:
52 53
Resolution No. 22-
54 John McCauley, Mayor
55 ATTEST:
56 57
58 Kelsey Rogers, City Clerk/Administrative Analyst
E , 910 BROA DWAY. SU ITE '40, OAKLAND. CA 94 6'2 • S1 0 .763 2 06' • DKSASSOCIATES.COM
MILL VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
February 22, 2022
Danielle Staude I City of Mill Valley
Patrick Kelly I City of Mill Valley
Kendall Flint I OKS Associates
Josephine Buchanan I DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Mill Valley Housing Element Update, Summary of Workshop # 3 Project #21144-000 :MA1o'R THEMEs -. . : , :- · · -.~- · - --- . - ~-. · · . · .·· .. · -1 -_____:_ ! ·--~ - . - - - . '. •. - - . ~ __ -_._
On the evening of February 16tti, 2022, DKS Associates led a workshop with the City of Mill Valley on the subject of the 2023-31 Housing Element Update - which will necessitate the creation of 865 new units of housing across all income levels.
This t hird Public Out reach Workshop was held in a virtual Zoom setting and had over 200 unique registrations. The event had approximately 100 participants who were divided into 7 "breakout rooms". Each breakout room was facilitated by either a member of DKS Associates or City of Mill Valley staff and attended by a member of t he Mill Valley City Council. Notes were recorded from each breakout room to gather public opinion about three maj or housing strategies to increase housing production identified in the public survey, these being (1) adaptive reuse, (2) rezone schools and churches, and (3) more allowable units (also referred to as "density") In commercial and/or multi-fam ily zoned areas.
We have prepared summary notes from each individual breakout room and have also consolidated them, with 13 major themes having been identified.
BREAK OUT ROOM S : MAJOR THEM ES
Through analysis of breakout room notes we have found the following 13 major themes were primary areas for opportunity or concern among attendees. These themes are as follows:
1. Parking
2. Affordability
3. Quality of Life
4. Zoning Code
SHAPING A SMA RTER TRANSPORTATION EXPERIENCE
ATTACHMENT #2
5. Aesthetics
6. Housing Type
7. Building Height
8. Traffic
9. Housing Need
10. Walkability/Services
11. Opportunity Zones
12. Density
13. Feasibility
ADAPTIVE REUSE
The first housing strategy discussed was "adaptive reuse", which involves modifying the use of or creating new space within an existing building. Adaptive reuse was primarily proposed, for the purpose of this update, as expanding housing in commercially zoned areas. This topic brought 56 unique comments, primarily in favor of this strategy.
Participants primarily saw this strategy as an opportunity to create housing in a way that would have low impact on existing neighborhoods; potentially serve to revitalize downtown by increasing the need for services; and create units that are 'affordable by design' to help meet the housing needs of Mill Valley's workforce. Many discussions also led to the idea of creating incentives for property owners to increase the viability of this strategy, in addition to altering existing zoning standards to make this sort of development easier to achieve.
Concerns about this strategy were primarily centered on parking and traffic - that there is already a shortage of street parking downtown and that this could further exacerbate the problem.
Additionally, several participants expressed concern that due to the current lack of existing services such as grocery stores downtown this model could lead to increased traffic as residents would be forced to drive to meet their needs.
REZONE SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES
The second housing strategy proposed to workshop attendees was the altering of the city's zoning code to allow for churches and schools to rezone their properties to allow residential use, in addition to the existing allowable religious and educational uses on the property. Of the three housing strategies raised, this strategy resulted in some disagreement - individuals expressed a range of opinions from those who believed it created an excellent opportunity for teacher and other workforce housing to those who believed it is infeasible.
A prevailing topic of conversation across all rooms was about the feasibility of this housing model, with 11 comments on whether this rezoning would be successful. Individual comments discussed a perceived lack of interest both from land holders and developers. Another prevailing discussion item was about the existing zoning code and that it is currently quite restrictive. Those who favored the idea of allowing residential use on religious and educational school sites saw it as an opportunity to make changes and room for housing. , Concerns expressed on this housing strategy specifically led to discussion of shifting the zoning or allowed residential use for only some properties and asking for the City to conduct a study of which sites are the most viable for this type of conversion.
mtm MLI V.l'.LLEY HOUS:~-!(_; i:LEMEN, 'Jl'DATE • 'NORKSHOf> 3 '1AJOR THEMES• ''1 l3"(lJARY 2?, ).021 2
MORE ALLOWABLE UNITS
This housing strategy centered on the idea of allowing more units on an existing commercial and/or multi-family property, also referred to as "density". Staff provided examples of allowing allowing tri-plexes and four-plexes on small properties less than 6,000 square feet and/or allowing more units on commercial-zoned properties over 1h acre. This item also included discussion around existing "underutilized" sites over 1
h acre that may have the opportunity to provide housing on site, in addition to the existing use by adding structures and/or stories to existing buildings.
As part of the discussion, various items were mentioned including: density, height and parking restrictions. Parking was a major theme across all discussion topics but was raised the most in this discussion area with 18 unique comments on the subject. Concerns about parking primarily centered on the idea that reducing parking minimums to one space or no parking for new units was seen as unreasonable, particularly due to the lack of public transportation and services within walking distance of residential areas. Strategies to address these concerns raised by participants included the creation of a shuttle service, more efficient use and management of public parking, and improving public transportation options in the city.
Though there were several discussions about fear of increased density diminishing sense of community and neighborhood character there was an equal level of discussion about the necessity of these changes and that if done with care that these changes could be low impact. Some participants suggested lower impact changes could be made in areas such as the Downtown where the increase in units would be less noticeable. Some attendees also expressed interest in having a better understanding about what increased density looks like in terms of the scale of development.
When discussing possible locations for housing, there were 115 unique pieces of feedback collected. These areas included - the golf course, above commercial buildings, Miller Ave, the Highway 101 corridor and downtown.
liI3D MILL VALLEY HOL:SING ELEME~, I l)'J'.).!\TE • 1:\/0~KSHOP 3 MAJOR THEMES. Fl:~RlJARY 2?., ;;on 3 E 1970 BROADWAY. SUITE 740, OAKLAND CA 94612 • 5,0.763 206' • DKSASSOCIATES.COM
MILL VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE SURVEY
SUMMARY
DATE:
TO:
March 4, 2022
Danielle Staude I City of Mill Valley
Patrick Kelly I City of Mill Valley
FROM: Kendall Flint I DKS Associates
Josephine Buchanan I DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Mill Valley Housing Element Update, Summary of Survey Results Project #21144-000 :~UMM.A~Y 91: SURVEY ~E-SULT~ - -~- _ .. - - . --·- - · - -- · ; .. - ' - I ._ • • I - • - - - - - - •- In order to gain a better understanding of the views of Mill Valley stakeholders concerning the land use and housing strategies to support the sites inventory for the 2023-31 Housing Element Update the project team released an online survey. This survey was open to participants from January 17 to February 20, 2022 and yielded 1,045 unique responses. The following document will summarize the key themes and ideas discussed in the survey to gain feedback on potential land use and housing strategies to support evaluation of land within city-limits that is adequately zoned to accommodate the City's regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) as part of the sites analysis and inventory required for the 2023-31 Housing Element Update for the City of Mill Valley.
Percentages below are rounded to the nearest whole number. For additional details, see the Housing Element homepage for full survey results: www.cityofmillvalley.org/housingelement.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The survey respondents generally reflect the demographics of the Mill Valley community. Of the 1,045 survey responses:
• 83% owned a home in Mill Valley;
• 39% were 65 years of age;
• 80% of survey respondents identified as white;
SHAPING A SMARTER TRANSPORTATION EXPERIENCE ATTACHMENT #3 • 12% of respondents indicated that they worked in the city of Mill Valley (32% between the ages of 18 and 44).
• Almost 49% of survey respondents indicated that they earned over $150,000/annually. The median income for a resident of Mill Valley Is $163,614. • Approximately 4% of those polled are living below California's poverty line of $35 ,600/a n nu ally.
• 60% of the survey respondents were women.
Of the Mill Valley residents, 46% stated that lived in the community for over 25 years.
Homeowners in Mill Valley recorded by the survey were on average slightly older and higher earning than their renter counterparts. Homeowners were additionally found to be more likely to be long t erm residents, with 81 % of homeowners living in the city more than ten years versus 73% of renters.
HOUSING TYPES
Survey participants were asked to define the type of housing they would prefer to see in Mill Valley.
Presented with five housing types, respondents were able to select all types they were interested in. Housing types that involve ownership were the most successful models with over 40% of respondents selecting single family homes, multi-family ownership, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) - in line with the majority demographic of survey takers, these results are reflected In Table 1. However, for multi-family models rental housing was not dramatically less popular than the ownership model at 43% versus 57%. Co-housing (20%) and deed restricted affordable housing (30%) were the least popular choices (see Table 1). The most popular housing type polled was housing created for specific populations such as workforce housing, senior, or supportive housing models with 512 approving, or 52% of respondents choosing this as a preferred housing type.
m:E MILL VAi.i I Y HOUSfNG FLEM El\ T UPOI\I C: • SURVEY SUMM.l>.RY • t•IAR.CI-I 4, 1.022 2 CHART 1: PREFERED HOUSING TYPES
As the City works to identify parcels of land or "sites" for potential new homes, what are the preferred types of homes you would like to see built in Mill Valley? Choose all that apply.
Ql: I rent a home in Mill
Valley
Q1: I own a home in Mill
Valley
0.00% 10.00%
TABLE 2: PREFERED HOUSING TYPES
20.00% 30.00% 40.00% S0.00% 60.00% 70.00%
HOUSING TYPE PERCENTAGE TOTALRESPONDANTS
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
MULTI-FAMILY OWNERSHIP HOMES (TOWNHOMES OR
CONDOMINIUMS)
MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL HOMES (APARTMENTS)
CO-HOUSING (SHARED BATHROOM AND/OR KITCHEN)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (IN-LAW APARTMENTS,
SECOND UNITS)
PERMANENT DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
HOMES TARGETED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE OR POPULATION,
INCLUDING SENIORS, WORKFORCE, PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING (FOR PEOPLE
EXPl:RIENCING HOMELESSNESS, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, ETC
48.21%
56.6%
42.99%
19.55%
49.44%
30.09%
52.41%
Source: OKS Associates (2022). Mill Valley Housing Element 2. [Question 7] Survey Monkey. 471
553
420
191
483
294
512
3 LOCAL CHARACTERISTIC & INTERESTS
In designing this survey, the project team considered potential impacts to the existing local characteristics and interests of the Mill Valley community. Such impacts that may influence the city's ability to meet long term housing needs. In order to measure the importance of different characteristics to residents, respondents were asked to record the level to which they agree, disagree or are neutral on different housing needs, models, and characteristics. Chart and Table 2 reflect respondent sentiment about different housing models and needs.
CHART 2: HOUSlNG NEEDS
There are many important factors to consider in our ability to meet the housing needs of our community. Identified below are some of the common interests we have heard among the community. Please select the level to which you agree, disagree or are neutral on the following statements:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
a St1on.e.l·1'"g a ~£r~e
a Sttoniwo,
t~ Neutral
mm MILL VALLEY HOUSING ELF.MF.NT UPDATE • SURV':Y SUMMAP.Y • MARCtl 4, 2022 4 TABLE 2: HOUSING NEEDS
NO, FOR STRONGLY
FIGURE HOUSING NEEDS STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE DISAGREE 2 AGREE
1 Limit housing growth in 64.61% 20.6% 7.73% 3.14% 3.25% environmentally constrained areas
2 Create housing opportunities that 48.82% are affordable to the local workforce
29.9% 11.31% 3.92% 4.37%
3 Support fair and equitable housing 36.51% 30.24% 15.45% 8.29% 7.05% opportunities
Create housing opportunities that
4 will allow younger generations 48.82% 29.9% 11.31% 3.92% 4.37% to stay and/or return to Mill Valley
5 encourage mixed use projects 35.50% 34.49% 17.69% 5.49% 4.93% Establish programs connecting
6 homeowners with local workforce in 49.5% 24.75% 13.89% 2.8% 6.49% search of affordable Musing
Increase the diversity and range of
7 housing types to meet the varied 38.70%
needs of the community at all
30.43% 15.54% 8.26% 7.07%
income levels
Provide incentives for smaller scale
8 multi·farnily units that are 33.95% 33.51% 16.27% 7.38% 8.89% "affordable by design."
Integrate affordable housing
9 throughout the community to create 12.12%
mixed-income neighborhoods 33.98% 24.89% 19.16% 9.85%
10 Limit change of use on a property 35.16% 16.34% 17.10% 16.67% 14.73% Source: OKS Associates (2022). Mill Valley Housing Element 2. [Question 8) Survey Monkey.
This section of the survey found that respondents were generally favorable to strategies to increase all types of housing in Mill Valley so long as they are not in environmentally sensitive areas. ~ MILL V/11.I.E'/ rlOUS!NG ELEMENT UPD-"-TE , SURVl:Y SUMMARY• MARCH 4, 2022 5
HOUSING STRATEGIES ANO OPPORTUNITIES
Due to the limited amount of vacant land in the City of Mill Valley it is likely that the city will need to consider strategies that will increase the number of units or allowed density on a site. The survey included approaches that many cities have adopted to meet their housing numbers, including loosening development standards to allow for more units and rezoning parcels with large parking lots like schools and churches to create housing on such sites.
These survey questions were perhaps the most divided, with participants on some subjects split into an even amount of approval and disapproval for the same ideas. The housing strategy receiving the most positive response was to allow commercial buildings to convert second and third story office space for new residential use with 89% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the idea (see Table 1). The least popular idea was to modify development standards (such as reduced parking standards, modified setbacks and/or increased height limits) to help achieve the maximum number of units allowed on a property based on existing standards with 42% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.
CHART 3: HOUSING STRATEGIES
Which housing strategies do you support and would like to see the City use in order to accommodate and plan for new homes in Mill Valley? Please select the level to which you agree. disagree or are neutral on the following statements:
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 a SuoritlV ·~ a >are•
a Scrcr.~lv o,
mm MILL VALLEY HOUSING ELi:MI MT UPDATE• SURVEY SUMMARY• MARCH 4, 20'2 6 TABLE 3: HOUSING STRATEGIES
NO. FOR HOUSING STRATEGY
STRONGLY AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
STRONGLY
FIGURE 3 AGREE DISAGREE
Consider those commercial sites with
1 parking I ots that could accommodate 39.71% 35.63% 10.29% 7.35% 7.01% housing on site
Allow commercial buildings to convert
2 second and third story office space for 50.78% 38.69% 5.32% 2.11% 3.10% new homes
Modify development standards to
facilitate development proposals that
3 maximize use of the property by 27.18% 31.43% 15.77% 12.86% 12.75% proposing a high er number of sma lier
scale units on site
4 Increase the maximum number of homes
allowed on a certain site or area of town
27.87% 30.45% 14.94% 14.04% 12.7%
5 Provide incentives for new ho me builders
to bui Id rental units
23.39% 29.83% 22.94% 12.2% 11.64%
6 Provide incentives for affordable housing 24.77% 20.81% 13.46% 19.57% 21.38% units
Rezone properties occupied by churches
7 and faith-based institutions to allow for
new homes to be co-located on the
30.16% 34.64% 20.18% 6.39% 8.63%
property
Create incentives to split urban lots and
8 build two-unit homes (duplexes) in Single 23.71% 29.44% 13.26% 13.15% 20.45% Family zones.
9 Create incentives to build and rent ADUs 24.77% 20.81% 13.46% 19.57% 21.38% Further explore City-owned land, beyond
the current proposal at l Hamilton Drive,
10 th at could be rezoned to accomm od<1te 33.48% 29.78% 14.38% 7.64% 14.72% single-family and/or multHamily housing
on the site
Modify development st<1ndards to help
11 achieve the maximum number of units
allowed on a property based on existing
19.82% 21.85% 15.99% 17.12% 25.23%
density standards.
Source: DKS Associates (2022). Mill Valley Housing Element 2. [Question 9] Survey Monkey. mm MILL VALLEY HOUSING ELEM EN I UPDATE • SURVl:Y SUMMARY• MARCH 4, 2027 7 Survey responses were also mixed in terms of allowing religious institutions and educational facilities to co-locate housing on their properties. Half of the survey responses indicated "no" with another 25% unsure and 24% answering yes.
When asked to rank commercial areas or "corridors" for where they saw they greatest opportunity for housing. This was measured by ranking their choices on a scale of one to six, with one being highest and six being the lowest priority for rezoning and development. 101/Redwood Highway Frontage Road (Goodman Building Supply to Aqua Hotel) was selected as the highest priority for redevelopment with 55% and downtown as the lowest priority for redevelopment with 40% of respondents choosing this as their sixth choice. Results for the remaining regions were more varied however, the survey ranking polls the areas as:
1. 101/Redwood Highway Frontage Road (57% ranked first, or highest priority)
2. Miller Avenue "Gateway" from Valley Circle to Camino Alto (42% marked second)
3. Miller Avenue "Main Street'1 from Willow-Valley Circle (32% marked third)
4. East Blithedale from Camino Alto - Hwy 101 (29% marked fourth)
5. East Blithedale from Throckmorton to Park (45% marked fifth)
6. Downtown (40.25% marked sixth, or lowest priority)
ADDITIONAL STRATEGIES & INPUT
Participants were asked if there were other strategies that they believe the City should consider, and if yes, to provide examples or context of the strategy that should be considered to accommodate new housing in Mill Valley. Responses for this section included recommendations for possible development including those that had already been identified by the survey, such as downtown and Miller Ave. Other areas mentioned included the golf course, KFC site, Hamilton Drive, and nearby unincorporated areas of Strawberry and Tam Junction. Many respondents additionally mentioned opportunities surrounding streamlining development and approval processes with recommendations like creating incentives for creating mixed use housing, streamlining ADU approvals, and overall streamlining of the development process in the city.
Many respondents also mentioned varying concerns about redevelopment and increased number of units (or density) on a site. The largest of these concerns for respondents was about potential increases in traffic that could come with increased residents in Mill Valley and impacts of reducing parking requirements. Concerns over reduced parking requirements ranged from impacts to businesses and overflow of street parking in residential neighborhoods. Some participants were apprehensive to increases in housing and density in Mill Valley- calling for resistance to state mandates, saying that Mill Valley is build out or at ca pa city, and concerns about losing Mi II Valley's small-town character and feeling. The words commonly used in the responses for this question were, housing (131), building ( 125), traffic (60), and Mill Valley (59). [iJ:il i\l~L VALi.i Y ·-iou.SING ~. i M[Nf UPD.4Tc • SlJ~I/EY SIJM~t,RY • MP.K.CH 4, 2022 8 Respondents were also asked about any specific sites or areas that they would like to see redeveloped to include housing and would support an increase in number of units allowed on the property while maintaining the existing use. These recommendations primarily reflected those identified in the survey. The most referenced locations were, Miller Ave (87), vacant parking lots (63), Hamilton (15), Camino Alto (14), Golf Course (14), Safeway, CVS, Whole Foods and School parking lots (13), Downtown (12), Tam Junction (12), Hauke Park (12), and East Blithdale (12). m:m i':ILL VALLEY 110lJS1NG ELEMENf Ul'D/ITE • SURVEY SUMMARY• MARCH 4, 2022 9 TAX EXEMPT/PUBLIC OWNED LANO Mill Vallev, CA
= # Units based
A111 Max on Pa"el Size &
owner Pa"et Dash SitusFormatted Acres Slope Zonlnc Zoning Summa,v Note, Description Floodplaln Density Zonina 1 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 030-141-16 AVE 1.11 1.2 C-G Commercial (C-G) US Post Office Facilitv on site 29 OU/acre 32.lS Community facilities N/A assume
2 TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCH DIST DSl-011-01 27.50 1.7 C·F IC-Fl Tam High/ Field Area School 29/acre 797.50 Community Facilities N/A assume
J TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCH 01ST 048-182-05 700 MILLER AVE 8.24 15.6 C-F {C-FI Tam High school 29/acre 238.96 Multi Family (RM- parcel size
4 PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH 030-181-23 0.00 18.0 RM-3.5 3.5) WrongAPN 7 DU/acre needed parcel size
s PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH 028-233-34 300 East Blithedale 0.00 4.6 RS-6 Single Family (RS) 300 EB Parking Lot Consider 7 OU/acre needed parcel size
6 PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH 028-233-35 301 East Blithedale 0.00 5.1 RS-6 Single Family (RS) 300 EB Consider 7 DU/acre needed parcel size
7 PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH 028-233-36 302 East Blitheda le 0.00 10.9 RS-6 Single Family (RS) 300 EB Consider 7 OU/acre needed & PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 030-204-06 0.00 9.0 0-A Open Area {O·A) marshland N/A N/A 9 PACIFIC GAS & EtECTRIC CO 030-204-04 0.00 12.6 0-A Open Area (0-Al by Hauke Park School N/A N/A Next to 130 Lomita (materials on parcel size
10 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO 03D-155-11 0.00 10.6 RS-6 Single Family {RS] site) 7 OU/acre needed Community Facilities N/A assume
)l Mill VAtLEV SCHOOL DISTRICT 030-111-07 425 SYCAMORE AVE 18.50 S.4 C-F (c-Fl Mill Valley Middle School School AE 29/acre 536.50 Community Facilities N/A assume
12 MILL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 030-161-13 80 LOMITA OR 11.75 5.1 C-f (C-F) Mill Valley Middle School School 29/acre 340.75 360 E BLITHEDALE Community Facilities N/A assume
13 MILL VAllEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 028-232-25 AVE 2.75 6.0 C-F [C-F) Park School School 29/acre 79.86 Community Facilities N/A assume
14 MILL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 028-231-01 0.30 9.3 C-F (C-F) Park School/ Parking Lot School 29/"Acre 8.66 352
THROCKMORTON Community Facilities N/Aassume
15 MILL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 02S·044·01 AVE 0.00 &.6 C-F (C·f) Old Mill Elemetarv School School 29/acre 0.00 16 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST D33-101-25 6.23 33.8 0-A Open Area (0-A) N/A N/A 17 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 046-070-03 5.99 23.5 0-A Opel\ Area (0-A) Tank on site Facility on site N/A N/A Above fern canyon road - start of old
18 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 027-280-04 3.00 48.0 0-A Oper, Area (0-A) r aildroad grade fire road N/A N/A 1 OU/1.5
19 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 033-101-28 0.33 28.0 RSP-SA Single Family (RS) above 175 Alta Vista acres 1.00 l DU/1.5
20 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST D33-101-23 0.15 60.7 RSP-3A Single Family (RS) above 25 Escalon (near tanks) acres 1.00 21 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 029-320-24 0.00 14.0 0-A Open Arc~ (O·Al Tank on site Facility on site N/A N/A ATTACHMENT 4 7
ATTACHMENT #4
TAX EXEMPT/PUBLIC OWNED LANO Mill Valley, CA
# U"lts based
Avg Mar. on Parcel Size &
Owner Parcel Dash Sltusformatted Ac:res Slope Zoning Zoning Summar, Notes E>esc:riptlon Floodplain Density Zoning 22 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 029-290-02 0.00 18.0 O·A Open Area (O·Al Tank on site Facility on site N/A N/A 23 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 029·272-25 0.00 38.7 0-A Open Area (O·Al Tank on site Facility on site N/A N/A 24 MARIN MUNICIPAl WATER DIST 029-280-37 0.00 40.6 O·A Open Area (O-A) Tank on site Facility on site N/A N/A 2~ MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 029-290-07 0.00 40.6 0-A Open Area (0-A) Tank on site Facility on site N/A N/A 26 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 029-310-06 0.00 49.5 O·A Open Area (0-A) Tank on site Facility on site N/A N/A 27 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 029-310-0S 0.00 64.3 O·A Open Area (O-Al Tank on site Facility on site N/A N/A 28 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 029·310-09 0.00 66.3 0-A Open Area (O-AJ 81ithedale Ridge above Quarry Road N/A N/A Between Tamalpais and Myrtle/ 1 DU/1.5 parcel size
29 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 027-101-02 0.00 57.8 RS-lOA Single Family (RSI Cascade Canyof\ acres needed 30 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 027-074-10 0.00 17.l RS-20 Single Family (RS) Tank on site (near 575 Summit) 7 DU/acre 0.00 31 MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DIST 027-113-04 0.00 28.8 RS-20 Single Family (RS) 'Tank on site (near 500 Summit) 7 DU/acre 0.00 32 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-300-38 36.17 79.7 O·A Open Area (0-Al Blithedale Ridge N/A N/A 33 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-300-17 29.08 59.1 0-A Open Area (0-AJ Blithedale Ridge • no roads N/A N/A 34 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-251-07 24.90 43.6 O·A Open Area (O·A) Sar ah/Magnalena N/A N/A Meadow Crest Drive/ Lula/ Horse
3~ MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 033-102-47 19.31 33.8 0-A Open Area (O-A) hill? N/A N/A 36 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-310-07 18.90 54.8 O·A Open Area (0-A) Blithedale Ridge above Quarry Road N/A N/A Off escalon above marlin fire road/
37 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-243-01 11.68 35.3 O·A Open Area (O-A) MMWD Easement through it NIA N/A 38 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-251-03 10.47 39.4 0-A Open Area (0-A) Camino Alto Preserve N/A N/A Near Valle Vista/ Camin Aho
39 MARIN COUNiY OPEN SPACE 029-261-05 9.31 35.9 O·A Open Area (O·A) Preserve NIA N/A 40 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-161-49 8.90 41.3 O·A 0 pen Area (O·A) Valle Vista/ Fairway N/A N/A Tartan Road before Elinor fire road /
41 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-151-2S 5.89 48.2 O·A Open Area (O-A) Warner Canyon N/A N/A 42 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029·071-01 4.70 S9.9 0-A Open Area (0-A) N/A N/A 43 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-310-26 4.69 52.7 O·A Open Area (O·AJ Old railroad Grade above WB/Ralston N/A N/A Near Valle Vista/ Camin Alto
44 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-261-04 4.41 29.4 0-A Open Area (O·Al Preserve N/A N/A 45 MARIN COUNTI OPEN SPACE 033-102-33 3.39 32.5 O·A Open Area (0-A) Above Midhill / Scott Valley N/A N/A 46 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-280·04 2.62 42.3 0-A Open Area (0-A) Near Elinor Fire Road N/A N/A Quarry Road between 75 and 9S
47 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 027-052-34 2.11 S2.6 RS-10 Single Family (RS) Quarry 7 DU/acre 14.76 48 MARIN COUNTI OPEN SPACE 029-300-29 2.01 SS.6 0-A Open Area (O·AJ Slithedale Ridge N/A N/A 49 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-320-23 1.94 39.0 O·A Open Area (O-Al Sarah/Magnalena N/A N/A so MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029·350-06 1.15 45.1 0-A Open Area (0-A) Across from 10 Sarah Drive N/A N/A SI MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-261·03 1.13 Sl,S O·A Open Area (O·A) Above Valle Vista / Warner Canyon N/A N/A ATIACHMENT4 7
TAX EXEMPT/PUBLIC OWNEO LANO Mill Valley, CA
# Units based
Avg Max on Parcel Size &
Owner Parcel Dash Situs Formatted Acres Slope Zoning Zoning Summary Notes Destription Floodplain Density Zoning Near Valle Vista / Camin Alto
52 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-261-01 1.01 37.7 0-A Open Area (0-Al Preserve N/A N/A 53 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-261-02 0.99 38.3 0-A Open Are~ (0-A) Above Valle Vista/ Warner Canvon NIA N/A 54 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 027-041-01 0.46 36.3 RS-43 Single Family (RS) Next to 15 lee (old railroad grade) 7 DU/acre 3.22 55 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 033-200-01 0.00 31.7 0-A Open Area (0-A) Upperhill / Scott valley N/A N/A 56 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-290-03 0.00 34.3 O·A Open Area (0-A) Ridge Fire Road N/A N/A 57 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 033-101-16 o.oo 38.4 0-A Open Area (O-A) Camino Alto Preserve N/A N/A 58 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 027-052-1!; 0.00 43.0 0-A Open Area (O·A) End of Shady Lane N/A N/A Tartan Road before Elinor fire road/
59 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-290-08 0.00 48.3 0-A Open Area (O·A) Warner Canyon N/A N/A 60 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-300-30 o.oo 49.3 O·A Open Area (0-A) Blithedale Ridge N/A N/A Greenwood Way Bolsa Tank Fire
Road/ MMWD Easements
61 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-290-11 o.oo 52.7 O·A Open Area (0-A) throur,hout N/A N/A 62 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-310·23 0.00 57.8 0-A Open Area (0-AI illithdale llidge N/A NIA 63 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-300-21 0.00 70.8 0-A Open Area (0-A) Near Glen drive and seln fire Road N/A N/A 64 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-300-18 o.oo 72.5 O·A Open Area (O-A) Above Glen Drive N/A N/A 65 MARIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE 029-151-48 0.00 47.7 RS-10 Single family (RS) noAPN 7 DU/acre 0.00 Underhill Road near Upperhill - MV
66 MARIN COUNTY 033-102-43 3.86 19.0 0-A Open Area (0-A) Bikeway? N/A 2 67 MARIN COUNTI' 047-12)-13 0.00 19.2 RS-7.S Single f<>mily (RSI On Edgewood ne~r Molino 7 DU/acre 0 68 MARIN COUNTY 047-122-16 0.00 21.9 RS-7.5 Single Family (RSI On Edgewood near Molino 7 DU/acre 0 1 OU/1.S
69 MARIN COU OPEN SPACE 029-320-29 54.11 43.4 RSP-lOA Single Family (RS) acres 36 RSI'- Vasco Court / Corner across from l OU/1.S
70 MARIN COU OPEN SPACE 033-102-28 1 LOMITA DR 34.42 29.1 2.5A Single family (RS) Edna M~guire Horse Hill acres 23 Vasco Court/ Corner across from 1 DU/1.S
71 MARIN COU OPEN SPACE 033-102-52 15.81 30.0 RSP-2A Single Family (RS) Edna Maguire "Alto Bowl Preserve" acres 10 1 OU/1.S
72 MARIN COU OPEN SPACE 029·231-20 3.49 48.0 RSP-3A Single Family (RSI Near Marlin and DelCasa acres 2 Above S~ndy/Sarah Drive (Ridge Fire
73 MARIN COU OPEN SPACE 029-320-28 1.89 30.8 0-A Open Area (0-A) Road) n/A N/A 1 DU/1.5
74 MARIN COU OPEN SPACE 029-320-25 0.03 27.0 RSP-lOA Single Family (RS) acres 1 Bay tree lane ( above country club parcel size
75 MARIN CONSERVATION LEAGUE 029-280-3S 0.00 49.7 RS-30 Single Family (RSI drive)/ Warner Canyon-Kite Hill 7 DU/~cre needed COMMUNITY CHURCH OF MILL Near blithedalc ridge fire road (above 76 VAllEY 029-290-09 0.00 38.3 0-A Open Area (0-A) hillside) Park n/A N/A 77 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 029-131-07 280 BUENA VISTA 45.68 16.5 0-A Open Area (0-A) Golf Course Deed Ill/A N/A ATTACHMENT 4 7
TAX EXEMPT/PUBLIC OWNED I.AND Mill Valley, CA
# Units based
Avg Max on Parcel Size &
Owner .Parcel Dash Situs Formatted Acres Slope Zoning Zonin_g Summary Notes Description Floodplain Densitv Zoninc Tenderfoot Trail/Zig Zag Trail. Not Maybe? Check 1 DU/1.S 78 CllY OF Mill VALLEY 046-010-25 18.59 46.2 RSP-lOA Single Family (RS) maintained bv DPW subdivision map acres 6.00 79 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 029-101-01 11.70 20.0 0-A Open Area (0-A) Miller Grove/AE Floodway No Floodway N/A N/A tenderfoot trail. Not maintained bv 1 DU/1.5
80 CITY OF Mill VAllEY 046-030-29 9.70 42.2 RS-10A Single Family (RS) DPW Maybe; highly forrested ~cres 3.00 Fern canyon (near old railroad grade).
a1 CITY OF Mill VAllEV 027-066-50 7,89 63.9 0-A Open Area (0-A) Not maintained l)y OPW maybe N/A N/A 82 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 027-106-09 7.40 24.2 0-A Oper1 Area (0-AI cascade park (lovell and cascade) No N/A N/A M~rsh/Ralston Drive/Blithdale
83 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 027-033-29 6.80 36.6 0-A Open Area (O·A) Canyon. Not mainted by OPW maybe N/A N/A Edgewood/Cypress/Rose. Not
84 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 046-320-01 5.47 62.4 0-A Open Area (O-A) maintained bv O PW NIA N/A Camino Alto and Stanton Way. Not 1 OU/1.5
&S CITY OF MILL VALLEY 033-102-18 5.25 42.0 RSP-SA Single Family (RS) maintained by DPW Maybe acres 1.00 Community Facilities
86 CITY Of Mill VALLEY 030-111-08 180B CAMINO ALTO 5.05 3.7 C·F (C-F) Community Center. Consider N/A N/A Park/Warner Canyon (Buena
87 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 029-192-16 4.99 11.0 0-A Open Area (0-A) Vista/Camelita) No AE N/A N/A Fern canyon (near old raitroad grade).
88 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 027-280-03 4.01 53.7 0-A Open Area {O·AI Not maintained by OPW No N/A N/A Edgewood . Surrounded by RS-10.
This site is also maintained by OPW Consider. MMWD
so may be viewed as a "park" or Easement says
89 CITY Of Mill VAllEY 046-070-02 3.92 24.6 0-A Opel'\ Area (0-A) "field" or fire refuge area openspace N/A N/A MonteVista / Tenderfoot trail. Not
90 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 027-162-01 3.84 49.1 O·A Open Area (0-Al maintained by DPW No N/A N/A tenderfoot trail. Not maintained by
9l CITY OF MILL VALLEY 046-030-20 3.22 39.9 0-A Open Area (0-A) DPW No N/A N/A tvelyn/Cascade Damn. Not
92 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 046-010-14 Check easements 3.02 49.2 0-A Open Area (0-AI maintained i>v DPW Consider N/A N/A 93 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 029-084-01 2.26 33.1 O·A Open Area (0-A) Golf Club House Consider/Parking Lot N/A N/A AE &
~4 CITY OF MILL VALLEY .028-102-12 2.08 16.4 0-A Open Area (O·A) Old Mill Park (lower) Park Floodway N/A N/A Fern Canyon. Not maintained by 1 DU/1.5
95 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 027-066-40 2.07 61.1 RS-lOA Single Family (RS) DPW Maybe; highly forrested acres 1.00 MonteVista / Tenderfoot trail. Not
96 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 027-161·26 2.00 57.5 0-A Open Area (O·Al maintained by DPW No N/A N/A Old Mill Park (upper near
97 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 028-091-09 1.73 13.6 O·A Open Area (O-A) structure/bathrooms) AE N/A N/A Cascade/Thrnckmorton. Not
98 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 027-161-15 1.39 48.7 0-A Open Area (0-A) mainlained by DPW No N/A N/A ATTACHMENT 4 7
TAX EXEMPT/PUBLIC OWNED lAND Mill Valle~. CA
I Units based
Avg Max on Parcel Size &
Owner Pa~el Dash SitusFormatted Acres Slope Zoning Zoning Summal'Y Notes Description Floodplain Density toning Sycamore/Corner of MVMS/MMWO
99 CITY Of MILL VALLEY 030-161-12 1.33 14.8 0-A Open Area (O·Al Easement No N/A N/A Molino /Cascade (Other side of Old
100 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 028-132-09 1.04 59.4 0-A Open Area (O-A) Mill Park}. Not maintained by DPW Consider NJA N/A Cascade/Throckmorton. Not
101 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 027-161-05 1.00 47.0 0-A Open Area (O-A) maintained by DPW No t~/A N/A l02 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 027-235-28 0.90 30.9 0-A Open Area [0-A) Mol'lteVisla/Earnscliff Park NfA N/A Vasco Court/ Corner of Edna l DUfl.S
103 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 033-240-15 0.86 16.3 RSP-2A Single Family (RS) Maguire No acres 1.00 Community Facilities Community Center Portion of Parking 104 CITY OF Ml ll VALLEY 030-111-09 0.78 1.6 C-F (C-F) Lot Consider N/A N/A 87 Downtown
105 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 028-013-lS THROCKMORTON 0.77 1.3 C-0 Commercial (C-0) Plaza No 29 OU/acre 22.39 Downtown
106 CITY OF Mill VAllEY 028-061-35 36 MILLER AVE 0.71 8.1 C-0 Commercial (C-0\ Parkil\g Loi Dehind O'Angelos Consider/Parking lot 29 DU/acre 20.66 Norris Memorial Park
(Molino/Helens). Not Maintained DV
107 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 028-161-02 0.6S 30.9 0-A Open Area (0-A) DPW No N/A N/A Fairway Drive (near Golf Course}. Not
maintained by DPW. Between RS-10
SFR. Could De split into two lots ancl
108 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 029-161-47 O.S9 34.5 0-A Open Area (O-A) sold? MavDe? Deed? N/A N/A Narrow ROW near Azalea/Camino
Alto and Pathway_ Not maintained DY
109 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 033-112-01 0.53 29.4 0-A Open Area (0-AI DPW Maybe? N/A N/A City Hall and Back Portion of Parking
110 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 028-014-16 26 CORTE MADERA 0.49 3.2 0-A Open Area (0-A} Lot Consider/Parking lot AE N/A N/A \/asco Court/ Corner across from
Edna Maguire/ Creek runs through MayDe? Check 1 OU/LS
111 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 033-240-01 0.49 20.0 RSP-2A Single Familv (RS) property/ Bike Path subdivision acres 1.00 Next lo 226 Rose. Nol maintained by
112 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 027-2S2-43 0.49 72.8 RS-10 Single Family (RS) DPW MayDe; large slope 7 DU/acre 3,42 113 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 028-091-11 0.48 23.8 0-A Open Area (0-A) Maintained DY DPW No N/A N/A Edgewood/Cypress. Not maintained MayDe: com Di nc with
114 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 046-061-52 0.4S 31.1 RS-10 Single Family (RS) bv DPW. Botanical garden site. larger eclgewood site 7 DU/acre 3.16 Norris Memorial Park
{Molino/Helens). Not Maintained by
us CITY OF Mill VALLEY 028-161-01 0.41 34.2 0-A Open Arca (0-A) DPW No N/A N/A ATTACHMENT4
TIIX EXEMPT/PUBLIC OWNED LAND Mill Vallev, CA
# Units based
All( Ma• on Parcel Size &
Owner PaKel Dash SitusFormatted Acres Slope Zoning Zonlnc Summarv Notes Description Floodplain Density Zoning Corner ofTenderfoot trail. land
Locked/ No Access. Not maintianed 1 OU/1.5
116 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 046-010-34 0.41 40.2 RSP-lOA Single Family (RS) DPW No acres 1.00 MonteVista / Tenderfoot trail. Not
117 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 046-030·23 0.39 46.5 O·A Open Area (0-A) maintained by OPW No N/A N/A J18 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 030-071-28 411 MILLER AVE 0.32 1.8 C-N Commercial (C·N) Miller Parking Lot Consider/Parking Lot 29 OU/acre 9.29 Sycamore/ROW/AE Floodplain. 18'
119 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 030-101-22 0.27 10.2 0-A Open Area (O·Al wide. No N/A N/A Marsh/Margurite ROW Creek runs
120 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 027-272-01 0.23 19.4 RS-43 Single Family (RS) through site two wavs. No AO 7 OU/acre 6.61 Downtown City Hall Portion of Parking lot (by
121 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 028-014·21 0.19 6.4 C·O Commercial (C-D) MVMarket) Consider/Parking Lot 29 OU/acre 5.58 Behind 700 fast 81itheda le/ Roqut:
122 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 030-124-11 0.16 34.9 C-G Comrnercial (C-G) Mar /AE Floodplain. 47' wide Maybe 29 OU/acre 4.77 Norris Memorial Park
{Molino/Helens). Not Maintained by
123 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 028-161-03 0.16 46.1 0-A Open Area (0-AI OPW No N/A N/ A City Hall Portion of Parking Lot (by
124 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 028-014-06 30 CORTE MAO ERA 0.14 5.3 0-A Open Area (O·Al Fire Dept) Consider/Parking Lot AE N/A N/A Tenderfoot Trail/Structure on
property? Not maintained by DPW.
These are Planned sites, may be 1 OU/1.5
125 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 046-010-02 0.07 52.3 RSP-lOA Si,,gle Family [RS} designated opt>n space with the RSP Maybt: acres 1.00 126 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 028-135-08 o.os 47.5 RS-6 Single Family (RSI Corner of Hazel and Redwood tn Mavbe 7 OU/acre 1.34 127 CITY OF Mill VALtEY 029·212-24 0.00 8.6 0-A Open Area (O·A) Tennis courts No N/A N/A 128 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 030-271-70 0.00 2.1 O·A Open Are~ (O-A) Miller Parking lot Consider/Parking Lot N/A N/A Field at end of East Drive (behind
129 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 029-211-05 0.00 6.4 0-A Open Arca {O·Al tennis Courts} part of Park? No N/A N/A f ield at end of East Drive (behind
130 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 029-211·01 0.00 8.2 0-A Open Area (0-A} tennis Courts) part of Park? No N/A N/A !JI CITY OF Mill VALLEY 029-052-07 0.00 9.8 0-A Open Area (0-A) Miller Grove/AE Floodwav No AE N/A 132 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 030-250-01 1 HAMILTON DR 0.00 10.0 0-A Open Area (O-Al PSB / Hauke Field and Parking Lots Co,,sider N/A N/A 133 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 033·181-27 0.00 10.8 0-A Open Area (O-A} Scott Valley Swim Club 9' wide strip No N/A N/A 134 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 030-271-66 0.00 13.8 o-A Open Area {O-A) Creek back of 417 Miller No N/A N/A U nderhil I Road near U pperhill. Not
135 CITY OF Milt VALLEY 033-181-24 0.00 14.8 0-A Open Area (O·Al maintained by DPW No N/A N/A \36 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 029-171-19 0.00 21.l 0-A Open Area (0-A) Golf Course/Pro Shop Deed AE N/A N/A Underhill Road near Upperhill. Not
117 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 033-181·16 0.00 21.2 0-A Open Area (0-A) maintained by O PW Dedicated open space? N/A N/A ATI'ACHMENT 4 7
TAX EXEMPT /PUBLIC OWN ED LAND Mill V~llev. CA
It Unit5 based
Avg Max on Parcel Slie &
Owner Parcel Dash Situs Formatted Acres Slope Zoning Zoning Summary Notes Description Floodplain Densltv Zonin& Underhi II Roa cl near Upperhill. Not
BS CITY OF MILL VALLEY 033·171-04 0.00 27.7 0-A Open Area (0-A) maintained by DPW Cosnider N/A N/A across from Edna Maguire
(vasco/Azela) Looks like informal
walkway to Path? Not maintained by
rn, CITY OF MILL VALLEY 033-B3·07 0.00 32.8 0-A Open Area (0-Al DPW M.:,ybe? N/A N/A hillside/blithedale ridge. This could be connected with community 140 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 02.9•2.90·05 0.00 43.3 0-A Open Area (O-A) church of ma rin I adjacent sites)? Maybe N/A N/A 141 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 027-03)-34 0.00 58.0 0-A Open Area (0-A) Fern Canyon/Summit Avenue ROW No N/A N/A 142 CITY OF Mill VALLEY on-031-:n 0.00 84.6 O·A Open Area (0-A) Fern Canyon/Summit Avenue ROW No N/A N/A Send at Marion {near Monte Vista
and 25 Marion). On hairpin turn. 18'
143 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 027-243-24 0.00 21.4 RS-10 Single Family (RS) Wide No 7 DU/acre barcel size needec next to 175 marion. small strip -
144 CITY OF Mill VALLEY 027-243-19 0.00 34.4 RS-10 Single Family (RS) drainage ? 12' wide No 7 DU/acre barcel size needeo Bend at WB and Ralston • Hairpin
145 CllY OF Mill VALLEY 027-022-01 0.00 35.9 RS-43 Single Familv (RS) turn 26' wide at the top No 7 OU/acre barcel size needeo Hait pin turn at Eldridge and
146 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 02.9-032-32. 0.00 33.4 RS-6 Single family (RS) Blithedale terrace No 7 DU/acre barcel size needec 147 CITY OF MILL VALLEY 029-102-41 0.00 47.2 RS-6 Single Family {RS) SLP No 7 DU/acre barcel size neede~ ATIACHMENT4
Danielle Staude
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Chavez <[email protected]>
Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:42 PM
Danielle Staude
[External) Housing Opportunities
I CAUTION: External Sender
Ms. Staude
Thank you for your January 28, 2022 letter concerning Housing Opportunities on Commercial Sites.
I am the owner of the property located at 42 Miller Avenue in Mill Valley. Although 42 Miller is currently zoned C-D which limits the property to mixed use projects, it is an appropriate site for housing development. The property adjoins an existing town home development, is centrally located and has excellent access to public transportation. It also features a relatively large parking lot for the downtown area. It may be possible to convert the current three-story office building into three separate housing units. Moreover, it might be possible to construct additional housing units on the site by expanding the building and/or construct housing on a portion of the parking lot.
The City must recognize, however, that the C-D zoning designation constitutes a significant constraint on and barrier to the development of any housing at 42 Miller. This is because the ground floor ofthe existing building as well as the ground floor of any newly constructed building would have to be set aside for commercial use at a time when there is an obvious surplus of commercial space in Mill Valley. This mixed use requirement reflects an antiquated preference for commercial space which is inconsistent with the state-mandated public policy preference for the development of additional housing. It is difficult to envision how Mill Valley can create a regulatory environment in which the private market could build sufficient housing to achieve its RHNA numbers without modifying the City's commercial zoning to allow fully residential buildings.
I also urge the City to realistically examine the constraints and barriers to housing development created by the current requirements for parking and density as well as height limitations. These must all be reconsidered and revised to facilitate adequate housing construction.
Sincerely,
Mark
Mark A. Chavez
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT #5
Danielle Staude
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Mark Chavez <[email protected]>
Thursday, September 30, 20214:21 PM
Danielle Staude
[email protected]; city manager; Planning New Housing Element
Flag for follow up
Flagged
! CAUTION: External Sender
Ms. Staude
As you recently pointed out, "[h)ousing element law acknowledges that, for the private market to adequately address California's housing needs, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development." (September 1, 2021, Staff Report on Housing Element Update at 1). The process of developing a new Housing Element should, therefore, include a candid assessment of the existing "constraints" on housing projects created by the City of Mill Valley's General Plan and zoning regulations. Such an assessment would demonstrate that the City's "mixed use" requirement for commercial zones is a significant "constraint" on the development of housing in Mill Valley and an impediment to achieving the City's RHNA target for the 2023-2031 period.
In accordance with the General Plan, many of the lots accessible by public transportation in Mill Valley, which might be the most suitable for multifamily housing projects, have been placed into one of three zoning categories: Downtown Commercial (CD), Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and General Commercial (CG). (Mill Valley General Plan, Figure 2.4). In the CD and CN zoning areas, residential units are allowed "above or beyond the ground floor" as part of "mixed use developments." (Mill Valley General Plan, Table 2.2, General Plan Land Use Categories). Similarly, housing is allowed in the CG areas as part of "mixed use developments with [a] residential component." (Ibid}. Thus, the CD, CN and CG zoning categories individually and collectively reflect a discretionary policy choice made by Mill Valley to preserve and increase commercial development in key portions ofthe City. The inclusion of 5,000 square feet of seemingly superfluous commercial space in the project approved for 500 Miller Avenue reflects this policy choice and the current "mixed use" mandate embodied in Mill Valley's General Plan and zoning regulations.
As the owner of a lot located in the CD zoning area subject to the current constraints on housing development, I believe the time has come for the City to make a fundamentally different policy choice. The City has a legally enforceable obligation to "adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain}, housing development." No similar obligation exists for commercial space. Simply put, the requirement that any development within zoning categories CD, CN and CG include commercial space unduly constrains housing development in Mill Valley and may not be legally defensible given the large swaths of land which the City has elected to assign to these zoning categories. Moreover, a different policy choice is warranted because the current General Plan and zoning regulations were adopted before and fail to account for the recent shift to online shopping and remote work which have curtailed the need for commercial space.
The City could allow the market to determine whether multifamily housing is economically viable in the CD, CN and CG zoning areas by dispensing with the requirement that any housing development in those areas be part of a mixed use.
Alternatively, the City could carve out portions of the existing commercial zones, perhaps as small as individual blocks, and authorize high density housing in those areas. The specifics are probably best left to your expertise but the need for changes in the current regulatory system appears obvious.
Thanks for your consideration of my views.
Mark A. Chavez
[email protected]
42 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley
2 . .
_
11 ... Wtl4T vit>LW e.e= T~ HlG¥es.rAtJI?.~ ~~Vow~ ~K4=- . · . . ? . . .A~.c:-A . --- . . . - . .. -. . -- . . .. . ... . . . .. . . • • • } ~ ~ . • • • I • I • • •
11 1.0C'A:-:f~°- w .. ~ rce.M¢F.or._1ft~AYv·_~~~J .n:1c;. ~tm tll~ l-117\Kr ~ lo~t:Jt.Jtrw. $QJ>RS", . . ._. _·:_ : . • .. ····-~ \~!hH~ . Tue'M-u.1At~s '£trr_-CO fe"" .. OJMrt,~E:D, . .WD11daln:le" ~Mf~Rt-~CAR.fAB¥.lN6_ -· - - -- -~,. t\NP MTIP!A.~~~Jri-~Y'Tf- qi 1ff!::~eR.,~i~6fJ~S'SyfARCE:L1 . _ . . . --. . Dblt.'f iitE: ~ -P~ ~ t-t»J ~~ A rtf<.l«tUMrW !OOAL. ~, ... . -··
. 0 . lJ!J~'t Jl1l~ Ct-rt s.v~ iae~vwrl)''5 Q;qJf~Ar_wau P0$1" .. _ --~ [)JJ_ SqJtJ't&~ At,.CR ~'?f ei.rmerzt\1£_ aui.v tJNk'i 5U~Cf!..llK ~ye--~1--.. ·-· - ___ . .J1BO E--1'~-1w.lr .. ~liT_'Jlte.:_ ~Gltr .. OF .~Pl~Ci O>MMUMlY--~t.W't? ~, . ---· . . -. . . - . . - -·r- . - . . . . .
.. _ .. • .. av1at1fu5. ~f.Wuw.,. T~ ow~ -~~t;.Rt~ .avw. aa:rnME" lfi:..O:MM~.m. s. ... . ~L G~.6. FLACE ') .. A 1..lvr4J<5 -~lvl ~ ALL,~~s' ~~wt 1rt6 {,lITT1~ .. !J.J Co~1?1'G.rn'JtAa.L~ lv Wt/1/t-Q re"~or.ui.s i,.tAu;', ~~<WWGe:fCoW~SA-T~l'lr51J<;C~~ AND.tr~u.1c-;.,.~_Al-ll' ~Gr_o~ /\'JP.~-JN.,,, - - - -- . -- °' Aik~t:It.tl5. ~tJ. .. WJtt.'f:£. .. i~:}J~~, _.,45 wmt ~ .14\Nl-.t'lA:1A' Ar.t0JUtYAtUf ~K!Cr-···-· . . .\ft.Heb!_-.«€.~ -~~W. tr.1ittf ~L7. ~.-flJT-0 A~ Fa?..~'D~I.AtJ.5 ~twl~-~ur. -.. - ~~1~WN~8o.S~~~~.A~Ft.JJ...~ _MT.~ ..
fAFX_ _ _arr~ ,Z, 1ftE _QHJRC.H.. . _ . . _ __ _ _ _ . . • . ., $ JHU5/ffie; tttG~S.f AJP.e~sr US'J. tF-~ -~~11*JN6 .Wl)uw_Be..5rn~1- . .. A5 .. \tJE"LLA~ \Mf~ • . Q)MMIJNrri.S:~6~ f-t&1 v.'\~Dl'I~ ---·. - . • 7 _ __ :o _ANQ1 .S.AIJSAU.To.tlA'P.. 5ttaWN.~ ... W~'i-_;Wtte;U. lft~-f?.QVGHf TJfE. .. J)t>WJJft:M/N - .. .. -- -· · --···-· ... ~A!J~_CF . .A:M~~IQI\: 13.UtWJN6 .. -~ CQMk1UNt:ft: . .L.l5~ ... ~ ···- .... --- ·-·. ------.. --- --- - . .. . -- - . . ~ -
DOVETAIL SUSTAINA B LE C OMMUNITY DESIGN
--- -OAAICRERK' ARCHITECT-s22'CASCAOF oJ:r Ml([VAUFYCA""9.iJ9"4P(415) 3~ 862tdaifctien<@gmal[com . . . - +-
- r~.l1 I. ~a[ ~ A f~t~ ~fv'.~lB~~ l WO!M> ~~ ~~ .
.. --· .. __ _ -1rr~.-:tovg_ M~f.LG 1 ---~ L M .tr.~ .a: -rrre_ M!L~ VAV-~ ;1~~----·-- .. _ f-ioll~t~ G:1-M1rrr~, . wtt ~f<]G' i~ bl.AC, ..
' [ Wt\51{)1..f> 'trt.V~ Q:).1!17ff1~ t. @i~ 1;; ~µs:-1~ ~~6 .Qf1~1P. _CW,.
GaJet?AL MiJ / :U<$t .AJ)oPJ~ !t-J l975... Jmf -~ ~11 rWVf$e'.J) 1R ~.A) w Q) Tb?; ~t~J:b:;UA16,Jf Wmt A "S~ C{?C flAt--{ "- 'P,?.lhv/l&,S -~ woyqz_.
Jwtw.Af~ tf.ctv ~« El~~1 ~~ ~~ fl,rN 1J.JoUW ~ Li~ fj.) cult' U!ltY-1@1 UJ{)f/JJIJJA!iW f~µ~ CQP>.tP-aJvb .Alt 1ftlfG)AT~1l~,. _ ·-· _ .... _ ' ~ ON ~~ ~ Ttil? 5feaFz c fCIW, l>Jr~, HJ t9&o ~!~'f1> A l ru>,~ _ iv-'lklfJ1,.g ;p~~ "'#J'J ~\/&1=V ar1 ~=> :o~cn~.rwr- ~u:r~ ~ \IW\S ---. ~.LJ1Cf_aJt" "- . .l~Q/Jll.6_ .-0~-ff.UJ.~ f;'!A~NH/6 \.W\5 f,br' ~ Af.AL-v f TJ.tE cq. ____ _ ~ tr5 fiRC~rf6Ct<lnPrv APl/1~ ~t1t~ ~A= ~ wt-~ruCt-t ~
-------- V.Jttb_LtY&'P ~t'r~ ~1 i;~w tK ltta'Je...TiM6 1o l~ M~IA,:v'mtey, t7' "e"\k4 JJLJ~iw ~ ~eo~rmcrtv OF ~fll,t,Vf\"l;tef IN(;l;VJ>t~ f1J J~1JTlflffW~J A LOOL ~Pe'to Helf Crrwb' AllP 3MM\5f io~ TP \/t.S'v.,<nru A~ LJ~/ij.Jt, Qv.iJ/<9e5"' '
-.... i-ta.1>1'6 FlAuYi~ µ,,Jrf ~ ~'9f l~ eo"'Tm wcr11 ,Al,t. -r~ ~ ASfez:t5 l 5'.iat K OR.0J.t,tno~: /\fD ~ S'f'AlE.. w~. A Hovsel i01J J/'WLJ)N'T ~JJ A' --ee~ ~Dr W!IT"1>.·o lT.~ Jf~ UVu!.6 ~ ~f~TrC\-teJ , ANt3. FtA1.Jt--HIJ6 MUq' ~- f\Jpt..tC, ""fllAi~1£:ANSA~ .Ora/M,Jk.l~ CJrft~1 \/IJIJ0 fu\NS Ot,i~\1/nlL ---- ~ 10 fu~~L.. -tLM~fS A:. ~-e>.l"Dt:NY ffA~t-I.e.R. WllO 1GJ0\.'1S: le£ 101l"N fUu., UJ.'}t; AS. .V~'w 1\5 1HF31R <?OA/3,
' St;l rr~ u ve: TD J)E:\/p.l.l)f A Sfg;;!.;:p rWl ~ MIU.. v~ -A ttPJJ 1'rrlf \/J/Oth.:V tNCLLQf; .It 1mtAlJCeP ~51,J.6 '?Ta.-1(, _
51~'1,
J).AfZf O t~K i .A.~lTWf
is11 <:AS~17R\~
Danielle Staude
Subject: FW: [External) Housing Element Comments
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I sincerely appreciate and applaud the city's intent to get feedback from its residents, but the questions being discussed during the housing element meetings are difficult to address out of any context. As we all know, the devil is in the details. And I am afraid that in a rush to meet state mandates, a lot of wishful thinking and nice platitudes are ignoring, or at least washing over, hard realities.
I think most residents want to achieve the goals of economic and racial diversity in MV, but without sacrificing the town's unique character, charm and livability. Because any plan for a large housing and population increase will have major impacts, I am suggesting that we make sure that all proposals and their impacts are thoroughly thought through holistically.
Take the traffic issue as one very major issue. Some are saying that if people who work here are also living here, the traffic will be reduced. Have these people never tried to get in and out of town du ring many times of the day other than commute hours? All of us (including all new residents) have to drive out of MV for most of our everyday needs. Local town services were long ago replaced by shops for tourists and wealthy people. All of us drive to other towns to shop, do errands, meet friends, enjoy entertainment, see doctors, etc., and many, to drive to and from schools and school related activities. Since there is no viable public transportation alternative available to MV residents, even to get from one place within MV to another-not even school buses that our parents are willing to support-it's a simple equation:
more residents = more trips in and out of town and more traffic congestion. The benefits of our teachers and first responders working here and also living here will be subsumed by adding so many extra residents to a town that is already way beyond its carrying capacity.
The enormous differences in traffic congestion when schools are in session and when they are not is not subtle. A huge pan of the existing traffic problem in Mill Valley is school related .... parents or nannies driving the kids to and from school and, in the afternoons, to extra curricular activities. These trips will increase with the significant additional population increase that is proposed.
It seems like most, or at least, many projects being proposed include significantly more high-end (i.e. market rate) housing in order for developments to pencil out economically. The continuing influx of wealthy folks who own multiple cars and who, in addition, routinely employ gardeners, dog walkers, nanny's, house cleaners, home service people (construction workers, tradespeople etc. etc.) will exacerbate the traffic problem. Most service people employed by our privileged population (including by me .... l'm not passing judgment!} do not and will not be living in MV. There are too many folks who come to work here to ever be accommodated in our small town. In any case, it's a reasonable assumption that most people already have homes and families of their own which they're not likely to leave to move into a small (and most likely, still expensive,) MV living space. As demand for services increases with a higher number of well-to-do MV residents, so will there inevitably be an increase in the already unbearable traffic.
Traffic is just one example of needing to do a deep dive in analyzing impacts and mitigating unintended consequences. All infrastructure issues need to be thoroughly analyzed and not just given lip service .... water, fire and flood dangers and evacuation issues, parking, schools, protective service capacities, etc. I understand there is a state mandate and I regret that I do not have the expertise necessary to propose solutions. But I am hoping that with any proposal, the entire ecosystem is considered, not just one aspect or issue at a time. Once done, the changes will be permanent. No one wants to lose what makes Mill Valley precious to us.
And finally (for now) I want to know why the golf course is "off limits" for development consideration. This is a huge (for MV) parcel of land and relatively speaking, it is underutilized. Many more people use the Hamilton park, which Ii under consideration for development. We're told that most comments the city has received were in favor of keeping the golf course intact, but I would like to know if a reliable and representative survey of all MV residents has been made. It goes without saying that the folks who use the golf course would most likely be the people commenting and in favor of preserving it.
I would appreciate an email acknowledging receipt of this email and its inclusion in the record of comments. Thank you! Sincerely,
Seela lewis
2 Danielle Staude
From: Hans Strandgaard <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 9:52 AM
To: Danielle Staude
Subject: [External) Housing Opportunities on Commercial Sites Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Flag for follow up
Completed
I CAUTION: External Sender
Dear Danielle, we own a magnificent former Victorian residence at 271 Miller Ave that has been in commercial use for the last 50 years or so as office space. We do have commercial tenants but their leases are coming due in next few years. We have always considered restoring and updating the building and converting it back into a very nice single family or multi unit residence. Things that might encourage us to move forward with such a conversion of the building would be:
• An easy rezoning process by the City
• Reduction in building permit fees for the required upgrades to convert to residential • Reduced number of required parking spaces (there is no garage, but there is some on-property parking) • Ability to raise the building 4-Sft to convert the lower level into usable space {currently only 6' of headroom), without planning commission objection
• Exceptions to mandated energy code requirements (glazing/insulation) that might not be achievable in a 100 year old building or would significantly change its character • Exceptions to some building code requirements, for example, stair slope and landing requirements that do not meet current code
Hope these thoughts help.
Sincerely,
Hans Strandgaard, P.E.
[email protected]
Danielle Staude
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello Danielle,
Roy Nee <[email protected]>
Friday, March 04, 2022 5:39 PM
Danielle Staude
[External] 38 Miller Avenue, Mill Creek Plaza building
38 Miller Av.pdf
I attach a pdf site plan of Mill Creek Plaza with the area highlighted i~ yellow to show potential development location for a 4 story residential "rear" addition to the property, with 3 floors of dwelling units above a ground floor parking structure. The 12' high garage structure would span the property from side to sid_e and could provide up to 45 parking spaces, about 22 more spaces altogether within this built garage area of about 16,250 sf (125'x130').
The project would involve engineering a retaining wall for the back hillside, to create an offset into the hill of about 9 feet from where the current retaining wall sits. This fits well with my sense for an attractive design theme, beyond a green building direction, that imagines a terraced exterior elevation which deploys built garden planters and decks that act to soften the proposed massive addition to the property. Floor plate footprints would be 10' in height and range from roughly 16,500 to 10,500 square feet, to enclose about 44,000 sf of built space. Steel and concrete will be the foundational elements for the structure while wood and glass enhance the green design approach.
Floor plan and layout may include between 10 to 16 units per floor, with perhaps the following units count and composition:
14 - 570 sf studios;
18 - 890 sf 1-bed, 1.5 bathroom;
10 - 1300 sf 2-bed, 2.5 bathroom.
Given the downtown location and the overall trend in the general economy to embrace ride sharing, autonomous vehicles, and digitized services, parking per unit should be less than 1. With our recent experiences of at home office and telecommuting, well designed, larger than typical livings spaces should be attractive to most age groups, income levels (including the 20% affordable goal) and life preferences.
Downtown Mill Valley is a perfect location for this type of infill housing project. The current range of commercial businesses reflects a certain stability and social preference in the community. Residents of the town typically favor and enjoy local activities, food and dining, and proximity to Mount Tamalpais, amongst a wide range of interests. If indeed there is an opportunity to pursue development with a visible event horizon, that would make the difference between possible consideration and active personal focus.
I am open to share further and discuss if the opportunity presents itself. Mill Creek Plaza is my second home, if you will, after 33 years attending to its evolving operating and facility details. If I can answer questions or help in your process at this juncture, please advise.
Thank you for your attention.
All the best,
Roy Nee
General Partner
Nee Family Limited Partnership
dba Mill Creek Plaza
38 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
roynee@gma ii .com
Roy Nee
415-613-2242
2 \ C \ ! \ I i , \ 11 \ \
\ "IS / i 34 MIiier Ave
\ R.O.W.: Hceu to Clly parking lot
1 ·,-·---·-----·-·-----~;:;;;;;;;;;~~:::=::==;~~==;:==;~~-==::::;;;;;;;;;;;, ;t. i ;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.&;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;;;;:;;;;;;::=.-th I • i ! 1
I MIii Creek Plaza 38 MIiiar Ave
cu i ::,
! / I
I
I
\
11'4" 44',7'
r=====:,
\____ _________ . __ , I __ tr Ir "' .,. lf'll:Lj.J,ml....,.JNL.. Em\.-,-.
R.O.W.: MIiier Lane i;; I .
- - -1 - -1 - -
,-------
·---·------·- ----54'-11' -----
\ ,1<-----------il'---+-----21,-4-, ------------- - --f- Danielle Staude
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Chavez <[email protected]>
Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:42 PM
Danielle Staude
[External] Housing Opportunities
I CAUTION: External Sender
Ms. Staude
Thank you for your January 28, 2022 letter concerning Housing Opportunities on Commercial Sites.
I am the owner of the property located at 42 Miller Avenue in Mill Valley. Although 42 Miller is currently zoned C-D which limits the property to mixed use projects, it is an appropriate site for housing development. The property adjoins an existing townhome development, is centrally located and has excellent access to public transportation. It also features a relatively large parking lot for the downtown area. It may be possible to convert the current three-story office building into three separate housing units. Moreover, it might be possible to construct additional housing units on the site by expanding the building and/or construct housing on a portion of the parking lot.
The City must recognize, however, that the C-D zoning designation constitutes a significant constraint on and barrier to the development of any housing at 42 Miller. This is because the ground floor of the existing building as well as the ground floor of any newly constructed building would have to be set aside for commercial use at a time when there is an obvious surplus of commercial space in Mill Valley. This mixed use requirement reflects an antiquated preference for commercial space which is inconsistent with the state-mandated public policy preference for the development of additional housing. It is difficult to envision how Mill Valley can create a regulatory environment in which the private market could build sufficient housing to achieve its RHNA numbers without modifying the City's commercial zoning to allow fully residential buildings.
I also urge the City to realistically examine the constraints and barriers to housing development created by the current requirements for parking and density as well as height limitations. These must all be reconsidered and revised to facilitate adequate housing construction.
Sincerely,
Mark
Mark A. Chavez
[email protected]
Hi Danielle,
Thank you for your time on Friday to discuss options for my property at 91 E Blithedale Ave.
I had previous reached out to the Mill Valley planning department back in August 2020 and spoke to you about possibilities of adding an ADU to the property. I would also be interested in building a non-ADU, residential unit, on the rear of the property (on the Sunnyside Ave side). In addition, I'd be interested in looking at options to convert the downstairs commercial space into residential.
In the past Mill Valley's parking requirements for residential units has limited my ability to add additional housing on this property. If Mill Valley is rec1;msidering the parking requirements, that would help in the decision to add additional housing on my property.
As we had discussed, I'd like to be added to the list of properties that are in consideration for review in downtown Mill Valley. As a home owner in Mill Valley, I would be interested in being involved and would be happy to provide any additional details or perspective.
Thank you,
Jarret Weis
(415) 686-2429
Danielle Staude
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
316 22
Dear Ms Staude
Howard Cohen <[email protected]>
Wednesday, March 16, 2022 8:27 PM
Danielle Staude
howard Cohen; catherine angelina manfredini-cohen
{External] Single-Family Zoned Vacant Lot
We write in response to receiving your letter of March 14, 2022 regarding a vacant lot.
Our 2600 sq ft single-family residence sits on 8.8 acres. The land consists primarily of two APNs:
027-066-19 (5.06 ac) & 027-062-01 (3.51 ac. VACANT). In November 1984 the City merged those parcels. With all due respect. .. we believe the time is right to consider unmerging those parcels.
We would like to add an ADU to our current residence on an existing graded pad, and would also consider adding an additional single-family residence and ADU on our vacant 3.5 ac parcel below the road.
Existing underground utilities run beneath all the proposed building sites and include: a 6" gravity sewer; a PG&E transformer & natural-gas pipeline; as well as a fibre-optic cable. An MMWD 6" pipeline & fire hydrants are already in place. Subject to approval we would also put in a water well to service all four residences' needs for landscaping, thereby greatly reducing the demands on this very scarce resource.
200 Myrtle is built out of non-combustible materials; it's structure is reinforced concrete. We also feel our design is not ostentatious and fits in well with the surroundings. Our proposed new structures would follow suit. Visually the new residences would fill-in a gap on a ridge with existing houses above & below. Visitors enjoying SLP 336 would feel very little overall impact when recreating.
Our roof is metal; our R38 walls are cementitious and made of 86% recycled material; and our floor is a slab-on-grade.
3 In 2015 we applied for permission to build an ADU on an existing graded pad below our residence.
While the project was well received by the planning commission it was held up for two reasons:
an errant Nuisance Abatement which was subsequently rescinded; and the requirement to pave the road. We are willing to pave the road - at our expense -- but permission is still being withheld for reasons which remain a complete mystery to us. We believe SMFD would also like to see this road paved.
If given City approval of our existing ADU design, we could move forward quickly on an on this prepared site located just below our home.
5 Overview
6 We hope to attend the planning commission/city council meeting on March 22nd and would be grateful if you submitted this email to the decision makers.
Regards
Catherine & Howard Cohen
200 Myrtle Ave
8 L
°ZlB!22
MBILlVM.~NNUllNtGi _ _________ .
Lil Ar I.AST i,JIGffTS MeriPN~l I HgARD ~ w,A~ 5A'f "~ J~ j)JfftaJLT.1.AM> A .CbUaJaLMAtJ 5AY "WB AFB ~ar ~rrra?, 1Jl fit\VHJG Cb~lBof~D /, ~~J 1o 'et)IW,tJC (.oWtivf!~ l ~ A ~lEF At-,IALy5'5, 1
a: QV\~ ,~ T'tre ~stRlJCrlO.J Cf .nHtOOSB, Srlf .. FLA NtJ~~L ~f.J6 lo Jusr ~~ o,~uor"'~ ~JI~ COUU> ~ U)II~ ~ uJ 1 1P ·
5'~ 1t1fi fl,W51;i, ~ ~ Q)~l1Vtt'f ~, Wrnt lla4~st~of . G'tJuet f~ fa:L. t:>{5Q>~f.$crep, •. ~5UA1MS Ui t,l\M~)'r1M-Jt,~ '>A'/ bJo "to ~61:, ~t> "nH5 ls 1£M ~WM,
1,1. -me-.$'0WI1ou ts ro Gg,of l>u~s~v'es, ~'1() };ACK IN-"oU>f: W1PEJ[ f!A!-lt,J ,.i~ "'~ ~~o cnr Aval~ -1AA1' MIU., VAli.e/ al~ H/tP ! ~w vr MVt.:fr~ ftA"'5 - ~J,.i6, 9t&:ee\5, f'J~ l'lA~1 OJM~ .:Pl~~ Ufe1/ SPACE}- /tU. [~(ot~trf;!t7 As A 1~,~ 1c)Wil rlA1J, :p,~Ut~Wo~,
rs ~mn5 f,t~tctf,ff~ ftt'~ffut6 ~ ~~ cnv W\U... ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~IJG ~i;p To ~ -~:p~ 5o ~ -ii{~~ ft\J:!f Cf
Tue- flAIJS, f)vil.-U1-1~, A Ui.JtfleP Vl5lot,l E'/ol-V651 A Vt$\o}J ~~ n-rat ~v,.,rw,
m Ti-le Ci>MIILUtJrr/1 UJ1ftl5 WA'/, C/\ir wAtT ~ ltt~ ftlt)Jf 1o~ ~--
DOVETAIL SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DESIGN
DART CHERI< ARCHITECT 522 CASCADE DR MILL VAllE'f CA 94941 (415) 888 8622 dlvtc:herkOgmalLcom Shapiro Associates
391 Miller Avenue Mill Vallev CA 9494'l
[email protected]
Danielle,
Thank you for taking an interest in our property as part of the City's update of the Mill Valley Housing Element plans. I am writing to you representing Shapiro Associates, LLC, the owners of 383 Miller Ave, 387-395 Miller Ave, 16, 18,20 La Gama, and lot parcel # 030-271-69.
A few years ago, our family decided to redevelop the buildings on the parcels noted above. In 2019, we submitted an application to the planning department, which was approved, to remodel the 391 Miller Ave building commercial and retail space, not changing permitted use of the lot. Due to changes in the current economy and Covid-19 related changes in commercial and retail space, we have reconsidered our plans, and are now evaluating a housing component. We have done preliminary investigations regarding the site, we have engaged with architects and engineers, had conversations with FEMA, and now are in consultation with a Developer, Bruce Dorfman.
We would be pleased to have the opportunity to work with the City of Mill Valley and explore how we can jointly help to meet the City's Housing Element requirements. In a preliminary mixed-use study of our properties, our architect has sketched a few schemes which include commercial/retail use and parking on the bottom floor, with gardens, a lobby, public areas, and bike parking, and multiple levels of townhouse/apartment/condo living. We believe the housing component of our properties can also be expanded by adding additional floors, relocating the Marin Theater Company, increased land use including the entire space of the 391 Miller Ave building and potentially integrating the City's adjacent parking lot into the development. Based on preliminary evaluations and feasibility, the City will need to relax existing standards such as height and parking and approve variances to facilitate development of a housing component.
We look forward to better understanding the City's plans and working with the city to solidify ways to increase the housing component of our development as part of the City's Housing Element plan.
Very truly yours,
Elyse Karow
Shapiro Associates, LLC
Association of Bay Area Governments Re: SB9
A number of jurisdictions have asked if they can use SB 9 to help satisfy their RHNA. While theoretically possible, there are several challenges in doing so, including:
• There is no local {or regional) track record,
• There is limited HCD guidance,
• In some cases, there is no adopted ordinance to compare to, • It is unclear if SB 9 units a<e net new units would have happened anyway under ADU laws, and • There is little guidance on what affordability levels to assume.
The lack of an adopted ordinance is a problem, because it is not clear if the jurisdiction will ultimately adopt a policy that promotes duplexes and lot splits or merely does the minimum needed to comply with state law. Without this information, is hard to predict how much property owners will use SB 9.
A more promising path may be a well thought out Missing Middle strategy, and even this strategy will not be easy.
Generally, HCD has approved two types of methodology for the Sites inventory:
• Recent trends- For ADUs, HCD directs jurisdictions to multiply recent annual trends by eight (because there are eight years in the planning cycle). If there were a track record for SB 9, this would be the preferred method for the sites analysis. If a jurisdiction has a strong track record of approving building permits associated with SB 9 applications in the first half of 2022, there may be a solid argument for using this method.
• Analysis of individual sites - For most vacant and nonvacant sites, for example, a closed department store, HCD directs jurisdictions to conduct an analysis of the site and evaluate the potential for redevelopment. The analysis must take into account the existing uses, site characteristics, zoning, access to infrastructure, market conditions, etc. Applying this method to SB 9 would require listing each site where SB 9 is applicable and conducting an analysis. HCD mentioned the idea of conducting a survey to gauge homeowner interest in using SB 9 as a starting place for building this inventory.
HCD has provided comment letters to several Southern California jurisdictions that often resemble the following:
Senate Bill 9 (Statutes of 2021} Projections: The element is projecting X units that will be developed based on the passage of SB 9 (Statutes of 2021) to accommodate a portion of its above moderate income RHNA. To utilize projections based on SB 9 legislation, the element must 1) include a site-specific inventory of sites where SB 9 projections are being applied to, 2) include a nonvacant sites analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment and that the existing use will not constitute as an impediment for additional residential use, and 3) include programs and policies that establish zoning and development standards early in the planning period and implement incentives to encourage and facilitate development. The element should support this analysis with local information such as local developer or owner interest to utilize zoning and incentives established through 58 9.
ATTACHMENT #6
Short of a track record or conducting the type of analysis that HCD is requesting, it will be difficult to count SB 9 units in the sites inventory.
HCD has shown more interest in a broad-based Missing Middle Housing approach. This would likely start with a Council directive to study Missing Middle and a well-crafted package of incentives and policy changes to promote this type of development. Jurisdictions may want to hire an urban economist to predict likely uptake. Additionally, they can utilize the resources and development tool here:
https:ljabag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/regional-housing-technical-assistance/peer-cohorts-work-groups Analysis/relevant data could include a proforma, summary of eligible lots, record of homeowner inquiries, survey of property owners, results from public meetings, etc. An accurate analysis should only summarize the net increase (e.g. deducting units demolished from the total) and also not count units that would have been produced under ADU rules.
Please note: If the missing middle zoning is not in place by January 31, 2023, jurisdictions would not be able to use Missing Middle for lower income housing. This is because programs to rezone for lower income housing cannot be on small sites.
• 2!i80 ft
- Pipeline Projects
- City-Owned Site
D Opportunity Sites (>O.S acre)
D Underutilized Sites ( <0.5 acre)
- Office Conversion
Parcels
t' ...
• - • City Boundary
0 0.5
)
o,re C anyon
Homestead
Valley Open
s ace
City of Mill Valley
Sites Inventory
N
1 Miles
Corte M adera
Tamalpais
Vall e Junction
a.
ATTACHMENT #7