In the early days of 2025, longtime local resident, developer, Barn Owl savior and former Mill Valley Planning Commissioner sought to move forward on a development project that hoped would make an impact on Sunnyside Ave.
On the heels of a pair of major steps forward – an approved Housing Element by the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through 2031 and unanimous City Council approval of a new development of 45 apartments that are deemed 100% affordable – both city officials and local developers are hoping to build more housing, but are coming to grips with the complexities of that Housing Element and the designs standards associated with it. In opening the conversation around what was possible, Jon Yolles, Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission, said to Geiszler: “You’re the guinea pig.”
Geiszler was proposing a mixed-use multifamily development on an 11,571 square foot lot occupied by an existing 2-story, 7,390 square foot office building he sought to split into two separate lots. It quickly became clear that the City’s needs for Multi-Family Residential, Downtown Residential, & mixed-use Design Guidelines & Development Standards were in conflict with one another.
“This is a moving target,” Geiszler told the commission and staff. “You are moving the goalposts constantly on us. I’ve got to express the incredible frustration this brings. The amount of time that it takes to do all of this and make the changes and then walk into a meeting and then (and then present) new design standards. I get that this is a new thing for Mill Valley,” Geiszler said. “We are trying to have a little patience, but this is pretty brutal. I’m worried that we went from originally 12 units to six units and now we’re at five units. If this site can’t handle residential development, and we need 865 units in Mill Valley, where are you going to get them? “You’re not going to get them anywhere.”
The state’s mandate for Mill Valley is 865 new residences in the 2023-2031 planning cycle. The city has outlined space for 969 homes at various income levels. The city established three overlay zoning districts, which keeps the base zoning but eases restrictions. Yolles called the project viable and “conceptually, exactly what the city is looking to do, to try to build more housing and try to build it at varying income levels, which is part of our housing element.”
Yolles said said at the time that it is a “very attractive” project, and that he wishes more residences were possible. “It’s not going to be possible to solve everything and still meet our goals, and I think we’re not going to have a choice but to be flexible,” Yolles said. One week later, the Mill Valley City Council gathered to talk about the balancing act of encouraging and incentivizing housing while adhering to the rules associated with its Housing Element. “There is a lot changing,” Mill Valley Planning Director Patrick Kelly said. “That is what we’re experiencing in light of our Housing Element. Meanwhile, we are obligated to upload our inclusionary housing requirements under the code and state law. If we are ever going to meet our housing requirements under our housing element there must be affordability provisions in our project.”
At a separate hearing, Councilmember Urban Carmel acknowledged the ever-shifting, iterative dynamic to the process of creating new housing in a town like Mill Valley. “We’re eating the cake while we’re making it,” Carmel said.
“We are trying to turn an entirely discretionary program into an objective one,” Carmel said. “These developers have to make decisions. We’re making changes based on what is finally coming in with proposed projects that are coming through to us.
With that recent history in mind, Mill Valley City Council and staff this week have pivoted away from having inclusionary housing drive the process, announcing this week that they are loosening affordable housing requirements for multi-unit projects. The decision is a move away from Marin’s strictest inclusionary housing regulations, requiring 25% of dwellings to be affordable in new projects of four residences or more. The City Council endorsed relaxing that requirement this week and instructed its planning staff to revise the municipal code. Now, projects with seven or fewer residences would have no affordable housing requirement. Projects of seven to 19 dwellings would have a 15% requirement. Larger projects would have a 20% requirement.
The state has required the city to plan for 865 more dwellings by 2031. More than half are to be affordable. However, city officials also acknowledge that the inclusionary housing policy, while well-intentioned, hasn’t led to more affordable housing.
“It was said a couple of times at the Planning Commission from staff and commissioners that 25% of nothing is nothing,” said Councilmember Kat Jones. “We know that 25% wasn’t getting us anything. So how do we build housing that provides for a diverse mix of people to come and live in Mill Valley?”
“We want to incentivize developers and builders to think of us first, so I want to make that possible,” said Councilmember Caroline Joachim. “We’ve got to somehow stimulate the development of a lot of housing units.”
About 14,700 people live in 6,600 homes in city limits, said city planner Danielle Staude. New housing is a challenge and costly in Mill Valley because the city doesn’t have many available parcels, and most of what is available is on irregular lots and hillsides, which add costs to developers. Apart from church- or city-owned properties, only two lots are suitable for an apartment of 20 or more residences.
“Inclusionary housing is one piece of the puzzle,” said Staude. “It’s intended to create mixed-income (neighbors) within housing projects … and it also disperses affordable housing throughout the community, and it also helps prioritize construction of affordable units.”
Staude reviewed a range of inclusionary thresholds and incentives for developers that could be offered, including exempting permit fees. Most of the discussion centered on whether the inclusionary requirements should be 15% or 20% of medium-to-larger projects.
During the public comment portion of the council meeting, longtime local architect Michael Heacock, who has worked on a number of local projects over the years, said affordability quotas are not the only disincentive for developers. “If you were all to say, look, let’s just set this bar as low as we can to try to get anything built, you may not get anything built,” he said. “And it’s not because of what you’re doing here. It’s because construction costs are so high.”
“Interest rates are double what they were a couple of years ago,” Mill Valley developer Phil Richardson added. “I think the cities, if they want to build housing, they’ve got to consider this affordable housing percentage 15%.”
Members of the council said they want to streamline the review process. “My guidance or question to staff is: What can we do to make it easier for you and the Planning Commission to work with developers to incent them to move quickly through the funnel?” said Mayor Steven Burke. “I’d like to see a flat formula that guides everybody in how we approach this. And then let’s see what happens over the next two years or three years.”
