STAFF REPORT

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Kari Svanstrom, Senior Planner~

VIA: Vin Smith, Director of Planning and Building

SUBJECT: Update on Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Development Standards and Design Guidelines and City Council Direction

DATE: September 8, 2015

Approved for Forwarding:

~---~ C--"hec'c..-

1 ISSUE: 2 The City is developing Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Development Standards and 3 Design Guidelines as one of the short-term implementation measures outlined by the MV2040 4 General Plan. Staff recently held two community meetings to discuss the draft regulations with 5 community members (July 8 and July 15, 2015). This staff report presents a summary of 6 concerns and outlines steps to address community concerns and seeks direction from the City 7 CounciL 8 9 ACTIONS REQUESTED

10 1. Adopt a Resolution directing staff to develop a General Plan Amendment to refine 11 General Plan policies and Land Use Map recognizing the Downtown Residential Area. 12 2. Confirm direction staff is taking regarding the Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use 13 Design Guidelines and Zoning District Development Standards project. 14 15 BACKGROUND: 16 One of the City Council ' s Priority Projects is completion of a number of short-term 17 implementation measures outlined in the General Plan. One of these implementation items is to 18 consider changes to the Zoning District Development Standards for Multi-Family Residential 19 Zones and to develop and adopt Multi-Family Residential (MFR) and Mixed-Use (residential 20 and commercial/office combined) Design Guidelines. Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance 21 Development Standards, work in tandem to set community expectations, guide renovation and 22 development requests, and clarify City policies. Currently the City has no Design Guidelines for 23 Multi-Family Residential or Mixed-Use development, and the Zoning Ordinance Development

I

ITEMS

24 Standards in place date from the 1960's and are missing key components such as any floor area 25 ratio requirement. 26 27 Zoning and Design Guidelines Advisory Committee Work 28 City Council directed staff to work with the Zoning and Design Guideline Advisory Committee 29 (ZDAC), appointed by the Mayor in 2014, to develop Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use 30 Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance Development Standards. For purposes of clarity and to 3 1 refresh the Council's and Community's understanding ofthe General Plan - Zoning Ordinance 32 relationship, staff provides a brief"primer" in Attachment 2 on: the relationship of the General 33 Plan and Zoning Ordinance; the Land Use Map and Zoning Map; and, the MV2040 General Plan 34 policies which were addressed as part of the ZDAC's work. 35 36 In addition to developing a full set of recommended Design Guidelines for Multi-Family and 37 Mixed-Use development, the Committee also reviewed proposed changes to the existing Zoning 38 Ordinance. Development Standards for Multi-Family Residential and appropriate new 39 Development Standards for Mixed-Use developments in commercial zones. The Committee did 40 not review changes to other commercial zone regulations as the Planning Commission is 41 working on these separately. 42 43 The ZDAC met regularly from May through December of2014, and held its final meeting on 44 December 16, 2014. At its December meeting, the ZDAC unanimously voted to recommend the 45 draft MFR and Mixed-Use Design Guidelines and Development Standards, with minor revisions, 46 to the Planning Commission for its review. 47 48 Planning Commission Review of ZDAC Work 49 As described in the attached January 13, 2015 Staff Memo to Planning Commission, adoption of 50 these regulations involves three separate components: a) adoption of text revisions to the Zoning 51 Ordinance to reflect recommended changes to the existing Zoning Ordinance Development 52 Standards; b) approval of new Design Guidelines; and c) adoption of zoning map revisions to 53 provide consistency with the Zoning Ordinance text revisions (see Attachment 3 for outline of 54 the process). 55 56 The Design Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance text amendments were distributed to the 57 Planning Commission in January 2015 and the Planning Commission started their informal 58 evaluation. Public notice was sent in early April and a public hearing was held by the Planning 59 Commission on April 14, 2015 at which time the Planning Commission recommended adoption 60 of the Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance text amendments. The Zoning Map revisions 61 were then scheduled for Planning Commission review at its June 14,2015 hearing. After 62 significant feedback from the community, and residents of the Downtown Multi-Family 63 Residential zones in particular, the City postponed any hearings on this item so that staff could 64 meet with the community to communicate the proposed changes and respond to feedback from 65 the community. 66 67 DISCUSSION: 68 As noted above, the City held two community meetings on July 8 and 151 2015, which were 69 attended by over 120 community members. Based on input from the community at these two

2

70 meetings and via written correspondence, it is clear that there are two primary areas of 71 neighborhood concern: (1) concern that the proposed changes to the Development Standards of 72 the Zoning Ordinance and the new Design Guidelines will negatively affect their neighborhood 73 resulting in development inconsistent with the existing neighborhood character; and (2) concern 74 and objection to existing land use and long~standing zoning designations for Downtown Multi-75 Family Residential Zones and the resulting underlying development potential that is created by 76 these designations (See Attachment 4). The majority of the area in question is presently zoned 77 RM-1.5 which allows development at yields of up to 29 units per acre. Residents find this 78 development potential to be too intense. 79 80 Staff acknowledges the sincere concerns expressed by the residents and believes that action is 81 warranted to better align our land use policies and regulations with the desires of the 82 neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends further examination of these concerns through a 83 two-track process: 1) a General Plan refinement track; and 2) a track focusing on completion of 84 the MFR/Mixed Use Development Standards/Design Guidelines in concert with input and 85 desires of the neighborhood. 86 87 General Plan Refinement 88 This effort would consider potential refmements to the General Plan and Land Use Map that 89 would address the distinct character of these areas with more specific policies and would include 90 a new Land Use Map designation(s). Staff would work with community members and the 91 Planning Commission, and return to the City Council with a recommendation to amend the 92 General Plan. The components of these changes would:

93 a) Create of a new General Plan Land Use designation(s) to recognize the Downtown 94 Residential area, and modify the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect this new 95 classification;

96 b) Develop General Plan policies for the new Downtown Residential Land Use 97 designation, including densities and allowed uses, that would reflect the predominate 98 nature of the existing neighborhood and that would allow for a mix of single-family 99 residential and multi-family residential development with this Land Use designation;

100 and

101 c) Examine the boundary of the Downtown Multi-Family Residential Zones and 102 potentially adjust the boundaries to better align the Multi-Family Zones with current 103 uses. 104 105 The process for developing the General Plan Amendment includes staff development of a new 106 Land Use designation(s) based on the predominate existing densities ofthe identified Downtown 107 area (see image next page); discussion of the proposed amendment with the neighborhood; and 108 refinement of the designation and policies as appropriate. As with any General Plan Amendment, 109 the draft Amendment will be subject to Planning Commission review, followed by a City 110 Council hearing. Each of the hearings will include pubbc notice to affected property owners 111 (including a 300 foot buffer area), and the City Council hearings will included published notice 112 in the local newspapers (in addition to the electronic notification systems the City employs). 113 114 It should be noted that this General Plan Amendment and new Land Use Designation(s) will 115 most likely reduce the development potential of the Downtown area. The development of the

3

116 new Land Use Designation(s) and policies will review the implications to development potential, 117 as well as whether one or more Land Use Designation is needed to appropriately capture the 118 existing development patterns within the Downtown area. 119 120 While the General Plan is a living document that undergoes periodic review and updates, 121 amendments to a General Plan are uncommon and are not undertaken lightly. Given the strong 122 wishes of the neighborhood and the supporting policies of the General Plan, staff recommends an 123 amendment be developed to address the specific character of the downtown residential areas as a 124 refinement to the General Plan. To ensure that City Council agrees with this approach at this 125 initial step, staff is requesting the City Council formally djrect staff to undertake this work by 126 adopting the attached Resolution (Attachment 1). 127

4

.I

Multi-Family Downtown Zone Units Per Parcel

m.. ' 129

jkf·

130 Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Development Standards and Design Guideline 131 Completion 132 The second track is refinement of the proposed draft Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use 133 Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance Development Standards to address concerns raised by 134 the community. Planning staff will continue to work with neighborhood leaders to develop 135 alternative recommendations. Staff heard many concerns expressed related to proposed setbacks 136 (front and interior yards); building height; parking; and the use restrictions for new single family 137 residences in the downtown residential areas. We believe all ofthese issues can be addressed to 138 mutual satisfaction and we have indicated this to the community members who attended the 139 meetings. 140 141 Staff is scheduling a meeting in mid-September with neighborhood representatives to discuss 142 these areas of concern and develop alternative standards to present to the Planning Commission. 143 After the Commission's review and recommendations, staff will schedule the revised "Multi-

5

144 Family Residential and Mixed-Use Design Guidelines and Development Standards" document 145 for a public hearing by the City Council. 146 147 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 148 Staff recommends that the Council: 149 1) Adopt the attached Resolution to direct staff to develop a General Plan Amendment; and 150 2) Provide any direction regarding the Multi-Family Residential I Mixed-Use Design 15 1 Guidelines and Development Standards as staff develops refmements to this document 152 for public review. 153 154 PUBLIC COMMENT: 155 Public comments received in response to the June Planning Commission public notice and July 156 community meetings are included in Attachment 5. 157 158 ATTACHMENTS: 159 ATTACHMENT 1: RESOLUTfON 1 5-160 ATTACHMENT 2: GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE PRIMER 161 ATTACHMENT 3: JANUARY 13,2015 STAFF MEMORANDUM 162 ATTACHMENT4: mLY 8 AND 15, 2015 COMMUNITY MEETNG SUMMARY AND 163 SUMMARY POWERPOINTPRESENTATION 164 ATTACHMENT 5: EXAMPLE OF EXISTING DENSITIES IN MILL VALLEY (FROM 165 2012 HOUSING TOUR) 166 ATTACHMENT 6: PUBLIC COMMENTS

6

I RESOLUTION NO.lS-2 3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILL VALLEY 4 DIRECTING STAFF TO DEVELOP A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5 CREATING A DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION(S) 6 AND RELATED POLICIES FOR DOWNTOWN MULTI-FAMILY 7 RESIDENTIAL AREAS 8 9 WHEREAS, the Mill Valley 2040 General Plan serves as a basis for actions

10 that affect many aspects of our community's daily life, reflects widely held community 11 values and preserves Mill Valley's small town character; and 12 13 WHEREAS, on October 7, 2013, City Council adopted the Mill Valley 2040 14 (MV2040) General Plan (CC13-44), which adopted a Land Use Map and related 15 policies; and 16 17 WHEREAS, on May 4, 2015, City Council adopted the 2015-2023 Housing 18 Element(CC15-1 8);and 19 20 WHEREAS, these documents included implementation directives to develop 21 Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance Development 22 Standards that reflect MV2040 General Plan policies; and 23 24 WHEREAS, the Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts adjacent to 25 downtown Mill Valley are historically a mix of single-family and multi-family 26 residential properties; and 27 28 WHEREAS, the MV2040 General Plan adopted Community Values that 29 include "preserving the quality, diversity, and historic resources of the community's 30 residential neighborhoods'; and 31 32 WHEREAS, the current General Plan does not have a land use designation(s) or 33 policies that reflect this unique condition of the Downtown Residential area. 34 35 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AND 36 DIRECTS CITY STAFF: 37 38 To develop a General Plan Amendment to refme the adopted Land Use Map to include 39 a new Land Use Designation(s) for the Downtown Residential Area to reflect the 40 character of the existing neighborhood development patterns; propose Land Use Map 41 amendments; and, develop housing and land use policies appropriate to the new 42 designation(s). 43 44 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Mill Valley on the _day 45 of__, 20 15, by following vote: 46

ATTACHMENT 1

47 AYES: 48 NOES: 49 ABSENT: 50 51 52 53 Kenneth R. Wachtel, Mayor 54 55 AITEST: 56 57 58 Kelsey Rogers, City Clerk I Administrative Analyst

1 ATTACHMENT2: 2 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Primer 3 4 General Plan Background 5 The General Plan is a community' s written document that outlines the Community's Vision, 6 along with long-range planning policies to achieve this vision. State law requires all cities in 7 California to maintain a current General Plan document that addresses several components, or 8 "elements" within a community, including land use, mobility, environment, and public safety. 9 This document provides the basis for public policy and decision making on projects.

10 11 The General Plan mlJes tl! an opportuni!J to update and ettabii!h:

12 • A Community Vision - The General Plan preparation and adoption process offers the 13 oppommi!J to bn·ng the commrmi!J together to express (or confirm) its collective value! and shape a 14 common vision for the future. 15 • Public Policy Coordination- The General Plan is not just a land use docrtmentthat 16 governs jutJm growth and development. It is where all of a commzmi!J :r major poliry initiatives are 1 7 identifie~ assess~ and expremd in a comprehensive and consistent jom1. 18 • Budget and Capital Investment Coordination - The General Plan can be used to 19 !trategicalfy ide11tify brtdget and capital investment and implementation priorities based on the vision. 20 It can sribsupmzt!J mve as a management tool to unite Ci!J departmmts and decision-makers. 21 • Legal Basis for Implementation - State statutu mrd established case law require that local 22 government decisions ajftcting a community's growth and develcpment be trmsistent with the General 23 Plan. 24 [Excerpt from MDI Valley General Plan, page 1] 25 26 Land Use Classifications 27 The Land Use Element of a General Plan identifies the distribution ofvarious land uses in the 28 community (through the "Land Use Map") and provides policies and programs to guide future 29 land use decisions and development patterns. These land use policies are in place to ensure that 30 Mill Valley retains its renowned character and charm. 31 32 The General Plan Land Use Element, including the Land Use Map, illustrates the relationship 33 between the basic land use policies and programs of a community and a given parcel of land 34 within the community. In other words, the Land Use Map tells at a glance how a piece of 35 property may be used and how intensively it might be developed. The Land Use Map is not the 36 sole basis for that determination; other General Plan policies, Zoning regulations, Design 37 Guidelines, and other standards also apply and influence the final size, scope, and appearance of 38 a development project. 39 40 General Plan Land Use Maps have two basic components: "use" (residential, commercial, 41 industrial, etc.); and "density" (intensity of people/building per area, for residential stated in 42 dwelling units per acre). 43 44 It is important to recognize that the Land Use Map provides a broad perspective from a high-45 level perspective. The MV2040 adopted a Land Use Map that recognized two types of multi-46 family housing areas, a Medium Density Land Use Designation (8-15 units per acre, the

A TT A~HMRNT 2

47 equivalent of one unit per 5,440 square feet of land area to one unit per 2,900 square feet of land 48 area) and Higher Density Residential Land Use Designation (17-29 units per acre, the equivalent 49 of one unit per 3,000 square feet of land area to one unit per 1,500 square feet of land area). 50 51 Relationship of the General Plan to the Zoning Ordinance 52 The General Plan and Zoning Are Not the Same - The General Plan is a set of long-term goals 53 and policies that the community uses to guide development decisions. Although the plan 54 establishes standards for the location and density of land uses, it does not directly regulate land 55 use. 56 57 Zoning, on the other hand, is regulatory. Under the Zoning Ordinance, development must 58 comply with specific, enforceable standards such as minimum lot size, maximum building 59 height, building setbacks, and a list of allowable uses. Zoning is applied lot-by-lot, whereas the 60 General Plan has a community-wide perspective. There may be several Zoning Districts for each 61 Land Use Designation to allow for more location specific requirements to suit individual areas or 62 neighborhoods. 63 64 The City's Municipal Code is a collection of the laws that are enacted and enforced by the City 65 within its jurisdiction. The Zoning Ordinance, as well as other Ordinances, is a chapter in the 66 Municipal Code. The City's Design Guidelines are adopted by Resolution, and are referred to 67 within, but not a part of, the Municipal Code; they are, as their name states, guidelines and not 68 laws. 69 70 Consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance 71 The General Plan is the basis for all local land use decisions. Zoning, subdivisions, and public 72 works projects can only be approved when they are consistent with the General Plan. An action, 73 program or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all its aspects, it will 74 further the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct or conflict with 7 5 their attairunent. 76 77 Because of this requirement, updates to a General Plan often precipitate changes to a Zoning 78 Ordinance as well as other City Policies to reflect the updated vision and policies) and to resolve 79 conflicts between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 80 81 The principal goals of the Mill Valley General Plan are:

82 General Plan Goals

83 The two primary goals of the General Plan remained the same as established in the 1989 General 84 Plan, and are: 85 1. To protect and enhance the natural beau!J a11d small-town character ofMi/1 Valley; and 86 2. To mcourage continued diversity of housing, income levels, and lifestyles in the commu11ity. 87 88 These overarching principles are intended to guide future actions and decision as programs and 89 policies contained in the MV2040 General Plan are implemented. The MV2040 Goals provide 90 the overall framework of the General Plan and were used to form the subsequent goals and

2

91 policies contained in each chapter or "element" of the General Plan and to develop specific 92 policies. 93 94 The specific General Plan policies related to the current work effort include:

95 Multi-Family Design Review Guidelines (Housing Program #lt Housing Element 96 [HE] pp. 11-2-II-3) 97 Program Objectives; Continue to implement a design review process to ensure that new 98 single and multi-family development and substantial modifications to existing structures 99 are compatible with Mill Valley's small town character, unique environmental, community

100 and scenic attributes. By 2014, develop and adopt Multi-Family Design Guidelines, which 101 address development compatibility and promote sustainable site design and building I 02 practices. 103 104 Mixed-use Buildings in Commercial Districts (Housing Program #6, HE p. 11-7) 105 Program Objectives: By 2013, remove the CUP requirement for multi-family residential 106 uses and rnixed uses where residential is above the ground floor or off of the commercial 107 street frontage in the C-G and C-N Zoning Districts- while adding multi-family design 108 guidelines to facilitate the City's design review process and evaluate modifications to 109 residential development regulations in the P-A, C-R, C-G, and C-N Zoning Districts that 110 promote housing development consistent with General Plan. Ill 112 Update Land Use Map and Zoning Code (Housing Program #22, HE p. 11-19). 113 In order to ensure the efficient use of multi-fatnily properties, development of new single-114 family residential dwellings will be prohibited in multi-family and commercial land use 115 districts. And as described under Program #6 (Mixed-use Zoning in Commercial 116 Districts), the updated Zoning Ordinance will establish multi-family residential 117 development standards and uses in commercial areas, and combined with the use of 118 Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines (Program #1), will provide for a more 119 transparent and efficient development review process. 120 121 Update Parking Standards (Housing Program #23, HE p. II-20). 122 Program Objectives: By 2014, evaluate and establish modified parking standards in the Zoning 123 Ordinance to facilitate specif1c types of housing such as: 124 • Multi-family and mixed-use developments within commercial areas 125 • Senior housing and housing for persons with disabilities 126 • Housing in proximity to transit (1 /4 mile) 127 • One bedroom, studio and micro-units 128 129 Residential Development. (Land Use Policy #LU.l-1, MV2040 p. 23) 130 Residential development shall be compatible witht integrated into, and subordinate to 131 its natural setting. Regularly evaluate and update residential development standards, 132 const:tuction management oversight, and single-family and multi-family design guidelines to 133 ensure that new development and residential temodels are compatible with their natural 134 surroundings and character of the adjoining neighborhood. 135 136 Consistent Public Improvements (Community Vitality Policy CV6-2, MV2040 p. 78)

3

137 Update and expand the City's design guidelines to address all types of new development (not 138 just single-family residential), redevelopment~ and public improvements. 139 140 What are Development Standards and Design Guidelines and how are they different? 141 The Zoning Ordinance contains the Development Standards for each Zoning District in a 142 City. These Development Standards describe the basic building form parameters, or 143 envelope (min. and max. physical boundaries), that applies to a given property. 144 Development Standards consist of measurable building elements such as setbacks, 145 stepbacks, building heights, and floor area. The standards are generally quantitative, 146 establish regulatory boundaries or measurable parameters, and are applied to all properties 147 in each zoning district. Development Standards are mandatory (in that minimums must be 148 met and maximums are not exceeded), and projects may only be approved if they are 149 consistent with the development standards, unless otherwise allowed by a Variance. 150 151 Design Guidelines are qualitative in nature and subject to the discretionary review of the 152 approval body, and serve as additive criteria for reviewing projects during the approval 153 process. Design Guidelines typically address building elements that cannot easily be 154 measured or quantified. They contain requirements on design aspects such as site design, 155 building location relative to property constraints, massing, architectural elements, materials, 156 and overall design character. 157 158 How do Development Standards and Design Guidelines work together? 159 Development proposals must meet the Development Standards (i.e. within the quantitative 160 requirements of the Zoning District) and demonstrate that they are consistent with the City's 161 Design Guidelines. All significant development projects undergo the Design Review process, 162 which includes public noticing, public hearings either by the Zoning Administrator or Planning 163 Commission (all commercial and mixed-use projects, and significant additions and new single-164 family or multi-family projects are evaluated by the Planning Commission). 165 166 The proposed Zoning Ordinance text revisions explicitly require new development, and changes 167 of use meet both the Multi-Family Development Standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance 168 and the new Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines. 169 170 Additional information regarding Zoning Ordinance Development Standards, Density, and 171 Design Guidelines is included in Attachment 4, the July 81

h and 151h, 2015, Community Meeting

172 Presentation and Meeting Summary.

4

1

2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

MEMORANDUM

January 13,2015

Mill Valley Planning Commission

Kari Svanstrom, Senior Planner"

Multi-Family Residential and Mixed Use Design Guidelines and Development Standards

The Mill Valley 2040 General Plan (MV2040) outlines several short-tenn implementation steps. One of these implementation items is to consider changes to the Development Standards for Multi-Family Residential and to develop and adopt Multi-Family Residential (MFR) and Mixed Use Design Guidelines (LU-1.1 , CV-10.1). This memo outlines the process recommended by staff for the adoption of the new multi-family residential and mixed use regulations and the implementation of zoning changes needed to fully implement the new multi~farnily residential regulations.

Background The Zoning and Design Guideline Advisory Committee (ZDAC) was convened by the City Council to develop Multi-Family Residential (MFR) and Mixed Use Design Guidelines and Development Standards. In addition to developing a full set of recommended design guidelines for multi-family and mixed use development (there currently are no design guidelines), the Committee also reviewed proposed changes to the Development Standards for Multi~Family

Residential and appropriate new Development Standards for mixed-use developments in commercial zones. The Committee did not review changes to other commercial zone regulations as the Planning Commission had previously begun these and will be responsible for developing these modifications.

The ZDAC has been meeting regularly since the spring of2014, and held its final meeting on December 16,2014. At its December meeting, the ZDAC unanimously voted to recommend the draft MFR and Mixed Use Design Guidelines and Development Standards, with minor revisions, to the Planning Commission for its review. This revised draft document will be distributed to the Planning Commission at the January 13,2015 meeting, and staffwill present proposed next steps outlined in this memo.

This memo outlines the process for adoption of the elements to implement the proposed changes.

A TT A C'JIMF.NT 1

41 Summary of Actions 42 The following list of actions are recommended to enact the work completed by ZDAC and to 43 make "first round" adjustments to the Zoning Map to achieve consistency with the General Plan: 44 45 1. Ordinance to adopt Text Amendments 46 Create new MFR Zoning District regulations 47 Create new Commercial Zoning Districts (Downtown and Limited 48 Commercial Districts) and add mixed-use regulations recommended by 49 ZDAC to all Commercial Zones 50 2. Ordinance to Amend Zoning Map 51 MFR and commercial parcels reflect the new zoning districts 52 3. Resolution to adopt Multi-Family Residential and Mixed Use Design Guidelines 53 54 New Multi-Family Residential Zones 55 The existing multi-family residential zones (RM-1.0 to RM -5.5) do not have different 56 development standards for specific neighborhoods. The ZDAC work focused on creating 57 Development Standards and Design Guidelines that were specific to the different neighborhoods, 58 and their character, within the City. To do this, the existing commercial and multi-family 59 residential areas Were grouped into .. Character Areas" as a way to analyze existing development 60 patterns and to propose regulations tailored to each area that are compatible with existing 61 development. 62 63 For the Multi-Family Zoning Districts, the ZDAC recommends revised Development Standards 64 for each of the Character Areas to replace the current zoning classifications and regulations (RM-65 1.5, RM-2, RM-2.5, etc.). These character areas, and proposed new Multi-Family Residential 66 Zones, are: 67 68 • Downtown Residential (multi-family residential in/adjacent to downtown) 69 • Miller A venue Passage (corresponding to the Miller A venue Plan) · 70 • Miller A venue Parkway (corresponding to the Miller A venue Plan) 71 • Miller Avenue Marsh (corresponding to the Miller Avenue Plan Marsh and multi-family 72 residential areas around the Bayfront, Shelter Bay, Eucalyptus Knolls, etc.) 73 74 There is one area recommended to be rezoned from Multi-FamjJy Residential to Single Family in 75 the General Plan. The Laurelwood neighborhood between downtown, East Blithedale, and Miller 76 Avenue to approximately Millwood is a mix of multi-family and single family structures and 77 uses. The MV2040 General Plan Land Use Map changed the designation of this area from Multi-78 Family Residential (MFR) to Single Family Residential (SFR). Rezoning this area to one of the 79 new multi-family residential zones as part of this process is not appropriate at this time as it 80 would not be consistent with the General Plan' s Land Use Map. 81 82 However, staff feels that the manner in which this area was changed warrants the need for 83 additional notification and communication with the property owners and residents of this 84 neighborhood prior to any rezoning. Staff also feels additional outreach is needed with the 85 property owners in this neighborhood because little or no notification was included in the 86 General Plan process that resulted in a land use designation change from MFR to SFR. Staff is 87 therefore recommending that owners be notified of potential changes to their existing zoning so 88 that the City can better understand the issues that may arise, but that the rezoning of this area be

89 handled as a separate process to ensure adequate deliberations on what is appropriate for this 90 neighborhood. 91 92 New Mixed Use Standards and Changes to Existing Zoning Districts 93 The ZDAC work included new Development Standards and Design Guidelines for Mixed Use 94 (residential/commercial) developments in the Commercial Zones outlined in the General Plan. 95 However, ZDAC focused on creating the standards and guidelines for mixed-use development 96 but recommended the Planning Commission develop the new Commercial Zone standards for the 97 new C-D and C-L Zones, as well as any modifications to the C-N and C-G Zones. Staff 98 recommends these additional zone changes be done as part of the Planning Commission's 99 responsibility as included in the Commission's Workplan as apriority for 2015.

100 1 01 The General Plan recommendations regarding Commercial Development Standards and Design 102 Guidelines are outlined in the Land Use Section: 103 LV. 5-1 Establish regulatory and aesthetic standards to ensure attractive, pleasant, safe, 104 clean, and accessible commercial areas and adjacent public realm by: 105 • Updating the City 's sign regulations to make them consistent with changes in state and 106 tederal law and related case law, to ensure that they recognize and regulate new sign 107 technologies where necessary, and to reflect changes :in community values; 108 • Updating the City's zoning and regulations and development standards to maintain the 109 distinctive mix of commercial uses, building setbacks, building heights, and other 110 development characteristics of the principal commercial areas; 11 1 • Adopting commercial design guidelines using the guidelines in the 1989 General Plan 112 (See Appendix D) for the four principal commercial areas as a starting point; 113 • Establishing and implementing commercial development and public improvement 114 standards (e.g., for sidewalks, street lights and furnitur~, landscaping, parking and 115 circulation, traffic signals, etc.); and 116 • Encouraging public/private partnerships for long-term maintenance and improvements 117 beyond public standards. 118 119 For Commercial areas, the General Plan outlines four Commercial Zones, two existing and two 120 new zones: 121 • General Commercial (C-G) (existing zone)~

122 • Neighborhood Commercia] (C-N) (existing zone); 123 • Downtown Commercial (new C-D zone; to coincide with the General Plan's Downtown 124 Commercial Land Use designation); 125 • Limited Commercial (new C-L zone; to be based closely on what is currently the 126 Professional-Administrative P-A Zone). 127 128 Staff is recommending that the two new zones for Downtown-Commercial and Limited-129 Commercial be established with 'interim' development standards (for the C-L zone this would be 130 based on P-A requirements and for C-D based on Neighborhood Commercial requirements, 131 which corre$pond to the current zoning requirements for these areas). This will keep changes for 132 these properties to a minimum while allowing the adoption of the new mixed-use Development 133 Standards to take effect. The follow-up work to fully examine these zones (discussed above) 134 will be accomplished through the Planning Commission workplan. 135

136 Staff Recommendation for Process 137 Staffs recommendation for the process for adoption and implementation of the new regulations 13 8 is to implement the changes in a series of steps: 139 140 Step la: Adopt Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for the proposed new Multi-141 Family and Commercial Zoning Districts and Adopt MFR and Mixed Use Design 142 Guidelines 143 The first step would review and adopt the ZDAC recommendations (with any 144 Commission modifications) for: new development standards for Multi-Family 145 Residential; and new regulations for Mixed-Use Residential development in 146 Commercial Zones. A second, but closely related, action would be approval of a 147 resolution to establish the new Multi-family Residential and Mixed Use Design 148 Guidelines. 149 150 The two new commercial zones (for Downtown and near East Blithedale, C-D and C-L 151 respectively) would be established at this time with 'interim' regulations based on 152 current zones and with mixed-use development standards recommended by ZDAC. 153 Commercial Zone regulations for the Downtown Commercial Zoning District (C-D) 154 (defined by the Downtown Commercial Land Use Classification) would use the current 155 Neighborhood Commercial, with modifications recommended by ZDAC for 156 downtown Mixed Use standards, while the Limited Commercial (C-L) Zoning District 157 (the area currently zoned P-A along near East Blithedale adjacent to downtown) would 158 use the existing Professional-Administration (P-A) and ZDAC's recommended Near 159 East Blithedale Mi:xed Use Development Standards. 160 161 Implementation of this step will allow for full adoption of the Multi-Family and Mixed 162 Use Development Standards and Design Guidelines immediately while keeping the 163 current Development Standards applicable to properties in the C-L and C-D zones in 164 p lace until the full Commercial zone updates are implemented. The full Commercial 165 Zoning District update will be implemented as part of Step 2 described below. 166 167 Step lb: Amend Zoning Map to Rezone Multi-Family Residential and Commercial Parcels 168 to be consistent w ith MV2040 L and Use Map 169 The text regulations described above will establish new Multi-Family Residential and 170 Commercial Zones and their regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Map 1 71 must also be updated to reflect these changes for each parcel affected. Until rezoning is 172 completed, the multi-family parcels will remain subject to the current ' RM" zoning 173 requirements. Commercial parcels slated for C-D and C-L zones would also need to be 1 7 4 rezoned for the new regulations to take effect. 175 176 • Rezoning simultaneously with Step la is needed to implement the new Multi-177 Family Residential Zoning Designations (Downtown Residential, Miller Ave 178 Passage, etc.) so that the regulations are coordinated for each parcel. 179 • Rezoning properties with their new land use designations will provide consistency 180 between land use and zoning on a number of fronts: 181 o Multi-family residential zones will be changed to reflect the new MFR Zones 182 recommended by ZDAC~

183 o Areas currently zoned P-A (Professional- Administrative) but with a General 184 Plan Land Use designation of Multi-Family Residential will be rezoned to 185 reflect the new MFR designations recommended by ZDAC; 186 o Areas currently zoned P-A (Professional -Administrative) but with a General 187 Plan Land Use designation of Neighborhood Commercial will be rezoned to 188 reflect the commercial and mixed use designations; 189 o The new commercial designations for Downtown Commercial and near East 190 Blithedale (C-D and C-L designations) will be coordinated with the new mixed 191 use regulations. Further updates to the new zones would be done as part of Step 192 2, Commercial Development Standards Update, in 2015). 193 194 Step 2: Update Commercial Zoning District Development Standards 195 Update Commercial Zoning District standards, including refinement of the new Limited 196 Commercial and Downtown Commercial Zones, as a top priority for the Planning 197 Commission's 2015 Workplan. 198 199 A draft of the proposed revisions to the Commercial Development Standards, including 200 the new Limited- and Downtown-Commercial Zones, was developed in 2012. This 201 draft document was put on hold pending adoption of the new General Plan, which 202 introduced the Land Use Map and recommends the creation ofthe two new commercial 203 zones. Staff proposes moving forward with finalizing this effort should be a top priority 204 for the Planning Commission in 2015. 205 206 Step 3: Update Commercial Design Guidelines 207 MV2040 adopts the Commercial Design Guidelines from the 1989 General Plan by 208 reference, and directs those guidelines to be used as a starting point for adoption of 209 updated commercial design guidelines. The revision of these guidelines after the 210 adoption ofupdates to the Commercial District updates is anticipated to be before the 211 Commission in late 2015 to early 2016 (pending review of Planning Commission 212 priorities at the 2015 Planning Commission retreat). 213 214 Conclusion 215 Once the work on the Multi-Fat:rllly Residential and Mixed Use Design Guidelines and 216 Development Standards recommended by the Zoning and Design Guideline Advisory Committee 217 are reviewed and adopted based on the recommended actions listed above, staff will focus its 218 attention on Steps 2 and 3 (updates to the Commercial Zoning Districts and Commercial Design 219 Guidelines, respectively).

Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Design Guidelines and Development Standards

Community Meeting Summary and Next Steps

The City held two very successful community meetings on Ju ly 8 and 15, 2015, which were attended by

over 120 community members. Based on input from t he community at these two meetings and via

written correspondence, It is clear that there are two primary areas of neighborhood concern: (1)

concern t hat the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and the new Design Guidelines will

negatively affect t heir neighborhood resulting in inconsistent development; and (2) concern and

objection to existing land use and zoning designations and the resulting underlying development

pot ential.

The City heard t hese concerns, and we are developing alternatives to address the points of concern.

Planning St aff will be putting forth proposed alternatives and next steps after briefing the City Council

on the project and neighborhood comments. In the meantime, staff has prepared a summary, provided

below, to respond to t he points raised about the project. This summary highlights some of the more

significant aspects of the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes and Design Guidelines (Note: This is not a

comprehensive summary; see Planning Dept staff or

http://www.cityo(millvalley.orq/lndex.aspx?paqe=l523 for more detailed information, definitions,

proposed standards, etc.).

What are we doing?

The City is developing Design Guidelines for multi-family residential and mixed use (residential and

commercial/office combined) areas of town to guide renovation and development requests, as well as

proposing changes to the zoning requirements in the dist ricts where this type of development currently

exists and could exist in the future.

The City Council asked for applications and the Mayor appointed the Zoning and Design Guideline

Advisory Committee (ZDAC) in early 2D14 to develop and review these zoning regulations and design

guidelines. The ZDAC committee met from May to December 2.014. During this process, the ZDAC felt

strongly that the Design Guidelines and Development Standards must work together, and also that they

need to address the unique characteristics of each neighborhood (Miller Avenue neighborhoods,

Downtown, Bayfront, etc.)- they were of the opinion that one size does not fit all.

Why are we making these changes?

The City of Mill Valley has a very rigorous Design Review process that includes review of all major

projects (major remodels/additions and new development projects) by the Planning Commission.

However, the City has never had Design Guidelines for multi-family or mixed-use (commercial and

residential) development. As a result, past significant renovation and new construction projects have

gone through the Planning Commission but with unclear expectations and no set 'community standards'

in place. The City Council and Planning Commission have e>Cpressed a desire to develop Design

Guidelines that would set a higher, and more consistent, bar for design in multi-farnily and mixed use

A T T A r iiMlf.l\TT Lt

developments to better protect and retain the compatibility of new development with Mill Valley's small

town character, unique environmental, community and scenic attributes.

In addition to the desire by the City Council and Planning Commission of establishing Design Guidelines,

the City Council's Core Values and the MV2040 Goals of "enhancing the natural small-town character of

Mill Valley" support the effort to create regulations and guidelines that reflect and are applicable to

existing neighborhoods.

What are the major changes?

• New Design Guidelines for Multi-Family and M ixed-Use development.

• Modify front and interior setback

requirements changes. (Staff has heard concerns regarding this proposal, and will be presenting alternatives to the proposed standards).

• Propose a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

regulation that would limit the

size of a building for residential

development in multi-family

zones and commercial zones

(currently there is no FAR limit in

the existing zoning district standards).

• Change the existing 'double setback'

requirement to require a stepback above

the second story (i.e. for every 1ft above

25ft the building must step b~ck 1ft from

the property line).

• Changes to parking requirements for small

units (i.e. smaller units of 825 square feet

or less would require 1 space, while units

larger than 1,250 would still require 2

parking spaces).

• Modify Commercial Height limits as follows:

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

fAR ol1 2--1.5posW* w.1!n SO~I6NikJI~

c5.000 Sf 101 co.Ad ~ ... 1.:.00 SJ'd~W<Wro)

35' ~I loml1

Small Lot (up to 5.000 Square Feet) Cunont Y1 Proposed He!Qht and S<!tbacks

5,000 Sf »t toald ItA~ 31~5f'd...,......

37 feet maximum in Downtown only if used to increase first floor height to allow for more viable

(leasable) commercial spaces (the height increase may be authorized by the Planning

Commission only under special circumstances).

• Limit the height of mixed use buildings on East Blithedale near downtown to two stories along

the East Blithedale frontage, with an overall height limit of 35 feet (right now 35' I three stories

Is allowed anywhere on the lot).

• Limit new single family dwellings in multi-family zones (there would be no restrictions for

existing single family dwellings) and limit short-term rental of multi-family housing.

What isn't changing?

• Height limits are not changing in Multi~Family Residential Zones (current and proposed height

limit is 35 feet, the same as in single-family zones).

• Density or development yield (number of units allowed per acre) is not changing for any Zoning

District. A Land Use Map was adopted in 2013 that included densities based on units per acre,

largely based on the current longstanding zoning criteria.

• The current zoning changes do not propose any modifications to the MV2040 Land Use Map

which has been in use since 2013.

• No new land uses are being recommended.

• The Purpose/Intent of current zones will not change.

• Commercial regulations for Commercial Zones (uses and development standards).

What's next?

Staff is revising elements of the proposed zoning standards and the Design Guidelines to reflect

community input and suggestions. We will continue to communicate with, and listen to, the residents

as we work through this project. Together we will get it right and in a form which will provide direction,

clarity and strong protection of neighborhood context and our essential small town character.

Concurrent with continuing to work with neighborhoods on the zoning standards and Design Guidelines,

we will seek City Counci l direction regarding land use/density matters and then share these revisions

and direction with the neighborhood representatives for more discussion and refinement before the

matter is presented to the Planning Commission ..... stay tuned!

For more information, or to be added to the email list for project updates, please emai l Kari Svanstrom

at ksvanstrom@cityofmi llvalley.org or 415-388-4033.

Community Meeting Julys and s 201s

Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Design Guidelines and Development Standards

MV Meeting Agenda

• Welcome & Introductions

• Overview of process

• Design Guideline vs Development Standards - What they are

- How they work together

• Proposed standards and guidelines

• Questions/Comments /Discussion

• Adjourn

Overview

why are we doing this?

3

General Plan 2040

J

o3

General Plan 2040

Housing Element Multi-Family Design Review Guidelines (Housing Program #1, see page 11-2 and 3) Program Objectives: Continue to implement a design review process to ensure that new single and mufti-family development and substantial modifications to existing structures are compatible with Mill Valley's small town character, unique environmental, community and scenic attributes. By 2014, develop and adopt Multi-Family Design Guidelines, which address development compatibility and promote sustainable site design and building practices.

Mixed Use Buildings In Commercial Districts (Housing Program #6, see page 11-7) Program Objectives: By 2013, remove the CUP requirement for multi-family residential uses and mixed uses where residential is above the ground floor or off of the commercial street frontage in the C-G and C-N Zoning Districts- while adding multi­family design guidelines to facilitate the City's design review process and evaluate modifications to residential development regulations in the P-A, C-R, C-G, and C-N Zoning Districts that promote housing development consistent with General Plan.

General Plan 2040

Housing Element

Update Land Use Map and Zoning Code (Housing Program #22, see page 11-19). In order to ensure the efficient use of multi-family properties, development of new single-family residential dwellings will be prohibited in multi-family and commercial land use districts.

And as described under Program #6 (Mixed Use Zoning in Commercial Districts), the updated Zoning Ordinance will establish multi-family residential development standards and uses in commercial areas, and combined with the use of Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines (Program #1}, will provide for a more transparent and efficient development review process.

Update Parking Standards (Housing Program #23, see page 11-20). Program Objectives: By 2014, evaluate and establish modified parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate specific types of housing such as: • Multi-family and mixed use developments within commercial areas • Senior housing and housing for persons with disabilities • Housing in proximity to transit (1/4 mile) • One bedroom, studio and micro-units

MV

legend

SFR-1 (Single-Fof'T\IIy ~ottdentlol'

SfR42 (S111g1e-Fam1h Ro!ltdenlinl , ,

MfR·I (Muiii·FDm,ly Roalden1161'

MFR·2 (Mulb·fam11y Re,~dentrsl2

CN (NeogNx>mooo Commu•<••'l

- CO (Comrrw:tODI Oo·M"!Iowo)

- CG fGonoroi CoR"WnetaDU

l CF (Commun.ty FOKII•tlos)

f OS tOO<!n Spacol

MV2040 Land Use Map

Mill Valley 2040 Land Use Map 7

Design Guidelines and Development Standards

8

Stepback 1·1 rauo above 2 stories

- -- - - , , , , , ,

Development Standards vs Design Guidelines

srepback 1:1 rauo above 2 s£ones

' ' ' ' ,, '

Height Setback

Rear 3

Fr

S'max Setback

ont ~ E -

DE'./ELOPt·liENT 5TANC1ARD· QUANTITATIV~ ldenu!ie5 measurt:Jb e elemems s ... ch ;;s

height and s~tb~cks

) OJ.1em d.oc:MVt; -ay.: 2.tiJi "i10md.cm'!i to ~ate a ~trOD6 re1:.-twninp -m.1h ~ street.

DESIGN GUIDELINE: QUALrrATJVE .4ddr~sses 9 emQnt:; that cannot be ea.!:liy

measma?d b ut ar€1 ·mporti3nt tor d9s gn and character

MV Definitions

Plan cu c: .:i ..><: v cu 10 .0 c: OJ .:; cu

~ V1

0 cu ·c: Q. Cll e £ Q.

Elevation

c

<II c .:i ..><: v ~ :;1 c e .._ Step Back

!

·1 r .. i i ,• . i i ~ , .,- . ! l ~r--~------~--4, ! ~etback. Setbac~

i : I i Frontages impact the presence of a building on a street (e.g., site orientation, setbacks, stepbacks, scale/ height, mass, and location of entries and parking) ...

Existing Conditions

Proposed Standards

u

MY Existing and Proposed ens1t

Current Zoning for downtown:

Downtown Residential Zone Boundary (overlaid on Current Zoning RM-1 5, RM-3.0, and RM·2.5)

Proposed Downtown Zone:

Existing and Proposed Denstt

Current Zoning for downtown: RM-1 .5~ requires 1~500 SF per dwelling unit. 1~500 SF per unit is 29 units per acre {43~560/1~500 = 29)

RM-3. 0~ requires 3~000 SF per dwelling unit. 3~000 SF per unit is 15 units per acre {43~560/3~000 = 15}

MY Existing Conditions Setbac s

\ C.h

\

-· ~o""o ".~ s~~"~'

13

Existing Conditions Setb c s

Most properties in the downtown residential areas are non-conforming in terms of side setbacks, with many properties non-conforming to either or both front and side setbacks. • Side Setbacks in downtown residential

areas vary from 0 to 15 feet+ • Front setbacks range from 0 to 15 feet+

MY Existing/ Proposed Setb cks eigh s

Small Lot (up to 5,000 Square Feet) Current vs Proposed Height and Setbacks

35' ---· · · · · · · · ··· · ····· · · r----.,..------~-~----· .. --·· ·----- -· ·---------he1ght lim1t

25' height llm1t

property 5' 10'

•- Exist1ng maximum envelope

- Proposed

10' 5'

maximum envelope

line •------~pr~op~erty=wi~dlh!..!,;(l.!.!va!!.!:ne2sL-) -----••'

d

.6

35' hetght limit

25' height limit

Existing/ Proposed

l arge Lot (greater than 10,000 Square Feet) Current vs Proposed Height and Setback Maximum

(Max1mum height and setbacks before FAR, Lot Cove1age, and Design Review Considerations)

Existing - ----;-- max1mum

stde y~rd setbfck

5'

envelope

5' property

line ••--------------'P:.:.ro=...pe~rt'-y w.;.:.:.:td;;:.;th'-l(v.:..:a::.:.;rl""es"") __ _

Proposed Floor

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)

Current: 50% lot coverage, no FAR rules

FAR of 1.2-1.5 posstble wtth setbacks and lot coverage (5,000 SF lot could have 7 .500 SF of structure)

re atio

Proposed 50% lot coverage. 0 75 FAR

5,000 SF lot could have 3,750 SF of s tructure

n

8

RMl.S and Downtown District comparison is shown, other Zones in handouts

MV

Comparison of Exist.ng and Proposed Zoning and Devefopml?nt Standards RM-1.5/0owntown

Multf·Famfly Residential Development Muiii·Famlly R~ldentlal Development Standards Standards · ExisllnJ~ Pro110sed

Zonln& Dlstriets RM·l.S (1, SOO square feet of lot per dwelling

Downtown unit)

~and Use D~ttlanatlon MFf!·Z MFR·l and MFR·2 l•ate lk>,.ot...., bltludt< ~"'·l aod MF'R·lj rrfer to ~d Ute Map i!_'l Gcl'ltrat P&.nl

Density Rance: dwelling units per •t/a t 7 to 29 du/acre

ocre (DU/acre) Density Equivalent: Dwelling units 29

17 to29du/aue or a'te 143 560 sf / 1 500 sf: 19 uoih )

Min. para{ size (SF)u Sec notat•on~ l . 000 (new parcels must iKCommodate •t lea<t

twouootsl

Exlstln1 8ulh!lna Standards Proposed 8ulldln& Standards Open Space now called 'Outdoor living llr.·a· • nd

Open spaee squaro feet required Is P"' dwelling unit (not bedr<><>m)

I bedroom 100 ~1 1010 72 s.r ouldoot )pac(\ per dwcllt"R unit~

2 bedroom ISO sf 3 bedroom 200sf

~t Cov•raae {Maximum) 50" SO'(

Floor Area Ratio (Maximum) None 0.75

Setbacks: Exterior Property lines ISh M11 Sit M••. l~l

Setbac~s: In tenor Property lines lit lor every 1.000 SF ol lot are• I rom ~

Mm. oiS it Nn ma> minomum of Sit to • m•xlnoum ol 10 h

35 It rna• . above

25ft abO;t> n•tur.llgrode/3~ 11 abo"" I>Jtoooal z stonc:n s rtquhe-. .. n 1dd1honal . I •uo

Building H••cht IMoJ<Imum) gtadP M doublt se tback sctb.trk (1 h \JddJtlunt~I\1.Hb<"tk tor 4"vety 1 tt '" '""'MIH

mtrc-:t~~# t e U··Jt~ l 41-41 of llOn\tl~t f()r

d•s~~'"'"'';..,xalfi~Jf"\!

Transitional Heisht Limit none ma.•mum of 7 <lo,es 125' max) wothon 20 fe~t ol a

\ lUI. II.! t,.nmly fC;.rdentiJI LOOt'

2 spate• peJ unJI + l cuest parkonc peo ~ unots Unit~ up to 825 )Q h • 1 space;

Parkinc when more th1n o1 um1!. or no \ trecl·p::u kii1C Units 875· USOsq ft I 5 spaces dvailable Units over 1,250 ~'!.,It : 2 '""'"'· '

Po'Vposed New De ;ign Guideliot'> foo M~R and Desl1n Guidelines non{ Mowed ll<e Development 19 " '

...Npttt 4 ol ''=~U•j\t- "''fl.o""1ll"'1t

Existing Design Guidelines (none!)

Proposed Design Guidelines

10

MFR and Mixed Use Design Guidelines

Neighborhood Context Site design

Excerpt from Proposed Ordinance adopting changes:

Building orientation Parking

167 20.24.008 Applicability ProJect entrv

Development and changes of use must meet both the Multi-Family Development Standards contained in this section as well as the City of Mill Valley Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines.

Pedestrian access and circulat1on Open space and landscapmg Walls and fencing Massing and ~cale Roof forms

(page 6 of Redlined Ordinance)

IM ACtW.,.owin&lMS#I!ntJ ,.,. It f d~t"'"uf

"ullt '•""t •nd rnl•td "'~ • ....,.eop.n~~· , ... .,,,'(lUI •I If' t'"V lhe l~tOII'VT'MIJt:IDnl of lhl. tC'flon H·.dl

~ftO frft fddt-Of' Jflf'Odf4nC fthKIUOt\01

ornl•utiiOitlt'W"~ • bi""""CpcttM1 n' t l.ltw'a t: ... .,.,.., ... ~" ll'lf ( .. .,

tn lout' 1011 t#l II t: dift4n~ _,.,.'~. tn lla

""'..,. · tw ......,toi'N'r~anG~"""" ""f'f'UM CNftOt•lt~~m .. llfnlcr• II' GPO'"" u.-..... w ~~\U ... ttfte~ll t prCM\JQl"'l ef lt""

~--,\~ft~Jh~\•ett-.\1).\)•'\r~ t·iffllllrfiilft '""" <-~"'·........., Mfl4 su.....,th core:..,., ,,.....d ,,.._~.,. t~ ,,.Y'l._.•.,.•tiP·• ' Coaf' must tHo

Gu4t ~ Uul UAOPUit W".l~"t df'Uol" ptft..h

.. ,, "·-·~ ...-..... o 1 SITE PLANNING AND DESIGN

tlol'fM • 11.1 -"'(' . ·~· ,. .... ..:;s: ·~·,.,~, , ,,,,4 ,

,,.(~t«t~ ultt>t"~tolft!#td'nJ"'""""""~'''rfll

tl .. oftlrt .... r•dt·ta•"•Ott• ....,...,., llrwt1""'tlvj""'""'

tlt~·1l01f"\.CCNIII•('ti\J"o\tt~l\tt1ttftt-t1Pl'f.lfl

\It,. .,_l,l'fl•'lf'•MIIICNh•••11911t<ll•~ ••·ct••t5DI'I J~hllif•.t~C" p.lttr'f"'\ona\C,.

to N fiGHaOa HOOO CON JUT

~ot"''P<I'JI,,o-oou• '~"~'""aM .. , ..._.t.f,'l-"tttiytnadti"K..NN'd ""''eG·U1-f',.,'¥'fb '"'tu.td """''" , ......... ~~ .... ff\.0#\IJft ,.., ~(0 tiW tl~l,t..boti"'JJd

CONtlt. Ctll't\~<ll'l'lftl tl\( 1ft,) I~ t¢tn£. 1-tndW...,

~nd •''1"\1.-1111\ ul btl'la""'"\ Uno~ Jlf"~ d~\'l'"\ UXIU'dC ......... ~\U•tA&ft'lifttl~!!!nW1~

""''"·~ ...... . I 0.~nliltl'rUai i \U\41 .. ~CUP\I\\.t'CII.Mt!IU\I'

Cll'f'lll .... l(l,fl ............ f'wlblo(\~f'·lf'

OO¥(tt\'otf.-I:'Cli11wtlr.ttw"PI~W\P.""

Ctt(\ ,'"'*< Coch-

) ll<•lf ~,.W\Ct~lf'\o-.MI ... tll!'l<ft~jjlorN

"'111Wft11rlf"f lfl'll*tton"""C'IItlc.t'"'a»r\lltu u vtct..-.I'Nia~~l"llf"-'tlt.•~ .... ,, ... ~

S rfJW't~IDllUW"".I(.,P\ ... hW.I"IO•fw

pfh'.tflt'l:loiCOfCI~tor lhc"lbd...._, ,~, .• ,.....,.tnr.,_. . .,.., ... ,«nro.J .-u: ·~..-c~ .. .,~~ 'J.lflll(-'tekfOI' lhe.,lftl

• I,..IQII~tiC~'"'Jd"'"r'\tOJ}'"'tt'hlitl)

tu••d6111rl""f:NC1 on"'" ' hiiOI'.,. f"OIW•t.n •""' Oht PLthlt.c 11ft.' O'·W,Iytllftd t.ilow :.OtC~~: 10""'

l•tf'l•ndnltUIM~JL•••M

\ IH"'f.••htlhl,,ltd l.)r.Cr' •'lrlcc..uJtoo ta (}t IPI''Io \14!,. •fh IO<.IU....t •.S t\t JI'W• 01 f("f1(cot c."t

,.,. \OIIt1t0tn\I-'O""~Ir'JfHI't:l"'l~lt"C'

••~ hn1hnod t.t•tet\1., .,..,lid f• 1t1 W"'ll•tt•t llw•Mirf ollhf Mu.r;)(~Vftot.nd.nro(\tr 1"•·1.Jf00

J 0 I!'J' lutlt'!~ d.-u kt 8ul o~r.' 't*"d bf •.t't liJf~ fl..-rul~ \,d.,.,,...,.l\,-.11, lowtt pl;ti'I\Jrtt' r•a.tf'd

.. f'lfllf'tfltlll! \lcf1'W.tl'- 11110 II~ fC'Nf'. ""1•11:ft it'ol\o!lill' l•lflll'\ifi\OC"lhC'\IIHl:.ColpC' t•l'l" l •11111'111

f,.ll(r. Mid".' Cttn•C)I'r' ""''"'Moll V,.hry Mu• ttiojo.lt

Cour tM.,,.f.l20 t,o n<,'.

BUilding articulation Building privacy Windows, doors, and entries Materials and colors Transitions to other properties

eighborhood Context

··-~.rt••·,.,....... ... ~ ···"" -"'"'-.,; "'"""""'•• •.,. ,.,_trH•p ... ....-. .0'14•••• t •

.,. ..... ~ ... ·-·-·--~ .. .a.-..............._ ~

• a·

Ot ... ...,....ne .. ~...-.,.,... •• ,. • .,.,.iffiCiofC' ••U..,.t:P-.UO'I'IIt'l~l'rlf'~,.t"J

... ....,......,..,__ ....... ·-~·"""J-1· ... --.-~~~~'*"""''!'""l' -· --~~--.-- ... .,.....r~.-....--..- l

A NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEX"""

Development proposals for both remodel and new multt·family residential and m•xed·use proJeCts should

understand how the design fits into the neighborhood context, cons•dering the massmg. s1t1ng. landscaping

and orientanon of bu•ldings. New proJect des1gns

should complement surrounding residential and mixed-use areas.

1. Design With setbacks that are conslstenl With the preva1ling setbacks along the block where rhe

proJect is located. as well as the pro\11Sions in the C•tYs Zoning Code.

Locate new <;tructures or add1tlon5 1n areas th•t m inimize the impacls on neighboring sttuCiure)

and on mature trees (e.g , along M1ller Avenue).

3 Ensure bu1ld1ng lot coverage Is sensitive to the

preva1hng lot coverage for the block, and

consistent wah the mult•·family res•dent•al and m1xed-use development standards for the area

4 Des1gn btJIIdlng heights and upper srory step backs

to reduce impact on neighboring propen•es and

the public r~ght·of-way <md allow access to sun hght and natural venti lation

L

MV

Questions?

Comments

Concerns

23

References Documents

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

20 24 030 Permitted ond ConditionAl Uses

~ulti·Famlly Residential Zones Use Table Mulll·hmlly

zones

I' Perm1ttt d Bayfront DowntWI\ Miller Ave M IUtr AYt Miller Ave

Additional UP • Con d1t1or ·"l Usc Pe1 rm l requ trc:d l£n. Knolls/ Sl.tndardsl

ltesldtntlal Marsh P~s:s•c• P~trkwly

N ~OlllertniUOd Shelter Jlltdae. ,.fOYhiO"I

~ental Multl·hm11y hou>IIIS p p p " p

or >ale Multl·f•m•l~ hou•lnR CUP p p cur CUP Src No te \ .-.omo O<CUP>t•on s p r p p p lO 60 lSD

tconory s lructurcs p p p p p ~o GO 075 ln~le <oom o<Cuponcy (SRO) dwelhn~' (UP CUP .:u P l UP CUP

Rosldenu ol F;w1J1y. small p p p r p

pesldento• l hcllity. Iorge CUP CUP ( UP CUP CUP Nursing home CUP CUP ( UP CUP cur Mixed use l>u•ldh1J:" comblnl"g te •denti:JI. lOI'T'MlC' n a l aradl<:~r bu:,lne u ( Uf> LUI• UP · u p CUP •ncl proless•onol office build•n&

Now sonRI•·Iomlly dwellings N N N 'I " ... ct- Note l

E<i,ll"&_ unRie· lam•lv dwellrnR> CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP ~•• Note 2 hort· Lerm rental ot hou"n,;, (IC:H than JO d·lY t e n t.ll) N N N " N

lve work projen ~ N N N rtJP CUP

Non-res/dentiCII uses OUice blJIIdlngs CUP N CUP cur CUP t u·,ptlals, med•cJI tllflit or olhte.~ CUI' cur CUP (UP cur• uner Al pMior:; CUP CUP CUP CU P CUP ommunity Ccn tet \ CUP .. uP CUP CU P ( UP

oc•al hall s. lodtt. 0' club bulldmg\ CUP CUP CUP CU P CUI'

)'otOfti(UilUtoll l\VrSt.:fiCS. CUP cur CUP CUP CUP Public Ulllny strurturr-s l UP CUP CUP CUP CUP

Day <are (enters fo t ch 1ldrcn CUP c UP cur ~uP CUP

thools CUP CUP CUP CIJP CUP

u blic Urtlny :~~tnJrtures CUP {UP CUP r up CUP

P~rklng LOt$ (not ,ur.odated w/ ~ useJ CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP

• For-site houfrng: t~' ,. subject ro lndu-='on;~ry Housmt Ordtnr.<:c {MVMC 10 tO I tOO: C!~etnpt from ondmon01t Ute rcqu ·~ment ~ CJidom•:. GOY~' ( nnr St'Cho" rs~fJ .4

( )fi \ tinc ~1ngJe famlfy t e•Jdtncts at lht t1mt Dt rhe adoptiGn ot these re-gvl~non' 'haH nor bt coMidet ed .. non·tonfornur•r uses rtrlt1 •·'' h"" illtP•t>rf Jtr~d ,.,.,o,ge~l u urh JU'.td•ciou• mtt11n·

W(b.lck, hetJ,;.ht and other dC"ffiopment st.,nd~t<h of tl~ Sm~lt r.,mi )' Res1d~nl14tl (RS) zonsoc s\andolrd) CMVMC' 20 16}.

CHAPTER 3

20 24 040 A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BASE STANDARDS

,~U·f•mlly Ruldinllol Downtown Miller AV~ "'Mtuh• end

MUier Avenue. "PIUIIIIfl .. Mlll~r Avonuo "Pilr~"''•r• "Choraccor Areos• (tontsl -o ayfronr·

• and UJI OIJI&IJICI"n (I) MFA·2 (Hiahor Dl~llty MF Atoldt!!tlol) !t4FR., !Mtdlum Dtf1JitYMI'{!ttldontllli

!'enlnr Oetl&natJon Downtown Mllle-r Ave "'Marsh"' ond

MUJer o\Yenue •pu.a•a•" Miller A~tnuo •llarllway• ••aayfront"'

Oonoltr In dwolllna unit> por ocro (du/oc) 111, IIIII Mln1mum D~Mi\y t1 dU/aut tot MFR·1 and t 1 du/eue for MFP·.l Uce MV20AO 1 :md Use Map)

Mutmum OtnJIIy I IS dul•ut for MFR·1 l,..and UU, 29 dU/I<r~ for MFR·l Cne MVl:O• o Und Uu M.)p)

~lnlmum V111ble Ou1door Llvlnc Area CJ)

rotit r eqiJJrcd 0 \J\door Space 1ll f per unit lQO < r per onll ~00 s ,( ptt llnfl 4bo •. r. per·""''

Of '"qul,td N JrdOOf llvln& !.po• t. th' mm1mu'" J (j s I. per unU for SO$ f pt'r uni\ lot lOO s.r. por unh IQr ~®-.,(. ptr unit (pr

S/lortd Outdoor Sp.oct pu unit: dcvclopmen.s ovor a vnlu dhelopmont\ ow~r s-un+t~ dtvelopme~ts •••r 1 uolu dW.Id~rn~ntr r:nofl"l :Un1u

Of rrqulttd P4tldoor f1vltt4 rpo,~. tht n"mmutr 50s r SO s I 200 sf ~oost,

ltrNott Outdoor Spoct ptr untt 1boll bt:

MaliC. Lot Co't'ereao so .. SD"' 4511 ~~

~·-- • 0 • for dte• over 30.ooc Mu • 0 ~ for situ p.lir.Ji"oilo af s:r

loor Arol Rlllo(FAR) (4) Mn•07S M:t• •0 \: Mh 0 ~for 11tu undtr JO,lfOD ..... 0.6 for tltes un4Se.r

30,000 •I 5}•

M•>< He laM (lv)

MIA • 3S fl '-'~" • } ; h Mn. 35 It ..,.~. ·lS ff Hela;ht

(3 5torie$) (3 \U)ttt'\. (3 otor•••l ~IJ!O.JIU)

1t.lmtlluna l Het~ht ltmn (Wtthln 10 ftrt from tAru • 2S h MJa"A • 2S{t ]141> •lSI< ~ .... tsrt. abuuin& .su"'~le·fMntly rts•denrfll tonuJ C2 ~rorl~~) fl S~oriM' llstorlo" t~ "J•Iesl

Sl tptMC~ c.bov~ 2nd ' loty, t equlrtd on all l 1 111110 nlo 1.1 rollo >: troljo

~Jde:. (Zf'ld i tO')' 2s·m•~~.1

( onrrnu!d on nrx' pogt

25

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

20.24.040.A MUL T1 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BASE STANDARDS CONTINUED

iro'ulti·Fomlly Aooldt nllol Zonn Downt own MHier Ave •MarJh • •nd

MillO< Avonu o "Pou oa t-'"Baytront ..

etbotk• IV) M1n •!: f1 lobi' ··~ ~~ loin • IS II

ht~C''""U Wo• • IS II No M .'IJ No M»

~

"'" S II f01 'I lVJ \i ct~r u tn • S h. for sllu under 10000>1: 20.000 ••.•

M1n•S11 fv} ., . " < ro~n M n• t Dft forsllt-\OVt>' AA1n • 1 o h tOt sitos over '4oM•• ZOOOih I zo.ooo • r.

NOM'J No MIA - -aJktnl

I ~P"' lot un•h up to &2~ ~.r

•·••n I f!. '• fl.lCC"• tu1 llntl\ UVt'l U~-. ( ~nd \IP IO 1.~~0 >~ ( (IH.

I oJlMt'O, lOt Ul'll r~ UVQf 1 ,2!;0 •, f

111 Pt• /ld<I~U!d I•WlC>•10 Gcn .. a i i'Mn. ~and u~~ Map F1guro .: 4 ond l ab!~ ll, ~~l:lO> l4·l~

u•J H.tl( .-,pan.!) tO S) w1M l>t.: 1 owHINf up ,,, lhl. next whole numbt:• («) 1! .. t1 "t S f.htCC~ WJII hu •uuntll!d op IllS p.l 1'\)

(11 ) ,\ff l.uHitJt tl~ ~hi» II bte )ubje<• ttl (h~ ne-t •'heasutemt•fli iP .)(tC:dJ•.c ut\d dt:n')ny Lilftuf,Jimns Net t dcl•ncct ~~ llu.o .. ,, , '' 1:.1 hllh

p.u( rlnunu> uudoo~efcJJ)oi,blc .l iCM (e R eol,crncn\-; •• gniOr:mt cn•momtl~nt;~t ft" ,1 1 •~rc~ t»nd tiO~n.llt h .lbll.11 lf'<.h• .ltiOt ltl •r»M1 ,,.,l c f l)o(f p141tn/III)(\(1W,l'( )

I lVI Ht"Xhl h<epll')tll pe•mruecl per M~Mt l0.6~ OM

tvl ~re (J.)J;C J9 ror m.n., um 11 •:'\oCl 1 1• ltJ\- t~t <•r l~~ •fl w rtth.

f01 rumtbr,tfJ tt:/,.ttth r~ ~~ e \.• twr 10 i UIO t m fJIJg~ 9 of (ill< do. ume~ 101 41t1tfHlrn1 Do 'vf>',r t1 \rcu fjn Is

CHAPTER 3

SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL USES ALLOWED IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS

Addlllonol IA•• Identlol Usotln Commercl1l Zonu Commarclallonot Shndarda/

Provll1ont

C·l C·D (CU RRENT C•N CoG

P·AZON£)

Joowntown U m lt e.d Nelchbor.,ood General

~tx.-d-4Jst' wh h Rcs•dtnUal aboft flru floor tMt..(.td·use) p P. p p

!MuCN:S use WJth rr t•denU•' on ,round tloot (nol •llowed on CUP

ommertlJI lt ttt front•~u) CUP CUP IUP

tve-Work. Mth worll on fust noor CUP CUP CUP CUP

~~me OccupitiOm p p p p

lem<,.c<n<y Sl>oll<" CUP N CUP CUP

IRts•dentt~ Fatthfy, sm1ll CUP N CUP CUP

~t•ldendil Fidhty. larc4! CUP N CUP CUP

>•nate- Room Ckcu plnC} ISJtO) dwel1lnc, CUP N CUP <UP

~ur:.m& Home CUP N CUP CUP

h vt1 Term Rt t't• ttou Int. flU th in ) 0 ~y ren~•l) N N N N H NOTf I

Mill or Avt n•t "P rk-y"

{I=•ISit tloMu

Min •Sft J orJe>UNie

..... 10,00.1 •1 '

W n • :10 t lot situ over :oooesr

rr.o • .,~,

8

DEVElOPMENT STANDARDS

20.48 MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN COMMER CIAL DISTRICTS

ommorclol "'Chlrocter Aroas,. Downtown Neor hst Bllthdolo Mlll!'r Avenue Miller Avonu~

Alr.o Center .. t4afn Stre•t"' "'GAteway ..

Redwood Hw1

end Use De•lsnotlon (I) Downtown Limited Oommo;clol

tlelahborhood CommercleiiC·Nl Oommerclai(C·Dl (C·L)

Ganeral Commarclol (C·Gl

Downtown Limited commorclol Gtnaral cammorclai(C·Gl onln; Doslanotlon (I) commercial (C·O) (C·Ll

Nel&hborhood Commercial (C·N) Aito Cant41r Redwood Hwy

Oonslty In dwolllna unttJ por ocro (du/ocl (1). (Ill)

Mfntmum Otnstl)' . dwtlhn' unit~lllCfl!

Mu,mum Oen11ty J ~9 dwelll n' unu\/,.crt

~lnlmum Uuoble Outdoor LIYina Aroa IJ)

fot~l rtqulr~d Outdoor SlloJCe so 1 pe1 vn•t tlt;, I ptrUOit SO • .r per vnil

Of "qttlrcd l)j JCdoor ltvin.g sport. I flO\ f p e• unit for rht IIJ/1-Mum $houd OuldtJOI .,. ,,

.... tng Spoc,. p~r mur dtoveii)IJR"~nt'> rwrr \ tlhtl '.lo

0/ ' cqviud our door /Jvu~t spoc.t. lht mtmmum 1'11vnlt Omdor•r oll ~ I . ., I

Ltv,n;; Sput t pe1 umt

jMox. Lot Covet ate 100~ so~ SOli so~ T 401\

loor Are• Ratio (FAR) (4) Mall " IS Maw 10 ~u c t .O Mb> • 10 T MA,( • ~0

"'ax. HeiJhl (5) (IY)

M.1x. • 35ft Mu, • 2 storle> •• !ost Md 35 11 Mo• 3~" Mil' « 3S h H···rl•f ''"HI Sllthedale street frontos

ll storlos) ond as It moxtmum 13 ctorles) (l SIOth~•:;.j (J starw:•l

frot'lt Sttpbac.k t.lbO• t: 2nd ~tor)•) ,., rotio lor 3rd noor nla I :t rotto rar lrd lloor 1 1 rillla far lrd 11oar nlo

t onur utrl on ntxt 1 og,

CHAPTER 3

20.48 MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT BASE STANDARDS CONTINUED

~omrnercfel .. Chl rlcter Are11'" Downtown I N~or rut •llthdalo I MIIJ•r Av-.nut I Mi llar Avt r "''' C.llltr T -~aln Str•pt- ""Gateway

IMlnlmum S-ot bodes

httr.or Propel"'ty l cne 01\~ ft (0 fl u,le u on btoctt wh h Rtlldtult.:.t Zoning the ~t 1!, tt t

tnteroor Property line (6t Qll~ It 10 !t unless on bloc~ with fo'nla e ntiil lor .,1: th.en 1!> h .L mily be recfuetd tv tO u on '-lcJe-y;ud\ i ' 'i-eCOnd

1ctepb.ct.t

parktna lfl,llll

t spilCI: for uniiS up to 825 t 1 1.S 'OpOicas for unhs O'let 825 s .t J.nd up to 1 lSO '..( l ~poi(~S (of UnllS OVCf 1,2$0 \'

Shared porion~ (See ~0.24.040.C and 8)

II) Per Adoptod MV2040 General Plan, Lund Use Map ngure 2.4 and l i!ble 2 !. page< 24 25

(It) Hall sp;~ces (0 5) sh311 be rounded up ro the next whole number (e.g. 4.5 <paces sh•ll be rounded up to 5 spaces)

(lli) All standa1ds shall be subJeCt to the •net' mea•urernem 1n ac1eage and d•nsity calculation, "Net· •S defined a> the gro;, urea ol the pa((el mult•• undevelopable ilrea (e.~; ea•ements. Slgnltiwnt ooVlronmental feature•. 11par•an habitat ilnd/or floCJd pli11n/lloodVta)••l

(ktJ Hoight hcepttons pc11n11ted per MVMC JU 60.060

Fo• numbt rtd re(tr<n<t> sec 5tetlon 1n }4 040 ( 011 pogt 39 of fill: dOC1•m<nf for .ll,ddlllDno/ fltvtlopn1tnl Slnr•dortl<

4590

Ma •. • 7S

~.~., lS IL

{3 SlOth~:;)

MO

RedwoodHwy

tory irrtludu a

29

'

-~-- -- - ------ - - -- - - - . ~- ------ - -----~

Off-street I

•Tour# Address ?o'!..i!}g - Lot Size , II Units L!_nits/AEre. P_~[king _ Other Details I --~--- ---- ~ -·'

lnclusionary housing - 1 affordable unit

1 80idMill RM1.5 6,500 1 27 6 (moderate Income, 528 sq ft without

1 parking), 3 market rate approx 1,450 sq ft, PO Overlay, setback variance

2 . 5,7 and 9,1101ive RM1.5 6,841 4 25 ' 2 homes; duplex style on one parcel

8~83 Lovell RM1.5 ~56 2 .

15 2 -75 Lovell RM 1.5 ;_296 2 26 2to4 Possible tandem parking -7~_7~66.!.68 Lovell RM 1.5 10.!777 4 16 8

3 65A/B, 67'Y_B Lovell RM1.5 7,964 4 22 8 Built 1992 -63 Lovell RM 1.5 ~19 3 28

~

5 Tandem parking

59 AJ..BlC Lovell RM 1.5 7,706 ... 3 17

62,60,58 Lovell RM1.5 10,996 3 12

4 45 Lovell - Mt carmel Shop RM 1.5 2,604 N/A N/A

41 Lovell RM1.5 1~221 7 25

33 Lovell RM 1.5 6,599 4 26 4 5 -

26lovell RM 1.5 3.!p3 3 41 3 Built 1957

_ 22/24/29 Bernard RM 1.5 6,751 3 19 3 Built 1991

6 124 Throckmorton CN 13,000 N/A N/A Site identified in capacity analysis

38 Miller CN 35,000 N/A N/A 37 2 accessible/handicap parking spaces; site identified in capacity analysis

42 Miller CN 2~225 Nl A . NjA 1 Site identified in capacity analysis

44-54 Miller CN 27,312 6 10 Built 1985

96 Miller RM3.5 13,721 5 16 7 ~

130 Miller RM3.5 1~24 2 7 3 I 7 ~

160 Miller RM 3.5 1~512 3 10

150-154 B Miller RM3.5 9<1_025 4 2 5 Built 1971

170 Miller Avenue RM3.5 28,580 12 18 15 . 174 Miller Avenue RM3.5 24,681 10 18 14

180 Miller Avenue RM3.5 29,370 12 18 16 . 181 Miller RM3.5 19,392 8 18 12 Built 1969

190 Miller Avenue RM3.5 15,426 6 17 7

193/197 Miller RM3.5 22,000 10 20 15 Built 1974 --- - -208 Miller Avenue RM3.S ~59 2 14 2 - ... 210 Miller Avenue RM3.5 6,100 2 14 2 Tandem parkin_(

8 -- - -211 Miller RM3.5 15,330 1 4 11 7 lnclusionary housing; 1 affordable unit

-216 Miller Avenue RM3.5 27,510 18 28 26 - -236 Miller Avenue RM3.5 7,595 5 29 6

10 Park RM3.5 27,955 19 30 19

12·56 Sycamo_re RS6 varies NLA N/A 9 -t -

238 East Blithedale CN 29,565 N/A N/A I Site identified in capacity analysis memo

10 230 East Blithedale I CN 19,449 N/ A N/A : Site identified in capacity analysis memo

90-219 East Blithedale varies ' N/A N/A 11 PA

12 , 64 East Blithedale I CN 16,500 N/A N/A Site identified in capacity analysis memo

13 i 19 Sunnyside I CN 10,058 N/A N/A I Site identified in capacity analysis memo

35 Corte Madera ~ CN 9,725 N/A Nj_A Site identified In ca_e_acity_analysis memo

34/36 Corte Madera CN 4982 2 17 2 - -14 50 Corte Madera CN 15071 10 29 16 -- - - - -20 Gardner Street CN 7246 6 36 5

"T

10 Gardner Street CN 9156 5 24 7

Zoning Regulations- see Title 20 "Zoning": http://www.cityofmillvalley.org/lndex.aspx?page=76

• Section 20.80: Affordable Housing lnclusionary Requirements

• Section 20.60.090: Parking Requirements

• Section 20.16: Residential Family/RS6-RS10A Requirements

• Section 20.24: Multiple Family/RM1.5-RM5.5 Requirements

• Sections 20.36-20.42: Commercial Districts/Professional Administrative-PA (Section 20.36}, Commercial Neighborhood-eN (Section 20.42) Reqts

A TT A t:HMlf.NT '

Karl Svanstrom

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

kerry Stoebner <kerry.stoebner@gmai l.com> Monday, June 08, 2015 2:41 PM Planning Danielle Staude; vsmith@cityofmillvalle.org; Kari Svanstrom; city manager; city clerk MFR/Commercial Zoning Map Amendments

To: Members of the Mill Valley Planning Commission: Ricardo Capretta, Chair; Anne Bolen, Vice­chair; Larry Davis; Fred Eisenhart; Jason Tarlton

cc: Members of the Mill Valley City Council: Kenneth Wachtel; Garry Lion; Stephanie Moulton­Peters; James McCauley; Jessica Jackson

I believe that the City of Mill Valley and most especially the Planning Commission and Planning staff need to move cautiously and with great deliberation (and with abundant advance notice) on any proposals to impose higher density zoning in downtown Mill Valley, ensuring that at a minimum all of the affected residents, as well as residents of adjacent properties, understand all of the potential developmental impacts. Moreover, higher density in the heart of downtown might well tax Mill Valley's already overburdened infrastructure-- i.e., parking, water, sewers, schools, emergency evacuation routes, adequate public transportation, etc. --to the breaking point. Proceed, if at all, with extreme caution and abundant due care. Zoning changes providing for significantly higher density could easily be the catalyst setting off a cascade of events that would forever alter the complexion and character of downtown Mill Valley.

Sincerely,

Kerry Stoebner 1 55 Buena Vista

Ave. Mill Valley, CA

1 ATTACHMENT 6

Kari Svanstrom

From: Christopher Deam <chris@cdeam.com> Monday, June 08, 2015 5:32 PM Sent:

To: Cc:

Yin Smith Bill Green; Garry Lion; city manager; bd@thompsondorfman.com; Me; Margaret O'Leary; fisco@seagateprop.com; Kari Svanstrom; Lara Deam; James thomas; natasha boas; John Boas

Subject: Re: Request for Staff Report on upcoming ZDAC vote

Hi Vin,

My name is Christopher Deam and I live at 162 Throckmorton Ave (across the street from the Mill Valley Inn and directly adjacent to the last commercial building on the North side of the street). I am a practicing architect and have a masters degree in Urban Design, as such I have some questions about the proposed adoption of the ZDAC recommendations.

• If a CUP is not required for a use in a residential zone, does that mean that the project can be approved administratively without public comment or notification?

• What is the threshold for requiring design review in the Commercial Downtown and Multi Family residential located in the Downtown Character area?

• Accessory structures are permitted in the Downtown Residential area, but do they count against Lot Coverage and FAR?

• New single-family dwellings will NOT allowed in the Downtown residential area (currently they are allowable), but what does this mean for the many existing Single Family residences that currently exist, ie; what if my house bums down, can I rebuild? What ifl want to remodel and expand my home ... what setback, lot coverage and FAR do I need to follow?

• How is building height calculated in the Downtown residential area? from the curb, average slope of lot, or parallel plane? Is it different for upslope or downslope lots?

• Are there any buffers built into the Development Standards when Commercial uses abut Residential uses in the Commercial downtown, or when Single-family homes abut Multi-family residential units? Specifically the current code Sec.20.40.050 B states that the residential setback is used for a commercial property when directly adjacent to residential, and D. that the hours of operation for commercial uses are limited from 8:00am to 8:00pm when directly adjacent to residential. Will these safeguards remain in place?

• In the Design Guidelines and Development Standards document it states that ''new mixed use/multi-family residential development in the downtown area wilJ be encouraged to pull buildings closer to the street, currently dominated by parking, and respect the existing development patterns and natural constraints". This seems like a contradictory statement. How is it possible to respect the existing development pattern (minimum 15' setback) while advocating a new 5' setback? In cities like Belvedere and Tiburon where the zoning has evolved over time, the front yard setback is determined by the average of the 2 adjacent neighbors. Has this been considered?

• In the Downtown commercial area, commercial buildings will be allowed an 18' first floor plate, presumably to allow mezzanines, and a 38' height limit. Does this mean that the Downtown will allow what are effectively 4 story buildings?

• In the new Downtown MFR-2 area the maximum density will be calculated by acre uniformly (vs. progressively by square footage as is done now). If ram correct the new 29 dwelling units

1

/acre, across the board, can be up to a 366% increase in density (using current RM 5.5 5,500sf/dwelling unit as an example), and a minimum of 50% density increase. Can you confirm I am right? Is it possible to lower the maximum units per acre to 20-23 units per acre?

• I have calculated that my immediate neighbor on his .12 acre lot can currently build 2 units under RM-1.5. Under the proposed Zoning MFR-2 he could build 3 units totaling 4,200sf (not including parking). This is 50% larger than my home which is on a lot nearly twice his size. A previous Zoning Administrator required that my wife and I build a single-family home, and follow the single family development standards, even though we are currently zoned commercial. Does this constitute illegal spot zoning, or will you require my immediate neighbor to also build a single family home?

• The proposed minimum private outdoor space of 36sf for unit, regardless of size, represents a 64% decrease for a one bedroom unit, and an 82% decrease for a 3 bedroom unit under current zoning. I'm not sure that this is humane.

• The proposed transitional height limit (within 20' from abutting single fami ly residential zones) is 25'. Does that apply to a Mult i-family project next to a single-family home if they are in the same MFR-2 zone? Could the word "zones" be stricken from the language to afford single family residences the same protection?

• If an underground parking area will be exempt from the FAR calculation, is it also exempt from setback or height calculations?

• The shared parking reductions (up to 50%) are unclear to me. Can you please clarify how many parking spaces will be required per unit?

In general, 1 think the proposed changes are too radical since most of the increases represent a 150% increase of what the current code allows. I think it would be more prudent to temper the liberalized zoning and make the following adjustments;

1. Maximum allowable density should be lowered to 20 - 23 units/acre~ or go back to the graduated density of the current code based on units allowable per SF. 29 units/acre is way too high.

2. The proposed jump up to 75% FAR (floor area ratio) is also too high. That is opposed to 50% in other Multi-family areas. I think something like 55-60% is more reasonable, and still represents a good increase.

3. The height limit should be lowered to 30'. You can still build a 3 story building at 10'/ floor. 4. The transitional height limit of25' should be extended to cover properties adjacent to any single

family residence, not just at transitions between zones. 5. Front yard setbacks should be determined by the average of the two adjacent neighbors with a

minimum of 5'. This will preveht existing homes from being swallowed by development on either side.

I will not attend the meeting tomorrow night since I believe the vote on this matter has been tabled. Can you please confirm?

Thanks,

Chris

CCD Christopher C. Oeam teL (415133<J-11129 J'ax(415l JJ9-<J551 2302:\

A•idgc'-l.tY. <,aw;allto. (A 94965

W\vw.cdeam.com

On Jun 81 2015, at 10:48 AM, Vin Smith <vsmith@cityofmillvallev.org> wrote:

Mr. Green,

Thank you for reaching out to us in search of information on the work done by ZDAC and the Planning Commission. I truly appreciate your desire to fully understand the content before reaching conclusions. I will start by assuring you that in no way will the Design Review processes or requirements be minimized as result of the proposed standards and Design Guidelines. The standards and guidelines support the General Plan and 'Continue the longstanding desire for design excellence in Mill Valley.

To answer your questions directly: 1) there is no City Council staff report, 2) we are not yet projecting a City Council date as we agreed at the Community Meeting last Tuesday to continue efforts to engage the community and provide dear, concise summaries of the recommended changes. 3) I anticipate providing significant prior notice for any future public meetings on this subject and would appreciate any feedback or suggestions you might have to better notify all interested parties.

We are currently working on a simple summary of the recommended changes so that all can fully understand them and evalvate them. The ZDACand the Planning Commission have taken great care to prepare standards and design guidelines that reflect the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan MV2040. I do not believe the recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance are significant and they certainly do not permit buildings or uses that are inconsistent with MV2040. I believe the proposed Design Guidelines for Multi-family and Mixed Use developments are significant as there are currently no guidelines requiring any specific design considerations. I believe these proposed design guidelines closely reflect the current development patterns of neighborhoods and will be extremely useful in ensuring future new development, or building redesigns, achieve a level of design excellence expected here.

Kari Svanstrom will follow-up with a link to the document created by ZDAC which has been reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission. As I rnentioned, we are working on a simple summary of the Zoning District changes that I hope to provide this week. I would be happy to meet with you and go over any questions/concerns you have.

Vin Smith Director of Planning & Building I City of Mill Valley

26 Corte Madera Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941

3

415-388-4033 I vsmith@cityofmillvalley.org

From: Bill Green [mailto:bgreen@margaretoleary.com] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 1:13PM To: Garry Uon; Yin Smith; city manager Cc: chris@cdeam.com; bd@thompsondorfman.com; Me; Margaret O'Leary; fisco@seagateprop.com Subject: Request for Staff Report on upcoming ZDAC vote

Garry, many thanks for your patient consideration of my concerns expressed to you this morning out in the square.

Vin I Jim -Garry suggested we reach out to you today. In a nutshell my wife Margaret and I own one of the oldest homes in Mill Valley at 204 Throckmorton and have our flagship clothing store, Margaret O'Leary, on the square in downtown. We have been here for decades. We are seeking a precise understanding of what zoning changes are coming up in front of the City Council as part of the ZDAC planning process and design review. We know changes are coming -notably to setbacks, height restrictions and the like, but we cannot discern from the information on the city website what specifically is being considered right now. More urgently, and because we accept the notion that in fill development will happen (and we support ongoing economic development here in downtown) we need to be reassured that the Design Review Process will remain strong in the face of more aggressive zoning permissions.

We understand that the development of the General Plan has been ongoing for some time. It is not the general direction that we question now, but rather the specific implementation (the devil is always in the details) and therefore we spoke with Garry about getting a copy of the STAFF REPORT to the Council well in advance of any vote on changes to downtown zoning and the commensurate enforcement (design review) of same. Can you tell us:

1) Has there been a staff report to council on these proposed changes? a. If YES can we receive a copy?

2) If NO, when is it expected to be complete? 3) If NO, how much time do you expect we will have to review and comment, after

receiving the report? As you know, summer is a time when many people travel, so we want to be sure that our neighbors have time to assimilate the information.

Any additional information you can provide I point us to, that will help us catch up with current events in the matter of changes to downtown zoning that impact our parcel here at 204 Throckmorton would be most welcome.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Bill

Bill Green Chief Operating Officer

<imageOOl.png>

50 Dorman Avenue San Francisco, CA 94124 bill@margaretoleary.com Shop online at margaretoleary.com.

4

Kari Svanstrom

Subject:

Attachments:

FW: Proposed Mill Valley Multi-Family Residential and Mixed Use Development Standards by ZDAC 64Loveii_1890Jpg

From: marvdilts@aol.com [mallto:marydilts@aol.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 6:24 PM To: Planning Subject: Proposed Mill Valley Multi-Family Residential and Mixed Use Development Standards by ZDAC

To the Mill Valley Planning Commission, City Council, Zoning and Design Guideline Advisory Committee (ZDAC) and staff:

I would like to express my concern for the integrity and character of my neighborhood regarding the proposed Mill Valley Multi-Family Residential and Mixed-Use Development Standards.

I am not just one of a small group of citizens who appear at the last minute, arguing in the face of change. Twenty-six years ago, I bought my historic house at 64 Lovell Avenue in beautiful, downtown Mill Valley - chosen over a developer who was offering much more and in cash - because the owners knew I would save the house and honor its history. It was the town's first permanent residence built in 1890 by Thomas Kelly. I am proud of where I live. The magic of this town that still remains is celebrated by everyone who visits me. In fact, I have been developing a children's television series with our lovely "village" as the backdrop.

My perception has been that the proposed new ordinance will negatively and permanently change what remains of the charm of my neighborhood- ;'the Downtown Mill Valley Character Area ." Yes, there are other structures that have unfortunately been allowed to be built over the decades, but they should not set a precedent for regrettable design ideas from developers who are looking to build in today's highly profitable market, sell and walk away. There are a number of residences on my street alone that are either currently in development or will be in the very near future- projects that will immediately and irreversibly alter the feel and appearance of my neighborhood if the proposed ordinance passes. And it seems that the ramifications of a higher-density neighborhood will not only add to the rapidly progressing problems of traffic and parking in this town, but safety and emergency evacuation in the face of a major disaster should also be seriously considered.

I realize that much effort and many months have gone into creating the potential updates of city zoning, regulations and development standards, and it has been with the intention of ''aligning with the desires of the community." However, I have yet to meet anyone who lives in my area that desires the possibility of new 5 foot setbacks and 35 foot-high, 3-unit buildings. Again, I am addressing what the perception is and welcome an open and honest discussion of what ZDAC is truly proposing. I believe that each proposed new "character area'' should meet with the committee separately, as each has its own questions and concerns.

Since summer has now arrived, I would like to request that no action is taken in finalizing ZDAC recommendations until at least September. As I understand, there is no deadline here, and this would give the community necessary time to meet with you and interpret all of the details. I am out of town for the next two weeks, but hope that my communication will be considered if there is any momentum while I am away.

As members of our Planning Commission, City Council, ZDAC and staff, I thank you for the time you give to Mill Valley, for honoring its character and, most importantly, for respectfully listening to the people who proudly call it home,

Mary Dilts

Kari Svanstrom

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Dear Vin, Ric and Kari,

Lauri Harper <harpermv@sbcglobal.net> Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:51 AM Vin Smith; ric capretta; Kari Svanstrotn Joan Murray; Patn Keon; William Stock Zoning Map Amendments and Historic Structures

Although I cannot attend tonight's Planning Commission tneeting, I've read the supporting documents on the· MFR/Commercial re-zoning plans and thought it might be best if I called to your attention before the meeting that there are several potentially historic structures in the downtown commercial area that may be impacted by the changes.

The most important is the two parcels that comprise the Outdoor Art Club, which is listed on the National Register and protected by the City's Historic Overlay (H-0) zoning designation. Others that would seem to meet the criteria for listing on theCA Register and are listed on the City's All Hazard Mitigation Plan {2006), a successor to the Mill Valley Historical Society's (MVHS) "partial" list of Historic Structures, and/or its Miller Ave. list are:

Corte Madera Ave. 19 Masonic Hall Klyce designed and built 1903 Miller Ave. 306 "Poplar Brae" William Terry, second Board of Trustees, 1894 (pictured on the cover of the June 2015 draft of MFR/MU Design Guidelines and Development Standards!) Throckmorton 60 Bank of America Klyce designed and built 1911

82 Keystone Bldg. altered from original, but old, has anchored lytton Square, Mtn. RR passed through it

25 Sequoia Theatre 140 {142?)

Sunnyside 15

1929, first talking movies Hub Theatre, Odd Fellows Hal11915 Clinton Thoney, fire chief for 1929 fire

A few others that the MVHS has listed probably would not meet theCA Register criteria, but seem important locally are 34-36 Corte Madera, 316 Miller, 118 Throckmorton. Our list, and t he City's AHMP, are inadequate because they contain only properties built prior to 1930 and we should be evaluating structures built prior to 1965.

We're in the process of finishing the text for a proposed self-guided walking tour (MV2040, LU 8.5) of "Historic Downtown Mill Valley" that includes almost all of these properties, and last month we mounted a display at the MV library for National Preservation Month on "Harvey Klyce: Master Builder'' that featured his downtown contributions included in the re-zon ing list.

As these properties are remodeled or sold, the MVHS wants to ensure that their architectural integrity is preserved and that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are adhered to in any plans for continued or new MFR/Mixed Use/Commercial usage. In the absence of a profess ionally­done Historic Resources Inventory, might it be possible to consider adding the H-0 designation for them?

1

Best regards, Lauri Harper MVHS Historic Preservation Committee Chair

Kari Svanstrom

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subjed:

Mitch Wortzman <mwortzman@yahoo.com> Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:23 PM Vin Smith Jim McCann; Ricardo Capretta; Anne Bolen; Fred Eisenhart; Larry Davis; Kari Svanstrom MFR/Commercial Zoning Map Amendments

Hi Vin, thank you for postponing the Commercial Zoning Map Amendments until July 28, 2015.

Our Parkwood/Laurelwood neighborhood actively participated at Planning Commission meetings roughly 4 years ago, when properties in our neighborhood were rezoned from Professional Administrative to the new Commercial designations. Our understanding at the time was that the intention of the changes was to simplify the code and update outdated uses. But we then learned that restaurants and other uses crept into the new defin itions, and the Planning Commission and Staff revised the amendments to our satisfaction. I know that there has been years of subsequent meetings since then, and it's very difficu lt for the average resident to grasp what the final amendments are and how they impact us. I understand that you'll be working on a summary of the differences between the current and proposed zoning, and that will be greatly appreciated by our neighborhood.

Thank you,

Mitch Wortzman 25 laurelwood Ave

1

Kari Svanstrom

Subject: FW: 6/9/15 PC meeting agenda item 3: please include with supporting documents/public comments

Kari Svanstrom Senior Planner I City of Mill Valley 415-388-40331 ksvansttom@cityofmillvalley.org

From: gueenchinee@rocketmail.com [mailto:gueenchinee@rocketmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 12:26 PM To: Planning; Yin Smith; Kari Svanstrom; city manager; Kelsey Rogers Cc: Bill Green; mvbeth@comcast.net; Lisa De Gennaro; Horan Braeda Subject: re: 6/9/15 PC meeting agenda item 3: please include with supporting documents/public comments

Dear Members of the Planning Commission, Honorable City Council Members and ZDAC Committee Members,

In light of tonight's Planning Commission meeting, and since as of this moment the video for the June 2, 2015 Community Meeting is not yet available online, I am submitting the comments that T made at that meeting so they will be formally added to the supporting documents to be attached to tonight's agenda item number 3, "MFR/COMMERClAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS - PUBLIC HEARING (PA RT 2 OF MFR WORK)". What l said at the meeting follows:

Yesterday, during public comment time at the City Council meeting, my neighbors and l asked the City to continue ­until at least September - any Planning Commission meetings having to do with the ZDAC's proposed designations­which include new development standards, new design guidelines, and a rezoning of close to 1000 parcels.

The 70-page document is very complex and quite difficult to understand, and we believe it is being pushed through without sufficient public outreach, and therefore very little public engagement. We also requested a well-publicized community meeting, again no earlier than September, with the ZDAC committee and planning staff so they can explain this to the community.

At last night's Council meeting, during a discussion about the Planning Commission, there were questions regarding the comments my neighbors made about the ZDAC. Answers from ZDAC committee members and City Staff assured Council members that the changes being made were really no big deal- they suggested that we just didn't understand.

Well, what then are you doing to do to help us understand better?

Will you help the entire community understand better by pushing this issue back to the fall, so as to have an appropriate amount oftime to educate the community, instead of pushing it through at next week's Planning Commission meeting, and then a City Council meeting during the summer, when most people are away?

Will you please help us understand before these irreversible, sweeping changes are adopted into our General Plan and Municipal Code?

Thank you for including my comments as part of the public record.

Respectfully, Nancie Rosen

1

Kari Svanstrom

Subject: FW: Upcoming Community Meetings to review proposed multi -family residential zoning standard changes and design guidelines

From: queenchinee@rocketmail.com [mail to :queenchinee@rocketmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 5:15PM To: Kari Svanstrom; 4jmathews@gmail.com; afunger@earthlink.net; Alexandra Utt; Anne Bolen; Bill Green; Bruce Dorfman; Bruce Tremayne; Cheryl Carter; Christopher Deam; Dan Rosen; Doug Ferguson; Danielle Staude; Frederick Eisenhart; fritz@bathelt.me; harpermv@sbcglobal.net; Horan Braeda; Janet Daijogo; Jason Tarlton; jimo13@comcast.net; Joan Murray; Joel Schatz; john@Ggear.com; kerry.stoebner@gmail.com; lara@dwell.com; Larry Lautzker; larry@cromearchitecture.com; Lisa De Gennaro; Linn Walsh; margaret@margaretoleary.com; Maria Gabby; marydilts@aol.com; Mitch Wortzman; mvbeth@comcast.net; natashaboas@yahoo.com; Pam Keon; Ricardo Capretta (rcapretta@capretta.com); Rob Jacklin; rubyunger@earthlink.net; Stephanie.Witt@pacunion.com; Susan Cluff; Susan@eoproducts.com; vascolazz@comcast.net; Vin Smith; William Stock Cc: Jim McCann; John McCauley; Jessica Jackson; KRWachtei@Gmail.com; Stephanie Moulton-Peters; Garry Lion; Tom Welch; donnadacuti@gmail.com Subject: Re: Upcoming Community Meetings to review proposed multi-family residential zoning standard changes and design guidelines

To City Staff, Fire Chief Welch, ZDAC Comminee Members, Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers,

First, I would like to thank City Staff for planning two neighborhood meetings (July8th at 7pm and July 15th at 3pm in City Chambers). I am sure that some of the people on this email list will be able to attend at least one of these meetings. Hopefully, some of our main questions regarding safety (will Fire Chief Welch be able attend these meetings?), reasoning behind the proposed development standards (will ZDAC comminee members be in attendance?), "neighborhood fit" (will members of the Planning Commission be in attendance?) and explanations for what is driving the "need" for infill development will be answered during these meetings.

I have a couple of questions though regarding the meetings, their purpose, and the notification process. As many of my neighbors have stated multiple times before today, we believe that if the City is indeed as invested as they say they are in involving and educating the public about the rezoning (''renaming") and new development standards and design guidelines, having community meetings during the summer is not a great idea. So why two meetings, one week apart, in July? Also, since there was nothing in the latest MY Connect, nor any notification by mail, only the people on this email list were notified of the upcoming meetings. It seems to me, that unless the City is planning on doing many small meetings, within and with each affected "district", that this is not a very productive route to take. And as far as the notification process goes, r believe that every affected parcel should receive fonnal notice of these meetings, BY MAIL. We received fonnal notice regarding the slurry seal, so why no formal notice for something as important as this, which if passed, will lead to parcel rezonings as well as changes to the Municipal Code. 1 know that all affected parcel owners were formally noticed by mail once (for the 4114115 Planning Commission meeting), but as we have all previously stated, we found the notices to be so innocuous as to be misleading.

So, 1 am once again going on record as saying that I believe the best way to go forward with the ZDAC document and proposed changes that stem from it, is to educate and engage the community in the most comprehensive, effective way possible. It seems that two or three COMMUNITY (not NEIGHBORHOOD) MEETINGS regarding this subject, after effectively getting the word out to as many people as possible, would be beneficial for the City. l know that everyone involved in making presentations/asking and answering questions is very busy, and I would think that fewer meetings with better attendance would help to allay possible citizen concerns. As word on the street slowly spreads, more and more people are asking questions, and demanding answers. It is the City's responsibility to provide clear, comprehensive explanations and answers to as many citizens as possible, and I do not see how that is possible over the summer season.

Another thing Tam requesting is that the meetings be webcast/live streamed with both audio and video (the 11/18/14 ZDAC meeting, although webcast, had no video, so it was extremely difficult to know who was speaking). Also, T would hope that the meeting would be webcast and available to watch live and up on the site immediately, since the video of the June 2 Community Meeting has yet to show up on the website http://www.cityofmillvalley.org/lndex.aspx?page=33&recordid=21214 (there is a link, but no meeting to be found ... )

Consider this letter one more formal request from a property owner who is very concerned about not only about the value of my home, but the quality of my life in Mill Valley. I look forward to a response regarding the above issues.

Respectfully, Nancie Rosen

From: Kari Svanstrom <ksvanstrom@cityofmillvalley.org> To: "4jmathews@gmail.com" <4jmathews@gmail.com>; "afunger@earthlink.net" <afunger@earthlink.net>; Alexandra Litt <alitt68@aol.com>; Anne Bolen <abolen@relg.com>; Bill Green <bgreen@margaretolearv.com>, Bruce Dorfman <bd@thompsondorfman.com>; Bruce Tremayne <bruce@tremayne.com>; Cheryl Carter <cdcarterstudio@gmail.com>; Christopher Deam <chris@cdeam.com>; Dan Rosen <dr.dano@comcast.net>; Doug Ferguson <doug.ferguson@sbcglobal.net>; Danielle Staude <dstaude@cityofmillvalley.org>; Frederick Eisenhart <frederick. eisenhart@us. pwc. com>; "fritz@bathelt. me" <fritz@bathelt. me>; "harpermv@sbcglobal. net" <harpermv@sbcglobal.net>; Horan Braeda <braedahoran@gmail.com>; Janet Daijogo <jdaijogo@mcds.org>; Jason Tarlton <jasontarlton@yahoo.com>; "jimo13@comcast.net" <jimo13@comcast.net>; Joan Murray <llocustmv@pacbell.net>; Joel Schatz <joelschatz@yahoo.com>; ''john@6gear.com" <john@6gear.com>; "kerrv.stoebner@gmail.com" <kerry.stoebner@gmail.com>; "lara@dwell.com" <lara@dwell.com>; Larry Lautzker <famous4@comcast.net>; "larrv@cromearchitecture.com" <larry@cromearchitecture.com>; Lisa De Gennaro <l.deg@sbcglobal.net>; Linn Walsh <lwalsh@cityofmillvalley.org>; ''margaret@margaretolearv.com'' <margaret@margaretolearv.com>; Maria Gabby <mariagabbymd@gmail.com>; "marydilts@aol.com" <marydilts@aol.com>; Mitch Wortzman <mwortzman@yahoo.com>; "mvbeth@comcast.net" <mvbeth@comcast.net>; "natashaboas@yahoo.com" <natashaboas@yahoo.com>; Pam Keen <pamkeon@aol.com>; "queenchinee@rocketmail.com" <gueenchinee@rocketmail.com>; "Ricardo Capretta (rcapretta@capretta .com)" <rcapretta@capretta.com>; Rob Jacklin <robjacklin@comcast.net>; "rubyunger@earthlink.net" <rubyunger@earthlink.net>; "Stephanie.Witt@pacunion.com'' <Stephanie.Witt@pacunion.com>; Susan Cluff <suzemv@gmail.com>; "Susan@eoproducts.com" <Susan@eoproducts.com>; ''vascolazz@comcast.net" <vascolazz@comcast.net>; Vin Smith <vsmith@cityofmillvalley.org>; William Stock <williamclintstock@Qmail.com> Cc: Vin Smith <vsmith@cityofmlllvalley.org>; Jim McCann <jmccann@cityofmillvalley.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 2:25 PM Subject: Upcoming Community Meetings to review proposed multi-family residential zoning standard changes and design guidelines

Please join us!

The City of Mill Valley is holding two community meetings to discuss zoning standard changes in the multi-family residential districts as well as new standards for mixed use (residential above commercial) in commercial districts. We will review both the name changes to the multi-family zoning districts and the proposed zoning standards changes.

In the meantime, please see the link below for more information, including the proposed documents and a comparison chart with existing and proposed changes: http://www.cityofmillvalley.org/lndex.aspx?page:::1523

2

You are receiving this email because you expressed interest, or were on a list of interested parties, regarding this topic. If you would like to be removed from this list, please email me directly and I will remove your email from the list.

Kari Svanstrom AICP, Architect, lEEDap Senior Planner I City of Mill Valley

26 Corte Madera Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-388-4033 1 ksvanstrom@cityofmillvalley.org

3

Kari Svanstrom

From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

DearVin,

Christopher Deam <chris@cdeam.com> Monday, July 06, 2015 5:48 PM Vin Smith Planning; Garry Lion; Bill Green; bd@thompsondorfman.com; Me; Margaret O'Leary; Kari Svanstrom; Lara Deam; Jimo Thomas; natasha boas; John Boas Downtown Zoning meeting

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend either of the study sessions on the 8th and 15th. However, I do want my following thoughts recorded for the public record.

First let me state the my wife and I have lived in a single family home at 162 Throckmorton Ave. for 21 years. When my wife bought the property it was an unimproved shack but she wanted to live downtown (which was not in fashion at the time). When she remodeled the property she wanted to do a live/work or two smaller units, but the planning director at that time INSISTED that the property should remain a single family home and obey the single family residential guidelines even though the property was and still is zoned commercial CN. She honored the planning directors request and built what is now consider a very sensitive, low impact, modern home in the heart of downtown. We often hear that this is the house that began to make living downtown attractive.

As I walk on Lovell and Throckmorton A venues, I ballpark that the neighborhood is currently 2/3 single-family homes and 1/3 multi-family. Its sometimes an awkward juxtaposition, and in my opinion its usually the multi-family properties that are less attractive and less sensitive to their neighbors (perhaps because they are built by developers, or perhaps just due to their size).

Unfortunately it seems the winds have changed and now there is a movement afloat to change the existing development pattern of the neighborhood and densify downtown with exclusively multi-family residences. First, I believe this is both against the General Plan and the stated goal of the Mixed-use Design Guidelines which state unequivocally that development will ''respect the existing development patterns and natural constraints". By eliminating Single-family homes as a conditionally permitted use in this area, the proposed change goes against the existing development pattern and the towns stated goals. I think this is a problem.

Exacerbating the problem, are the more lax zoning requirements being proposed which will accentuate the awkward juxtapositions between the single-family and multi-family properties. In general it seems as though multi-family properties are encouraged to be larger and closer to their neighbors, while single-family properties are being limited in size and must be further from their neighbors. This doesn't make sense.

With that as a preface, let me acknowledge that Mill Valley does have a need for affordable housing and we support efforts to address that need, but the current plan could be much improved by implementing the following changes which I strongly advocate;

1. Permit single-family residences with a CUP as currently zoned, and clarify that they must follow single-family zoning guidelines.

2. Allow existing single-family residences to erect smaller rentable single story in-law units (perhaps under 400sf).

3. Make setback requirements increase with the size of the Jot as is currently in the code instead of a uniform 51-0" as is proposed.

4. Make the allowable front and rear yard setbacks the average of the two neighbors instead of the proposed 5'-0" (currently it is 15'-0" and progressive with lot size respectively).

5. The transitional height limit of25' should be extended to cover properties adjacent to any single family residence, not just at transitions between zones.

6. The height limit should be lowered to 30' (it is possible build a 3 story building at 10'/floor).

7. Maximum allowable density should be lowered to 16 - 23 units/acre, or go back to the graduated density of the current code based on units allowable per SF. 29 units/acre is way too high.

8. Parking should count against the FAR even if it is "underground". It seems an arbitrary distinction if both above ground and below grade are built structures.

9. Make the proposed allowable FAR 60-65% in Downtown Multi-family. The allowable FAR in other neighborhoods is 50%. The proposed allowable 75% represents an extreme jump in density compared to other neighborhoods.

Thank you for considering my thoughts

Best,

Christopher and Lara Deam 162 Throckmorton Ave.

CCD Christopher C. Dearn tet.t415!.i39-1829 ta•;t·m)J39-9551

Bridgewny. ~ausalito. CA 94%5

www.edeam.com

Kari Svanstrom

From: Bill Green <bgreen@margaretoleary.com> Thursday, June 25, 2015 12:57 PM Sent:

To: Kari Svanstrom; Vin Smith Subject: RE: Upcoming Community Meetings to review proposed multi-family residential

zoning standard changes and design guidelines

Importance: High

Kari & Vin:

The material you most recently sent was most. helpful, as was our revi~w of the June 1, 2015 Draft Design Guidelines and Development Standards. We would like to run an idea by you. If you consider this workable, and could support some version of this, we could propose it to at the Community Meeting as a compromise we can support - and see if we can rally the majority of neighbors behind it in advance, as a way to accelerate general consensus of residents, Planners and Planning Commission. The idea is simply this:

1) Premise: RM-1.5/Downtown is currently a collection of structures that range from historic single family, owner-occupied homes to unattractive old apartments ... often right next to one another. The majority of friction with the community seems to be coming from the fact that those who live in the SFR are concerned about the intensity of development they could find on their property lines. In our case, for example, there are old apartments on either side of us and two older homes directly behind us which are ripe of re-development; meaning we could have new apartments on all three sides of our 1896 historic SFR. While these cases are limited, there are a handful in the zone and this should be considered, in an effort to incent owners of the historic SFR to continue to occupy and curate these older homes.

2) Possible Solution: Just as the current June 1, 2015 Draft Design Guidelines and Development Standards recognize the need for Transitional Guidelines when the RM-1.5 abut lower density residential zones, we would suggest adding the same consideration when the RM-1.5 abuts existing residential structures.

3) Implementation: Easy! Simply take the Transitional Height Limit, add a slightly larger setback (5 feet is too close, so perhaps go back to the 1 foot for every 1,000 of lot, which would average 8 feet?) and Page 67 of the Design Guidelines and change the language to apply this to tioth adjacent to other zoning group and adjacent to the existing owner-occupied SFR.

4) Impact: Our extremely informal survey of the area, (simply by walking around) indicate that there are only a handful of owner-occupied single family homes that could qualify forth is additional Design Guideline consideration. This is based on the fact that many structures are apartments or duplexes next to other apartments and duplexes. We would suggest this consideration be extended to currently owner-occupied SFR only, and that rental properties ­even if SFR- would not qualify. looking at the designs on Page 67 of the Design Guidelines, and thinking about our own situation here at 204 Throckmorton, what this would do is force the developer of either or both of the adjacent properties to pivot their density away from our property line, but it would not likely interfere with their right or abil ity to develop the property to the new density and Guidelines. It would, however, provide us with the much-needed

assurance that our light and air wou ld not be choked off by the potential of 35 foot (albeit

stepped-back at two st ories) development only five feet from our fences ....

I'd love t o come down and hear your thoughts on this, or alternatively have a call if you prefer ... •

From: Kari Svanstrom [mailto:ksvanstrom@dtyofmillvalley.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 3:10PM To : Bill Green Cc: Yin Smith Subj ect: RE: Upcoming Community Meet ings to review proposed multi-family resident ial zoning standard changes and design guidelines

Will be working on t he ana lysis next week, and will let you know, thanks!

Kari Svanstrom Senior Planner I City of Mill Valley 415,388, 4033 1 ksvanstrom@ciryofrnillvalley.org

From: Bill Green [mailto:bgreen@margaretolearv.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 3:08 PM To: Kari Svanstrom Cc: Yin Smith

-------

Subject: RE: Upcoming Community Meetings to review proposed multi-family residential zoning standard changes and design guidelines

Kari, thanks for this and we wilt be there! Have you and Yin been able to make any progress modeling what the higher density, lower setback, higher height developments would look like on either side of 204 Throckmorton? If this could happen soon, we would be in a much bet ter position to provide our feedback to the community .... Let us know your thoughts and we are always available to wander down the block to see you in person.

From: Kari Svanstrom [mailto:ksvanstrom@cltyofmillvalley.org) Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 2:43 PM To: Kari Svanstrom Subject: RE: Upcoming Community Meetings to review proposed multi-family residential zoning standard changes and design guidelines

Sorry, the last message did not have the dates, times in the email:

Please join us on Julv 8, 7 pm and July 15, 3 pm!

The City of Mill Valley is holding two community meetings to discuss zoning standard changes in the multi-family residential districts as well as new standards for mixed use (residential above commercial) in commercial districts. We will review both the name changes to the multi-family zoning districts and the proposed zoning standards changes.

In t he meantime, please see the link below for more informat ion, including the proposed documents and a comparison chart wit h exist ing and proposed changes: http://www .cityofm illva !ley .o rg/1 ndex.aspx ?page= 152 3

V E. - - l t - , ~ -r A • N A s · t:.. c o M rli u N < T ·r o E ~ t G N D 0 . 1 A II \.. ~ ._ A 'I CA 949~1- 4!1'5 '3&8.6622 r>APTMONO CHERK ARCHITECT- 522 CA.SC~OE LJRIVE MlLI.. V LLE •

·' }

1

1?-2015

'Tl;t6 Ch'i ~tsr~<;~ O'$r olJf wrALA?amw~ 13vtlh'tJJ0lll'"t*ru~ue-(>Jf~ ~ Ru~ 10 ~~e ~~ ~v~ ~~ ~~ J&~{}f~ ~rrZDFt:r .....

I

---~~ ~vor (5 T~ s HOtXt~ \M~I\l.A~ 0\tsSt~G H~V't \MrftC ..

.._To ~1ftts U~HefJ.-1H'f l~!AJ!X' Wl~l}{~ A Lor OF W~~ ..

'-lf\t!~ Owrz[V!JW'l ~WI~ A-J)Wf{li~~ Lle,j !&!A<5lWaiw~Mt~1 lile vot-I PetZ-~~ Ff«f~ ( ~ Qtu>D0 ~w ~ p,wwr, wrnt IH6' FV~ {<6frt1Jaq ~ ~( t<FC) f{<oratr1..

1

..._ Oft~~ A t?A~~)Efl( ~ vto~ rrs owJ tatJt~ ~&t7t~~D ~"(FWr 'W&UW ~~ WASf~~~~ Q«b{At- Sl~

'-11$1~, 1il'i S[T&. (PJI.IJ flalv'!Vt [vwat ~ ltOuflJ.i Wt{ltlf ~~A ~lJ'e:. fW ~({; Cf-f-16[ 'Nh1(iJI6 ~~ ~Lo~#J'lL !5~PIN'ra,.tf~~ Ttt:O\St~VIt ~WJAv9trfo, fVwt lJ[it4.t;tll6 A~~~ 1ff6, -

-ar't~~~~51"ACf, tft6CW1 ~~51DACQJLf6-r~f1Wo~.> ~, TtleJJ ~~d}\Jf~ f!/IJif ~02- ({ ~/WflftL '' ~l~L-10WI( -wr~v\A..>/~AtJS CA~ 1W fteolllJ Of.... I

-TW\t Wouw~ A t1~~1lf ..

Petition · Mill Valley City Council, Mayor &amp; Planning Departm... https://www.change.org/p/mill-valley-city-council-mayor-amp-plann ...

1 of4

• • o Stan a petition 0~

o Search

• My petitions • Profile • Settings • .1&8...2.!!! • Stan a petition • Search

• Log in or sign up

Petitioning Mill Valley Residents Mill Valley City Council. Mayor Planning Department

Preserve Mill Valley Skyline: Say No to the rezoning of close to 1000 parcels and new urban development standards. Global eco sustainable general plan adoption

Kellyannart Kellyann Lyman Mill Valley CA 424 Supporters

Preserve Mill Valley. Say No to the rezoning of close to I 000 parcels, and new urban development standards. General plan to adopt Global Sustainable Development in Mill Valley. Fire Safety, Public Safety, Mill Valley Preserve Safety.

8/31/2015 9:05AM

Petition · Mill Valley City Council, Mayor &amp; Planning Departm... hnps://www.change.org/p/mill-valley-city-council-mayor-amp-plann ...

2 of4

lmp://wv.-w.cjNofmlll yalley.org/lndex .aspxJoao.e= 1523.

These zoning changes affect multiple "Character Districu• in all of Mill Valley. All residents in Mill Valley will be impacted individually & globally Pubhc Recommendaton: I. No change to the Municipal Code regarding the development standards and zoning designations for close to I 000 parcels in Mtll Valley. including the heart of Mill Valley, its historic downtown. 2. General plan to adopt Global Sustainable Development in Mill Valley, Fire Safety, Public Safety, Mill Valley Preserve Safety

Preserve Mill Valley I $ign the Petition I Merci

The Mill Valley rezoning will greatly & forever impact our global community, environment, wildlife, traffic & quality of life. These design guidelines & development standards arc on their way to being adopted by the Mill Valley City Council.

Our natural wooded neighborhood could c.onsist of 35' tall density residential developments that site on are 5' !Tom the sidewalk & have no mandated requirements for trees or greenery. The new Throckmorton Village on Lovell is an example of our future neighborhopd. The new standards also includc wording which would promote more residential unitS, wlth inadequate parking requirements, above commercial units in downtown - two storic:s of rcstdenllal above commercial to be exact.

The new guidelines are pro development & urbanization. Our neighborhood, as well as historic commercial downtown, is at the hean of increased density & development standards, Our quaint downtown neighborhood will, under the new standards, have higher density r~:qulrements, smaller exterior setbacks, larger lot coverages & less designated outdoor living space than all the properties to be developed along Miller Avenue,

Let's preserve Mill Valley ln it's natural habitat Global Sustainable Development

http://www.cityofmillvalley.org/lndex.aspx?page=l523

letter to Mill Valley Residents Mill Valley City Council, Mayor, Planning Department Preserve Mill Valley I Say No to Rezoning and new development standards. Updates

l month ago Petition update

Sien & share the petition to preserv.e ~he Mill Yllll!lY Lkylin~,

Wltb the prooosed rezoning In Mill Valley postpone<!. Sign & share the petition to preserve the Mill Valley skylme, The City council builders & architects need consider global eco sustamable development in the general.

2. 2 months ago ZSO supporters

3 2 months ago Petition update

General plan to_ado.nf Global Sustai n~tble Develgpment in Mill Valle~. Fire Safm. Public Safety.

Preserve Mill Vall!l)'_$.aJ1..No to the rezoning of close to 1Q90 parc;els. and new urban deveiQID!!enl standards.Generalplun to '!ld.QI!LG!oi:J.i!lil.!§!atnatile Deyeloumeot in Mill Valley ftre Safety, Pt,Jbl lc_Sa(m-~Mill Valley Preserve,.,

4. 2 months ago 200 supporters

5. 2 months ago Petition update

Preserve Mill I Mill Yalle~serve

It's a skyline w011h preseCLI.!Uk In the urbanJilngle the Mill Valley Preserve would stqp MFR-2 rezoping. The residents of Mil l Valley SYP-POrta global ~anmtti~e for.:..suj,lamable development io the Mill Vall~

6. 2 months ago Petition upd11 te

Preserve Mill I Mill Valley Preserve

lt's a s.kyline worth preserving. In the urban jungle, the Mill Valley Preserve would stop MFR-2 rezoning, The residents of Mill Vallev suppon 11 global general plan initiative for sustainable development in the Mill Vallev ...

7. 2 months ago 5 supporters

8. 2 months ago Kellyannart Kd lyann Lyman started this petition

8/31/2015 9:05AM

Name City State Postal Code Country Kellyannart Kellyann lyman United States Leonardo Panichi Florence 50014 Italy Russell Linscott Mill Valley California 94941 United States Patty Ginnebaugh Mill Valley California 94941 United States Cammy Bergren Mill Valley California 94941 United States Susanne Maxwell Mill Valley California 94941 United States jeani BARRETI seal beach ca California 90740 United States Kathleen Mulcahy Larkspur California 94939 United States Barbara Bogard Mill Valley California 94941 United States Sharon Salisbury Mill Valley California 94941 United States elizabeth hillman mill valley California 94941 United States Steven Johnson Mill Valley California 94941 United States Maria Matan Novato California 94945 United States leland Dugan novato California 94947 United States Faybeth Diamond Mill Valley California 94941 United States Irma Brandt Gualala California 95445 United States Barbara Steger Mill Valley California 94941 United States loretta zarza Mill Valley California 94941 United States

jane black Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Robin Caproni Mill Valley California 94941 United States trevor hughes mill valley California 94941 United States Robert Levy Mill Valley California 94941 United States pamela nichols Mill Valley California 94941 United States Debra link Mill Valley California 94941 United States Susan Kirsch Mill Valley California 94941 United States David LaDuke Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Judy Derstine Mill Valley California 94941 United States larry AnderSson Mill Valley California 94941 United States Susan Beutler Mill Valley California 94941 United States AM Mill Valley California 94941 United States Marl Tamburo Mill Valley California 94941 United States Mimi Falge Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Robert Cogswell Sausalito California 94965 United States Bettina Mow Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Marl Robinson Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Ed SPECHT Mill Valley, California 94941-2136 United States

Kerry Stoebner Mill Valley California 94941 United States Elise Robinson Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Denise Meehan Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Jenny Werba Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Becky Hockin Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Linda &arnp~ Robert Rames Mill Valley California 94941 United States Susan Moxon Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Sarah Slaymaker Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Lynette Hindley Mill Valley California 94941 United States

jo muilenburg Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Ralph Richardi Mill Valley California 94941 United States gloria rashti Mill Valley California 94941 United States Usa Edson Mill Valley California 94941 United States shirley powers mill valley California 94941 United States Dan Brutlag Mill Valley California 94941 United States Zoe Magee San Francisco California 94110 United States Gail Katz Mill Valley California 94941 United States Dionne Trowse Mill Valley California 94941 United States Ryan Stever Mill Valley California 94941 United States susan letteer Mill Valley California 94941 United States Allison Bloom Mill Valley California 94941 United States GISELA H Johnson Mill Valley California 94941 United States Lisa Fiedler Mill Valley California 94941 United States Delila Shaler Mill Valley California 94941 United States Lonnie Barbach Mill Valley California 94941 United States Cherie whitmore Mill Valley California 94941 United States Linda Greig Mill Valley California 94941 United States Sandy Fujii Mill Valley California 94941 United States Matthew Elkins Mill Valley California 94941 Uni~ed States Ginny Walters Mill Valley California 94941 United States Helen Horch Mill Valley California 94941 United States Robbin rockett Mill Valley California 94941 United States Craig Reiss Mill Valley California 94941 United States Susanne Tilp Mill Valley California 94941 United States Nancy Klussman Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Mary Dilts Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Stephen Blose Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Lisa Palter Mill Valley California 94941 United States Eileen alexander Mill Valley California 94941 United States Edwin DeShazo Mill Valley California 94941 United States Penny Crow Mill Valley Ca lifornia 94941 United States Ju lie Mclisky Mill Valley California 94941 United States Suzanne Nelson Mill Valley Californ ia 94941 United States

Emily Heacock Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Kirsten Rames Mill Valley Californ ia 94941 United States

Arthur Chandler Mill Valley California 94941 United States Nancy Gribler Mill Valley California 94941 United States David Brogan South San Francisco California 94080 United States julie miyasato Mill Valley California 94941 United States Kate Kinney Mill Valley California 94941 United States Mary Anne Daly Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Jesse Rice Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Michelle Sanders Mill Valley California 94941 United States Stephen Burger M ill Valley California 94941 United States

Rachel Jasse Mill Valley Cal ifornia 94941 United States

Harmony Teitsworth M ill Valley California 94941 United States Virginia Wade Mill Valley California 4041 United States.

Sarah Wilson Mill Valley California 94941 United States Marc Lieberman Mill Valley California 94941 United States Scott hughes Mill Valley California 94941 United States Anna Lazzarini Mill Valley California 94941 United States Kevin Ferrell Mill Valley California 94941 United States Heather Keane Mill Valley California 94941 United States rebecca reber-bumess Mill Valley California 94941 United States Olivier Delerm Mill Valley California 94941 United States Stella Nilsen Mill Valley California 94941 United States Janet Knowlton Mill Valley California 94941 United States Monica thomas Mill Valley California 94941 United States Ryan Cunningham Mill Valley California 94941 United States Tom Dicker Mill Valley California 94942 United States Leigh Claxton Mill Valley California 94941 United States Beverly Rodgers Mill Valley California 94941 United States wendy slick San Rafael California 94901 United States Susan Auyang Mill Valley California 94941 United States melanie mociun Mill Valley California 94941 United States Geoffrey Flint San Francisco California 94111 United States Coleen Byrne Mill Valley California 94941 United States Tina Chase Mill Valley California 94941 United States chris luebkeman Mill Valley California 94941 United States debbi kotlovker Mill Valley California 94941 United States Jennifer Souza Mill Valley California 94941 United States Ann Ritchie Mill Valley California 94941 United States roseanne hoo Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Owen Janson Mill Valley Ca lifornia 94941 United States

Nadia Georgiadis Mill Valley Ca lifornia 94941 United States Greg Coghill M ill Valley California 94941 United States Bernard Meisler Mill Valley !:a lifornia 94941 United States Ivy Lessner Mill Valley California 94941 United States Josephine Rasella Mill Valley California 94941 United States Lynne Robertson Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Robin Assali Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Braeda Horan Mill Valley California 94941 United States JoAnn Locktov Mill Valley California 94941 United States karen benke Mill Valley California 94941 United States Tracy White Mill Valley California 94941 United States CLAUDIA PAULOO SAN RAFAEL California 94901 United States Phyllis Cantor Mill Valley California 94941 United States Patty Simmons Mill Valley California 94941 United States linda Warren Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Carole Sirulnick Mill Valley California 94941 United States Gayle Delaney Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Sarah Janoff-Brinn Mill Valley Calffornia 94941 United States

Shirley Brogan Mill Valley California 94941 United States Dawn Gilliard Eann Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Amy Rodier Mill Valley California 94941 United States M ichael Banks Mill Valley California 94941 United States Barbara Gilliard Mill Valley California 94941 United States David Chenoweth Mill Valley California 94941 United States Rhona Gordon Mill Valley California 94941 United States Jamie Staples Mill Valley California 94941 United States Catherine Roehl Mill Valley California 94941 United States Tom McKiveen Mill Valley California 94941 United States Lucinda Macdonell Mill Valley California 94941 United States Monica Ralston Mill Valley California 94941 United States lisa Bookstein Mill Valley California 94941 United States Suzan Berns Mill Valley California 94941 United States Annie Katamai Mill Valley California 94941 United States JoAnne Berlin Mill Valley California 94941 United States Greg Bechelli Mill Valley California 94941 United States Cathy Youngling Mill Valley California 94941 United States Lori dodge Mill Valley California 94941 United States Kathryn Ann Mill Valley California 94941 United States Jackie Forrest Mill Valley California 94941 United States Adam Brodsley Mill Valley California 94941 United States Sharon Cordova Mill Valley California 94941 United States joanna agnew Santa Rosa California 95407 United States

Marla Brill Mill Valley California 94941 United States Robert Riner Mill Valley California 94941 United States Sharon caplan cohen Mill Valley California 94942 United States Joan Schretlen Mill Valley California 94941 United States

H silcock Mill Valley California 94941 United States Holly Seerley M ill Valley California 94941-1350 United States

Linda Obrien Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Maria Carlile Mill Valley California 94941 United States Joel Schatz Mill Valley California 94941 United States jody kennedy Mill Valley California 94941 United States Ellen Garvie Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Selma Bomfim Mill Valley California 94941 United States

lee aubry Mill Valley California 94941 United States Jeanie Chandler M ill Valley California 94941 United States

Kim Fullerton-Nelson Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Wendy cagwin Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Spencer Jacobs Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Nic Meredith Penryn California 95663 United States

Vanessa Frost Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Kathleen Harms Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Sarah Perry Mill Valley California 94941 United States

AnneMarie Spizuoco Mill Valley California 94941 United States Marilyn Bagshaw San Rafael California 94903 United States

Beth Arvidson Mill Valley California 94941 United States Paul Matsuda Mill Valley California 94941 United States

rachelle sarosi Mill Valley California 94941 United States Shane Kennedy Mill Valley California 94941 United States Suzette Saunders Mill Valley California 94941 United States Mary Mclain Mill Va lley California 94941 United States Geoffrey nilsen Mill Valley California 94941 United States Marti Cagwin Mill Valley California 94941 United States Michaela Gray Sausalito California 94965 United States Sarah Wunderlich San Francisco California 94118 United States Bruce Tremayne Mill Valley California 94941 United States Rachelle Palkovsky Mill Valley California 94941 United States krista dossa Mill Valley California 94941 United States Taress Reyering Redwood City California 94062 United States Susan Garratt San Rafael California 94901 United States Malcolm Baker Mill Valley California 94941 United States joyce britt Mill Valley California 94941 United States Marc Demian Mill Valley California 94941 United States William Carlile Mill Valley California 94941 United States Al isa Arquilevich Mill Valley California 94941 United States Marianne Doar Mill Valley California 94941 United States Terry Strauss Mill Va lley Ca lifornia 94941 United States JON GELLER Mill Valley Ca lifornia 94941 United States Arthur Hoffman Mill Valley California 94941 United States Denise Bourdages Mill Valley California 94941 United States Matt Koss Mill Valley California 94941 United States Jane Baker Mill Valley California 94941 United States Sheila Habib Mill Valley California 94941 United States linda Maxwell San Anselmo California 94960 United States

Ethan Grossman Mill Valley California 94941 United States

TJ Williams Mill Valley California 94941 United States George Gordon San Rafael California 94901 United States Diane Andreoli Mill Valley California 94941 United States Miave Desser Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Carol Anderson Mountain View California 94041 United States carla pollard Mill Valley Cal ifornia 94941 United States Sylvia Knauer Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Warren Levinson Mill Valley California 94941 United States

phil sheridan Mill Valley California 94941 United States Matt Connely Mill Valley California 94941 United States Cheryl Brandon Mill Valley California 94941 United States lisa De Gennaro Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Jo Howard Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Laura Chariton Mill Valley California 94941 United States Katherine Kertesz Mill Valley California 94941 United States Mike Janover Mill Valley California 94941 United States Winterling Maureen Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Scott Donnellan Mill Valley California 94941 United States lawrence Carson Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Marliese Gabrielson San Francisco California 94103 United States George Mclaird Mill Valley California 94941 United States Daniel heagerty Mill Valley California 94941 United States Athena Buchanan Mill Valley California 94941 United States Anne Elisco-Lemme San Francisco California 94104 United States Niklas Dessle Mill Valley California 94941 United States Suzanne Geary Mill Valley California 94941 United States Isabelle Gonzalez Mill Valley California 94941 United States Sandra Lelich Mill Valley California 94941 United States Elaine Fischman Mill Valley California 94941 United States Howard Levene Mill Valley Ca lifornia 94941 United States Karen Serlin Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Sonali Shah Mill Valley California 94941 United States Alexandra Utt Mill Valley California 94941 United States Jay Courant Mill Valley California 94941 United States Jason Litt Mill Valley Ca lifornia 94941 United States Verenna Faulkner Mill Valley California 94941 United States Heather Potts Kentfield California 94904 United States Lisa Fierro Mill Valley California 94941 United States Christine Vose sausalito California 94966 United States

Heather Fleming Mill Va lley California 94941 United States lynda grose Sausalito California 94965 United States josh ' martin Mill Valley California 94941 United States Anita MacAieavey Dublin Ireland

Vicki robbins Mill valley California 94841 United States Tino ciambriello Mill Valley California 94941 United States Janis Phelps Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Joseph Geary Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Stanley Peck Mill Valley California 94941 United States Kim Suppes Mill Valley California 94941 United States rachel Cleaveland-Riedy Mill Valley California 94941 United States Tam Hoyt Mill Valley California 94941 United States trubee scheck Mill Valley California 94941 United States Val Hansel Webster City Iowa 50595 United States

Deborah Meagher Mill Valley California 94941 United States

L Mclister Mill Valley California 94941 United States

jessica snell Mill Valley California 94942 United States Jackie Hamilton Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Christopher Dworin Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Pau l O'Neil Mill Valley California 94941 United States Margaret Bain Mill Valley California 94941 United States Stanford K Goldman Mill Valley California 94941 United States duncan mccandless Mill Valley California 94941 United States Sylvie Martinot-Silverstein Mill Valley California 94941 United States Alice Shiffman Mill Valley Ca lifornia 94941 United States Catherine Heagerty Mill Valley California 94941 United States Tanya Aggar Mercer Island Washingto1 98040 United States

Sjoerd de Graaf Kamerik Netherlands Suzanne Seltzer Boise Idaho 83704 United States Paul Norwood Mill Valley California 94941 United States Patricia Frisch Mill Valley California 94941 United States Catherine Flaxman Mill Valley California 94941 United States Rod Seeger Mill Valley California 94941 United States Paul Hamilton Sausalito California 94965 United States Annie Parr Mill Valley California 94941 United States Chuck w Mill Valley California 94941 United States Frank Lurz Mill Valley California 94941 United States Nancy Ramsay Mill Valley California 94941 United States Carolyn Michaelian Mill Valley California 94941 United States Jeremiah Harrison Mill Valley California 94941 United States Lawrence Jordan Mill Valley California 94941 United States Aishlin Harrison Mill Valley California 94941 United States Ashley Wolfson privatenottellingyou New Jerse~ privatenottelli United States lga Schaffer Byers Colorado 80103 United States barbra siskin Mill Valley California 94941 United States Casey Botts Novato California 94947 United States Abby Wasserman Mill Valley California 94941 United States jennifer salyers Sausalito California 94965 United States Joanne Zavlaris Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Jennifer Kurzman Mill Valley California 94941 United States Argyris Papandreou Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Jeri marlowe Mill Valley California 94941 United States Emily Stucky San Francisco California 94115 United States

Phil Kurzman Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Michael Parrott Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Kinga Parrott Mill Valley California 94941 United States John Wiegmann Mill Valley California 94941 United States Christina Michael Mill Valley California 94941 United States Hana Curphey Seattle Washingto' 98119 United States

lonna richmond muir beach California 94965 United States Wendy Elkin Mill Valley California 94941 United States

judith karau mill valley California 94941 United States

fleche phoenix Sausalito California 94966 United States

beth nelson Sausalito California 94965 United States Suzanne Gooch Sausalito California 94966 United States Karen Mandala Mill Valley California 94941 United States Penny Harwood Mill Valley California 94941 United States Donna Bailey M ill Valley California 94941 United States Claudia Sanchez Mill Valley California 94941 United States George Mandala Mill Valley California 94941 United States David Carmona Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Li Zhang Miff Valley California 94941 United States

peter Ingram Hill Portola Valley California 94028 United States

Christine Weaver Mill Valley California 9494-1 United States

Robin Terra Sausalito California 94965 United States Tara Huggins Hope Mills North Caro 28348 United States Joanne Blake Mill Valley California 94941 United States Thomas Vass Mill Valley California 94941 United States Gordon howard Mill Valley California 94941 United States suzanne miller muir beach Ca lifornia 94965 United States Isabel Sadurni Mill Valley California 94941 United States William and Sarah Devlin Mill Valley California 94941 United States Gladys Blose Mill Valley California 94941 United States Dennis Morales Mill Valley California 94941 United States Peta Penson Mill Valley Ca lifornia 94941 United States Hallie Iglehart M ill Valley California 94941 United States Sam brown Mill Valley California 94941 United States Andrea sterling Mill Valley Ca lifornia 94941 United States Robert Parnow Mill Valley California 94941 United States peter lambert muir beach California 94965-9717 United States Yvonne Rojas Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Sandra Mardigian Mill Valley California 94941 United States Daniel Archer Mill Valley California 94941 United States Cynthia Hoge Mill Valley California 94941 United States Anthony Little Mill Va lley California 94941 United States Brad Sauber Mill Valley California 94941 United States Susan Starkey Mill Valley California 94941 United States Lance Kennedy Mill Valley California 94941 United States

John Waldron M ill Valley California 94941 United States Dakota Juarez Mill Valley California 94941 United States Kelsey Urban Kentfield California 94904 United States Claire Anderson Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Kathryn Barnett Mill Valley California 94941 United States Erica Oldenski Purdy Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Noah Barrengos Mill Valley California 94941 United States Joe Calabria San Francisco California 94123 United States elliot grant Mill Valley California 94941 United States Steven Peters Mill Valley California 94941 United States

John Wiegmann Mill Valley California 94941 United States sandra henderson Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Jonn Aster Berkeley California 94720 United States

John Colasanto Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Leigh Page Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Tania Kennedy Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Ann Kaye Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Aisha Whitney Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Cheryl Schuyler Cambria California 93428 United States Kimberly Fairbank San Rafael California 94903 United States Christi levanneir Mill Valley California 94941 United States laird grant Mill Valley California 94941 United States Carol Summer San Francisco California 94107 United States

Amanda Wagner Mill Valley California 94941 United States Zoey Smith Mill Valley California 94941 United States Alexandra Deane Belvedere Tiburon California 94920 United States Sean Campbell San Anselmo California 94960 United States olivia forshan Mill Valley California 94941 United States Kristie Lee Mill Valley California 94941 United States claudine murray mill valley California 94941 United States Pamela Jordan Mill Valley California 94941 United States Audrey Romjue Mill Valley California 94941 United States Eva Contis Metairie Louisiana 70005 United States leah ch el cerrito California 94530 United States

Bryan Collins Mill Valley California 94941 United States Robert Copple Mill Valley California 94941 United States Henry Fleming Mill Valley California 94941 United States Carol Harrison Mill Valley California 94941 United States Blair roman Mill Valley California 94942 United States Mark Palmer Mill Valley California 94941 United States Amelia Wright Mill Valley California 94941 United States Michelle Archer San Anselmo California 94960 United States Ingrid Lin Mill Valley California 94941 United States lisa Barnes Mill Valley California 94941 United States DUANE HANSON Mill Valley California 94941 United States Kathleen McGinn Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Gabriel Grossman Mill Valley California 94941 United States Jo-Anne Hampton Kentfield California 94904 United States

Suzy Bettinger Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Monica Gargicevich Riverside California 92508 United States Mariana Steinberg Mill Valley California 94941 United States Ruth Williams Corte Madera California 94925 United States

Marion Morosin Mill Valley California 94941 United States cynthia rovero mill valley California 94941 United States Bianca Gargicevich-Aimeida Riverside California 92508 United States

Kevin Killingsworth Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Janis Bosenko Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Mary Quaranta Mill Valley California 94941 United States Mary Jane McKown Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Rosalie Morosin Mill Valley California 94941 United States Maya Johnson Mill Valley California 94.941 United States Dionne Shillum San Rafael California 94901 United States

Justine Baum Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Martha Cliff Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Jane Cliff Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Charlene Pratt Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Laurel Christensen Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Christopher Caproni Mill Valley California 94941 United States

Harold Clements Kentfield California 94904 United States

.Stephanie Newhall Corte Madera California 94925 United States

Linda Bates

Hilary Ross Mill Valley

Mill Valley

California

California

94941 United States

94941 United States

July 16,2015

An Open Letter to the City of Mill Valley

There are different elements of planning, zoning; size {floor area ratio) limits and setbacks; use and parking requirements; design guidelines.

There is the history of planning, 1966 zoning conditioned by first General Plan of 1975, General Plan of 1989, current General Plan.

There is the history of the community, old by California standards, which means lots of non-conformity, i.e. situations not meeting current requirements. (A sensible rule of planning is not to adopt regulations which unnecessarily increase non-conformity.)

There is our current situation: all of us are now aware, though old timers perhaps more so, that we live in an ecologically fragile community.

What does this mean for planning? For a start, any proposed increase in building density becomes an issue. The CitY has learned that 1 00 per cent affordability is only possible with land that is owned by a public or non-profit entity. Requirements that for­profit builders include 1 0 or even 20 per cent affordable units may not be enough, based on cumulative impacts, to allow increased density.

Yet the bigger problem is the cumulative impact, driven by the cost of property, to maximize house and garage size on lots. This impact is magnified by the 500 square foot garage bonus and the 500 foot bonus for second units, by which a 1,500 square foot house can become 2,500 square feet of mass. {I have never understood the 500 square foot garage bonus and propose a tweak- either 500 square feet of garage and 400 square feet of second unit, or vice-versa This would encourage consideration of trade-offs and be a step in the right direction.)

The elements of planning mentioned above are inter-related but must be distinguished, parsed as the grammar of a complex sentence and their purposes understood. Informed discussion requires clarity.

Finally, 2040 is a bridge too far. Let's try to see fi~e years ahead by stepping back to where we are.

- John Leonard