1 CITY OF MILL VALLEY
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
MILL VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER – CASCADE ROOM*
180 CAMINO ALTO, MILL VALLEY
November 30, 2022
6:30 P.M.
Mayor Jim Wickham – Present
Vice Mayor Urban Carmel – Present
Councilmember Stephen Burke – Absent
Councilmember Max Perrey – Present
Chair Alan Linch – Present
Vice Chair Jon Yolles – Present
Commissioner Ernest Cirangle –Present
Commissioner Eric Macris – Present
Commissioner Greg Hildebrand – Present
City Staff Present: City Manager Cusimano; City Attorney Khalsa; Director of Building and Planning Kelly; Senior Planner Staude; and City Clerk Politzer. *To view the recorded video from the November 30, 2022 meeting, select the following link:
https://cityofmillvalley.granicus.com/player/clip/1785?view_id=2&redirect=true
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wickham called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM, noting Councilmember Burke was absent.
ACTION OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
None.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA ORDER
Special Agenda_221130
Mayor Wickham proposed that the two agenda items under Old Business be switched so that Item #2, 1 Hamilton Drive, be heard first and Item #1, Housing Element Update be heard second.
It was MOVED by Vice Mayor Carmel and SECONDED by Councilmember Perrey to approve the agenda order, as amended. The Motion was carried by a 3-0 vote. Councilmember Burke, absent.
2 PUBLIC OPEN TIME
Mayor Wickham opened Public Open Time.
Speakers: Susan Kirsch, Dart Cherk, Clayton Smith, Charles Ziegler, Jackson Stromberg, James Anthony Coyle, Dale Komai
Communications (via eComment): None.
Mayor Wickham closed Public Open Time.
OLD BUSINESS
2. 1 Hamilton Drive Joint Study Session to: 1) Discuss Community Feedback Received at the October 13th Open House; 2) Consider Feasibility Assessment from the EAH Team; and 3) Provide Input on the Preliminary Conceptual Designs and Consider Advancing a Preferred Concept to Allow Staff to Assemble a Planning Application to Fully Evaluate Building Approximately 40-50 Apartment Units Affordable to Lower Income Households, Including Design Review, Environmental Review, and Entitlement Materials (Ground Lease, Parcel Map, and Rezoning of the Site) (Assessor’s Parcel Number 030-250-01).
Recommended Action: Discuss community feedback, consider feasibility, provide input, and consider advancing a preferred concept.
Item 1_Staff Report_Housing Element Update_221130
Item 1_Attachment 1_Public Comments Received After Initial Public Comment Period_221130
Item 1_Supplemental Staff report on HCD Comments_221130 Item 1_Communication No. 1_221130
Item 1_Communication Nos. 2 thru 11_221130
Item 1_Communication Nos. 12 thru 26_221130
Vice Mayor Carmel introduced Old Business Items #1 and #2 and explained the hearing procedure.
Senior Planner Staude gave a presentation on the proposed 1 Hamilton Drive affordable housing project and introduced the project team. She spoke regarding the work to date, predevelopment activities, feasibility analysis, site planning, community outreach, technical studies, environmental review, financing, parking, emergency services, and the preliminary conceptual designs to be discussed at the hearing, and the reasons for selecting this site. Fair housing and providing housing in all areas of Mill Valley Senior Planner Staude said there is not one solution to address housing mobility and affordability and they are using a variety of solutions and opportunities.
Principal Architect Rick Williams of Van Meter Williams Pollack said they are working to evaluate the feasibility of an affordable housing development on the site and to determine the important strategies. He outlined the project’s components to serve and support the residents 3 such as utilities, offices, laundry room, community room, and bike storage, and said they plan on parking for 65 units under the requirements of the State density bonus laws. He spoke regarding the views of the project from the hills, neighboring properties, surrounding streets, the ball fields, and the site itself. Architect Williams gave an overview of the revisions made to the two concepts presented at the last community meeting based on public feedback, such as refined roof forms, step-downs, colors and materials, and building shapes. He outlined the massing strategies of the two conceptual buildings and the way in which the two schemes treat the frontage differently: the first V-shaped building has three stories along the street and steps back to four stories, and the second T-shaped building steps back further in the front and then stacking the building and only stepping back at the two ends. Architect Williams said the T-shaped configuration is more cost-effective and thus more feasible because of its compactness, large single podium open space, overall tightness, building configuration, and having the same unit count and unit mix, and the same amount of parking, as the V-shaped configuration.
Senior Planner Staude summarized the project team’s recommendations regarding reconfiguring the parking lot, approximate building locations, and the proposed proper line established as part of parceling off the property and rezoning it as multi-family residential. She recommended the T-shaped concept for the reasons Architect Williams gave. Senior Planner Staude outlined the next steps if City Council moves forward with a planning application: the project team would assemble that application, develop a conceptual design to bring to the Planning Commission as part of design review, request a Tree Removal Permit as part of building on the site, generate a tentative parcel map to separate the parcel to rezone from open area to multi-family residential, package an EIR that would evaluate the proposed project, and establish a long-term ground lease to allow EAH Housing to construct and manage the housing project. Senior Planner Staude reported that the Notice of Preparation would be released shortly, the scoping meeting had been moved from December 8th to January 2023, the release of the EIR is still to be determined, and Planning Commission and City Council hearings would take place as part of the design review application.
Vice Mayor Carmel reminded the audience of the meeting objectives: to move forward with a development review package, and the City Council would choose one of the concepts to move forward for initiating the EIR and design package.
Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers asked questions of Architect Williams, Bianca Newman of EAH Housing, Senior Planner Staude, and Rob Canahan of WRA Environmental Consulting.
Vice Mayor Carmel opened public comment.
Speakers: Nancy Carlston, Sue Kalani, Steve Jaber, Karen Jaber, Ken Schwarz, Barbara Rowe, Elizabeth O’Donnell, Nona Dennis, Bob Pendoley, Marta Villela, Sacha Bunge, Rebekah Helzel, Gary Batroff, Tracy Houston, Rod Usheline (phonetic), Gary Appell, Caroline Heider, Judith Bloomberg, Paula McGrath, Brad Drury, Eric Bindelglass, David Levin, John McCauley, Eileen Fisher, Clayton Smith, Dart Cherk, Greg Greunke, Ester Cherk. 4 Communications (via eComment): The Council took a brief recess to read eight public comments sent via eComment.
Vice Mayor Carmel closed public comment.
Bianca Newman of EAH Housing, Architect Rick Williams, and Senior Planner Staude answered questions posed by the public and City Council.
Vice Mayor Carmel began the deliberative portion of the hearing, stating that staff’s requests of the City Council are to approve the advancement of a determined package and settle on a preferred concept so they can begin work on the design and kick off the EIR.
Vice Chair Cirangle said he had been a strong proponent of the V-scheme and agreed with a community member’s desire for some of the good aspects of the V-scheme to influence the Tscheme. He said the design team made great progress between the October meeting and the November drawings and that influenced his opinion of what the design could be. He did not consider it a positive to go back to the renderings from October, because the EIR wouldn’t need that level of detail and one of the simpler renderings could be used to depict mass and scale and roof form progress. Vice Chair Cirangle said he was hoping to participate in the progress of the design with things like learning from both schemes, looking at the V-scheme’s predominantly three levels from the park side, and having a meaningful dialogue in a timely fashion so that design decisions would be able to incorporate input rather it being too late in the process.
Commissioner Hildebrand said the original V-concept was based on trying to get a good site strategy to soften the edge along Hauke Park, break up the massing to make it look more residential, massing that is respectful to other areas in the neighborhood and is compatible with the community center. He agreed with Vice Chair Cirangle that the design progress made from October to November was huge and said his feelings about the T-scheme changed when the alternate came along and the massing ideas from the V-scheme were brought in and broke up the building—with the roof forms being an integral part of that—to get it to a more residential scale.
Commissioner Hildebrand was confident they could develop the design and supported the Tscheme, but with the understanding that the T-alternate, that the roof form is integral to that scheme, the massing works. He added that having a hip roof in Mill Valley at that scale is out of context with everything around it.
Chair Linch also appreciated the progress made to the design and thought there was more opportunity for further improvements that would make the T-scheme more successful. He said it is helpful that the footprint would be studied in the environmental review and could provide future wiggle room for design, and he encouraged continued collaboration with the design professionals on the Planning Commission to make improvements. Chair Linch thought there was more opportunity for transparency in the financial considerations of the different options, which could help make a case for the choices being made. He supported the overall project and said the refinements have been positive.
Commissioner Macris supported moving forward with the T-scheme and echoed his fellow commissioners’ comments, particularly on design. He said a lot of the detail regarding the street- 5 level perspective at the face is yet to be resolved, and a lot of the renderings are a bit far from what it would look like to a passerby. He said the repeated theme of the east versus west divide in Mill Valley in the public comments but said he grew up in Mill Valley and only just recently heard of it because of this project. He noted the entire town has become quite wealthy over the decades and to focus on a divide within the town is missing the broader point of the issue of equity on a much larger scale. Commissioner Macris said Mill Valley’s downtown was located where the hills are because it was convenient in the logging days with railroads, but most of the new development has happened farther from the hills where it is more cost-effective to build.
Vice Chair Yolles echoed an earlier comment that if affordable housing must be built, choose smart growth locations that are close to amenities, services, schools, and open space, and said this is an excellent location for this project that could reduce trips and traffic by locating housing in a town that 80% of its workers must commute into. He supported moving forward in the general fashion that Commissioner Cirangle and Commissioner Hildebrand stated and was pleased to see so much evolution at such an early stage in the process for the T-scheme. He encouraged Architect Williams to continue to look at the multi-family design guidelines as the project evolves and said almost every project, whether single- or multi-story, that fronts this kind of bayfront land slopes up and away from the site, so there is a lot to be said about roof forms concerning that and they also create a nice platform for photovoltaics. He also encouraged looking at heavy trellising and evergreen landscaping to help obscure the parking podium. He liked the idea of moving the restrooms to the park side of the street, but if the cost is too prohibitive, he suggested looking at traffic calming measures such as a crosswalk sign with flashing lights and looking at a site distance analysis to ensure there is not a hazard for kids there.
Vice Mayor Carmel summarized that the Planning Commission had given a universal recommendation to proceed with the T-concept into the next phase.
Mayor Wickham agreed with advancing the development package and supporting the project because Mill Valley needs affordable housing. He noted that when he retired from the police force in 2010, he was the last police officer to live in Mill Valley, and for years he knew the public safety building location would be a great place to put affordable housing for police, fire, teachers, etc., because the City-owned that property. His concern was that this would be a multimillion-dollar lot with a gorgeous view and become a high-end property and he wanted to make sure what they put there was appropriate. He said initially the V-shape was very pertinent, but now he loves that the T-shape fits in and looks so much better than the V-shape because it is more compact and has less density. He said affordable housing at this location would not impact Enchanted Knolls as much as was feared, would not be a problem traffic-wise, and would be a fantastic addition to the community. Mayor Wickham said he was pleased this project could move forward because City staff has been envisioning it for 40 years.
Councilmember Perrey supported moving forward so they could get to the design considerations and determine the number of units. He said it would be helpful if there were technological ways other than story poles of showing the scale and mass of the building. He hoped they could review the financials and see what might be possible in moving the bathroom to the other side of the street, but short of that he agreed with Vice Chair Yolles that traffic 6 calming measures should be considered because the current situation is not safe and should be improved. Councilmember Perrey said the T-concept was an improvement from the October plan and is the best option.
Vice Mayor Carmel was also in favor of advancing the T-alternate concepts for further review, including submission to the EIR. He believed the T-alternate works the best because a lot of great things that came out of the V-concept have been incorporated into the T-alternate, and he agreed with the comments of the two Planning Commission architects, Commissioner Cirangle and Commissioner Hildebrand. He encouraged a collaborative effort going through the next phase and thought they could come up with a project they could all be proud of. He said the project should be viewed in the broader context that it has been 30 years since Mill Valley created any affordable housing, and that over the last 50 years, it has only created three affordable housing projects, less than 2% of the housing in Mill Valley, which is not enough. He said there would be affordable housing development taking place on both sides of Mill Valley, as it should be.
It was MOVED by Vice Mayor Carmel and SECONDED by Councilmember Perrey to direct staff to move forward with the T-alternate design concept and to develop a project description with the EAH team. The Motion was carried by a 3-0 vote. Councilmember Burke, absent.
1. Housing Element Update: Review of State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) response letter.
Recommended Action: Review HCD response to the draft of the 2023-2031 Housing Element and provide direction, as needed.
Item 2_Staff Report_1 Hamilton Drive Joint Study Session_221130 Item 2_Attachment 1_Conceptual Design and Site Plan to Relocate Existing Facilities_221130
Item 2_Attachment 2_Open House Polling Results and Notes_221130 Item 2_Attachment 3_Additional Public Comments_221130
Item 2_Communication Nos. 1 thru 8_221130
Item 2_Communication Nos. 9 thru 89_221130
Item 2_Communication Nos. 90 thru 123_221130
Senior Planner Staude gave a presentation on the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) response letter regarding Mill Valley’s Draft Housing Element and the areas Mill Valley needs to work on:
• Quantifying and qualifying information.
• Folding historical land use and demographic trends into the housing needs. • Additional data analysis and support data.
• Actions that promote mobility and new housing opportunities throughout Mill Valley. • The status of the pipeline projects and indicate what the process is for getting those approvals to count them towards the site's inventory.
• Identify trends in development.
• Elaborate on the status of the 1 Hamilton Drive affordable housing project. 7 • Clarify that as part of the proposed Housing Overlay Districts, they are rezoning all sites previously used in the site's inventory in previous RHNA cycles and housing element cycles to allow using those sites again.
• Add programs that are now required, such as establishing priority services for lower income housing units and adding supporting data for emergency shelters and farm workers.
• The constraints section needs more analysis of land costs, supply, and number of hearings to get to an approval.
• Considering modifying the Housing Overlay Program 20 for office overlay, small lot overlay, and opportunity site overlay, and offering ministerial review for the small lot overlay, like office overlay and opportunity site overlay already have. • More documentation regarding fair housing and how to better welcome and integrate others into the community.
• Address topographical constraints.
City Councilmembers and Planning Commission Members asked questions of Senior Planner Staude and Building and Planning Director Kelly.
Vice Mayor Carmel opened public comment.
Speakers: Clayton Smith, Unidentified Female
Communications (via eComment): Tammy Edmonson, Peggy Chipkin.
Vice Mayor Carmel closed public comment.
City Councilmembers and Planning Commission Members asked questions of Senior Planner Staude.
Vice Mayor Carmel polled the City Council and Planning Commission on whether they supported ministerial review for the Small Lots Overlay as they have for the Office and Opportunity Sites overlays.
Commissioner Macris supported it, saying it is low impact and addresses community and HCD concerns.
Vice Chair Yolles said he wouldn’t support it until the objective design standards are in place, and that while he supports expediting affordable housing, he also sees how challenging projects can be for the community and neighbors, especially with a 14-unit project at 29 units per acre.
He said having discretionary review gives them the ability to weigh and be stewards of their built environment.
City Councilmembers and Planning Commission Members asked questions of Building and Planning Director Kelly and Senior Planner Staude.
8 Vice Mayor Carmel said there is an opportunity to use some stopgap measures to protect Mill Valley until they get the objective design standards approved, so they have from January until sometime in the spring.
Chair Linch found it interesting that there has been so much emphasis on not allowing them to explore code changes with the Housing Element to meet the numbers, but now they are making them spell out the changes they are going to make to meet the element; he thought they wanted to get the element approved and certified and then focus on different changes that would make the most impact. He said this seems like a drop in the bucket compared to things that could have more impact, such as stronger parking changes, the micro-unit reform, and things that could show a real commitment to meeting or exceeding the RHNA numbers, and he thought they were more important than reducing the discretionary review on small sites. He thought a compromise would be them being on a path to do that once the objective design standards are finalized, and in addition, beef up the micro-unit reform and parking reform to have an even broader impact on Mill Valley’s ability to meet the numbers. He said if the City judges that they must do this to placate HCD, have a path of having less discretionary review once they have the objective design standards finalized. Chair Linch did not support having a blanket shift to ministerial review without those standards in place but said having that commitment could answer that question from HCD.
Commissioner Hildebrand’s thoughts were like Chair Linch’s in how to get these basic things in the parking code, park ordinance, and zoning code, updated so they could encourage sustainable development in areas where it makes the most sense, and doing this because they would be in trouble otherwise seems misguided. He said that these less than-half-acre sites are critical because it is Mill Valley, and to say they don’t care what happens on those because they must meet this RHNA number, he struggled with saying on less than half-acre sites they can do whatever they want. Commissioner Hildebrand said they need objective design development standards before we can say yes.
Vice Mayor Carmel summarized that staff would come back with specific language with some protection soon, and then a timeline for getting the objective design standards approved within a reasonable period.
Vice Chair Cirangle said it would be premature to give up the review process that is helpful to the community without knowing more about the process that would replace it, and he felt the same reluctance as his fellow commissioners to agree to something they don’t understand. He said it would be helpful if they could get clarity on it, and some kind of transition mode that meets the State’s goals, so they are clear about what their responsibilities are.
Vice Mayor Carmel summarized that they had a proposal from staff to flesh this out in a little bit more detail and come up with a stopgap measure until they have objective design standards.
Mayor Wickham said his issue is delaying this process too long, but he was okay with the staff’s offering to come back with language the Council could respond to. 9 Commissioner Yolles said staff is welcome to prepare the requested language and stopgap objective standards, but he pointed out that a Blithedale Avenue project is potentially in the pipeline, one project under construction on Miller, and another in Planning Commission study session, so it is not like no good faith progress has been made. He pointed out that most of the Southern California projects don’t even have a certified Housing Element yet, so he didn’t believe this is their last opportunity to come back and layer it in if they don’t move forward with the ministerial review on the small sites in January.
ADJOURNMENT – The Council ADJOURNED at 11:19 p.m. to the next Regular City Council meeting to be held on Monday, December 5, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. in the Mill Valley City Council Chambers.
___________________________
Stephen Burke, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
Risa De Ferrari, City Clerk