Blog Post < Previous | Next >
Armax Corp
Commenting on the proposed development at 500 Miller Avenue in Mill Valley
The following letter has been sent to Jim McCann (Mill Valley City Manager), Steve Flint (Interim Director Planning and Building), Danielle Staude, and the developer, Augustin Maxemin, and the developer's project manager, Donna Huntington, regarding the developer's new proposal for a mixed use development at 500 Miller Avenue.
Dear Jim,
Thank you for our meeting of July 3, 2018 concerning 500 Miller Avenue. I am writing to memorialize the project history (“institutional memory”) we discussed, to record my observations and to propose project parameters and appropriate Planning Commission Study Session goals and objectives – in advance of any Staff Report. Note that this memorandum has been revised in consideration of our follow-on discussion of July 25, 2018.
Project History
500 Miller was a product of the Miller Avenue Precise Plan (MAPP) process circa 2002, at a time when the solution to Mill Valley’s affordable housing needs was envisioned to be a concentration of high-density, mixed-use residential development numbering 450 units on Miller Avenue, rather than the more diverse and dispersed City-wide approach developed in our recent MV2040 Housing Element update.
The 2003 Housing Element Update identified specific Miller Avenue sites and assigned overly aggressive development capacities, arithmetically. I was on the Planning Commission at the time.
We were told that the City must demonstrate a “good-faith effort” to establish the capacity to achieve state-mandated housing allocation numbers. We were told that the densities and resulting unit-counts were an administrative exercise to meet a legal requirement and that they were not to be considered an actual “plan.” That understanding constituted the single basis upon which the densities were recorded.
At that time, no one believed the densities were appropriate -- and those densities/unit counts, and parking requirements have proven to be unattainable because the available sites were simply too constrained. The unfortunate result of setting the density-bar too high was that proposed solutions overly stressed each site and neighborhood context.In most cases, a “compromise” was still far too much.
Parallel to the MAPP Citizens Advisory Committee public process, the City actively engaged individual developers to promote high-density development, which was the genesis of what came to be known as the “Pipeline Projects” (500 Miller, 505 Miller, 15 La Goma, the Coopersmith Project, Blithedale Terrace, et al).
Sustained, passionate public outcry led the City Council to abandon MAPP in late 2007 and to separate streetscape design from land-use planning. The recession that followed slowed development.
At that time, I met with the then Mayor and urged that the City take the opportunity to inform the development community that the game had changed. Traffic, parking, environmental, infrastructure and school capacity challenges were increasing. The community had spoken and the many recognized that the Pipeline Projects were ill-conceived and far too aggressive.
But, the City failed to act and with time the Pipeline Projects returned as if nothing had changed. In fact, the developers had been banking on the expectation that the community was worn-out and institutional memory was lost due to changes in administration.
The 500 Miller project itself went through a long and painful public process lasting six years, included more than a half-dozen study sessions, and spanned multiple Planning Commissions and City Councils. It is significant to note that none of the proposals reviewed during that time by Planning Commissioners or City Planners supported more than 15 units.
In the end, a “compromise” was grudgingly hammered-out between the City and the community that established reasonable floor areas, unit-count, setbacks, height, parking-count, quantity of off-haul and other planning and design parameters. The PC settled on a mixed use commercial and residential scheme (total of approximately 12 units) with some modestly affordable apartments consistent with the General Plan, Design Guidelines and the uses suggested appropriate to the character of the “Gateway,” as established in the Miller Avenue Streetscape Plan.
At the last moment, the developer lowered the unit count to nine, sidestepping our inclusionary housing law threshold of ten units, thereby eliminating the affordable component entirely – the only public benefit that justified the development in the first place.
On February 7, 2011, the Mill Valley City Council approved the Vesting Tentative Map subject to Planning Commission Conditions of approval.
According the Mill Valley Chamber of Commerce,
“The approval ended Von der Werth’s quest that dated back to 2005 and spanned more than a half-dozen study sessions and multiple hearings from both the Planning Commission and City Council.”
In 2017, a permit was issued for site work and construction began – the building of the 40-foot-high, 400-foot-long concrete retaining wall.
Proposed Alternative
Recent announcements (Marin Independent Journal, Mill Valley Connect and Mill Valley Chamber of Commerce) suggest that the City is
“…encouraging, and the applicant is continuing, to look at additional options/configurations for the project design…” (Quote attributed to Kari Svanstrom, Interim Planning Director).
I understand that “additional options/configurations” means an improved design within existing, i.e. approved project parameters.
As we discussed, I feel it is paramount that any new proposal respects the fifteen-year public process that resulted in the original project entitlements and adjusted development standards. The six-year process, referenced above, concluded that site constraints (mostly unbuildable slopes) greatly reduced the capacity of the site to bear development. Therefore, the actual FAR for the site was not and cannot be based upon the overall site area.
Because of this fact, the previous Planning Commissions, at the time of the original review and approval, correctly invoked a specific, applicable section of our Municipal Code:
Title 20 Section 20.66.045 – Limitations on building size, height and setback:
“Where a project is subject to Design Review approval and where specific site circumstances or natural or topographic features such as the following are present on the site and indicate that it is appropriate, the City may impose more restrictive size and height limitations and may require greater setbacks and required yards than those specified in the Mill Valley General Plan or this title:
B. The proposed building site is located on a steep slope above or below a street or other homes.
The site was unbuildable, a fact substantiated by the wholesale off-haul of a portion of the site and the elaborate construction of an extreme retaining wall to create a building pad.
The remaining land remains unbuildable. There is no question that Section 20.66.045 applies and that the allowable FAR must be reduced accordingly. Previous Planning Commissions made findings to reduce the FAR and our present Planning Commission is obligated to do the same.
The total site area of 1.21 acres at FAR 1.0 = 52,708 sf.The current FAR for the Miller Avenue “Gateway” and “Main Street” is a maximum of 1.0 (Mill Valley Municipal Code). However, I estimate the leveled building pad (the only buildable area on the site) to be approximately 20,000 sf. Add a setback allowance of 6,000 sf to the adjusted site area, and the allowable floor area is 26,000 sf, not 52,708 sf.
Note that I would recognize an allowable floor area equal to the 30,600 sf entitled (to be confirmed). The Chamber of Commerce reports that Von der Werth’s entitlements are for 30,600 sf of “enclosed space.”I assume that is gross building area.
An adjusted site area of 26,000 sf would yield 10 to 17 units, at 17 to 29 units per acre, slightly more if 30,600 sf.Based on these considerations, I think it reasonable to set a maximum unit count for any alternative at 18 units – twice Von der Werth’s unit-count, but at half the size on average. Any new proposal must not exceed the total, approved, and adjusted maximum floor area for the Von der Werth proposal.
It appears that the City may be leading the developer down the garden path and acting contrary to public opinion and our Municipal Code, by suggesting a building area based on total site area with no recognition of site constraints and Section 20.66.045 provisions. Or, the developer simply may not be listening.
It is reported that the developer is proposing to increase the enclosed area from the previously approved 30,600 sf to 51,500 sf – an increase of 59% with a three-fold increase in density (9 units increased to 28). In my opinion, it would be unconscionable for the City to recognize a proposal that ignores project history, Planning Commission findings and Title 20, not to mention the Hillside Development Guidelines and General Plan description of the “Gateway.”
Further, the proposed alternative rendering illustrates a single building of uniform height and massing for the entire length of the site. Von der Werth was required to develop distinct building forms with separations to break-up the massing, as a condition of approval and to conform to our Design Guidelines. The proposed alternative ignores that well-documented, fundamental Design Review Condition.
Study Session
I understand that the City has encouraged and advised the developer to consider and to present alternative development scenarios responsive to prior Planning Commission direction and approved, adjusted development standards.
It appears that the developer intends to present a single scheme at the Study Session: one that is 59% greater in area and with 3 times the number of units.That proposal should be considered a non-starter. Should that be the case, the Planning Commission should refuse to hold the Study Session, because the proposal is non-responsive to our planning and public process, and to our Municipal Code, for the reasons I’ve outlined above.
We agree that it will be much more productive if several alternative concepts are presented at the Study Session.
I would reinforce that by saying that any alternative must be required to conform to a FAR based on buildable site area (not overall site area) and conform to the height and setback requirements and massing considerations previously approved, and the parking requirements of our Municipal Code.
As noted above, a change in unit sizes, types and number – to a maximum of 18 units – would be desirable and sufficient to address the need for diversity of housing in Mill Valley.
I ask that you carefully consider these comments and suggestions which should serve to call into question the path currently being taken by the developer.
Thank you for your consideration.