regional housing needs assessment (RHNA)

On January 10, 2023, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to approve the Richardson Terrace project. The vote came under the threat of lawsuits from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the developer, and because of claims made by city staff and the city attorney that the commission had no choice.

On January 24, 2023, the Community Venture Partners, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that works to bring the community’s voice to government decision-making, filed an appeal of the Mill Valley Planning Commission's approval of the Richardson Terrace project.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW:

The argument in the appeal is that the project is not consistent with the Mill Valley General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. As such, it should require a review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and thus an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The current zoning is listed as commercial; however the project plan only shows the commercial space at 5.6% of the total square footage. The intentions of the General Plan and Zoning make it perfectly clear that the site is to be developed, primarily, for commercial use with residential use being a “small-scale, multi-family residential” secondary use.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

Over the next 8 years, HCD has demanded that Mill Valley build 865 new housing units (almost a 600% increase over the past 8-year cycle) to meet the Regional Housing Needs Association (RHNA) housing quota.

If the Richardson Terrace project is allowed to be approved (submitted as is) then every developer that brings a project forward in the future will argue for approval without conformance to our General Plan, based on the precedent set by the city's decision. We will be losing our ability for local input on development. The city council is bound by its duty to uphold the goals, policies, and regulations of our General Plan and Ordinances, and we need our elected representatives to use their authority and their right to stand up for our community.

Neighbors, who already live in the area with the heaviest concentration of low income multi family developments, pushed back on the massive scale of this project. Originally proposed at 22 units, it is now 45 units, parking , a community center, resource center, and outdoor patio. 

It is situated directly across the park from the MV Community Center.  It is considered a walkable distance to a transit hub, but it is a strenuous walk to the bus stop on East Blithedale, and even less accessible by foot to Redwood Highway. Closest grocer to this low income development is Whole Foods. 

The process has been one of presentations to community, during Covid, always a done deal but presented as if changes were possible. 

The Draft Element shows the city’s attempt to get to 865 housing units by identifying areas that could hold housing in the required categories (low to above market). The list only identifies sites where housing could happen. 

What you’ll read below might make you mad, but remember: it’s the STATE that is forcing this on us. The city is complying in the face of serious repercussions. I advocate that the city joins current lawsuits and upcoming challenges to the way the numbers were created, as the process has set us up for failure, and Mill Valley will be unrecognizable and unliveable by 2031 if it plays out. 

The city looked for space to fit 865 new housing units from low income to above moderate (yes, the state requires the city to add expensive housing, more than low income housing). Mill Valley appealed the number and said 580 was a realistic number, preferably all low to moderate, but the state said NO. 865. Low to above moderate.

Hamilton (40 units), scarce empty lots, offices over commercial space and closed offices, other city owned land and parking lots were all added to this list for conversion to housing. An effort was made to not displace current residents, so when they ran out of options they started added local business addresses, mostly in older buildings. OF THE 60+ BUSINESSES ON THE LIST, ABOUT 40 ARE STILL OPERATING. 

Each lot, based on its size, has a number and type of housing attached to it. 

L = low income (about $110,000 to 140,000 in Mill Valley) 

M = moderate income

AM = above moderate (expensive) 

Here are some examples:

765-775 Redwood Highway: Goodman’s/parking lot: 47+ L

390 Miller: Buddhist Temple: 4 AM 

340 Miller: Chevron: 4 AM

338 Miller: Tam Paint:  6 M

15 Montford: Happy Feet: 4 AM + 6 M

493 Miller: Grillys/Malugani:  11 M

413 Miller: Trio Salon, Swirl, etc.: 16 L

430 Miller: Super Duper: 11 L, 15 M

There is no indication that these businesses have interest in closing, selling, or being converted to housing. Goodman’s and Tam Paint are vital to building. They should not be on this list, but they have generous lots.

There is a buffer (1002 spaces were identified) but if none of the businesses on the list close and the land repurposed, Mill Valley will fall far short of the 865. Then it will have to make other choices. More parking lots and parkland, and buildings owned by the city (with our tax dollars) will be considered.

None of this is the city’s fault. Even they wanted to build only 560 units of low income housing, they couldn’t. Their Housing Element list merely identifies spaces for for-profit developers as opportunities, and the developers are supposed to add the type of housing that the city needs to “make its list.” Once the land is owned there is no law that can force them to to that. 

This is a very expensive time to build — the land alone here costs a fortune. Labor and materials are scarce and expensive, and interest rates remain high. The city must offer a number of incentives, but they may not be enough to convince development of anything that doesn’t “pencil out.” Developers are here to make a profit. 

So the process has set us, and the other cities in the state, up for failure. And in the meantime, very little low income housing will be built, because it’s not profitable. 

This is a ridiculous way to get low income housing built. The state, with its huge surplus, should be subsidizing the housing. But the California Department of Housing and Development, our state legislature, and our governor have decided that for-profit building as a punishing, unfunded mandate to cities is the way they want to go. The city loses a lot of control, and will be subject to enormous fines for noncompliance. If cities do not do as they are told, and private developers — who make their own decisions — do not cooperate, a new punishment takes effect. SB 35 allows any property owner to build whatever they want without oversight, CEQA, or public input, as long as it’s up to code. 

The state eventually comes in and just decides for us. Whether they will use eminent domain against our businesses has yet to be discussed, but a whole new enforcement department — a housing Strike Force — was funded so that the attorney general can come after cities with a fury.

Because this process is punitive and there is no cooperation between the state and the cities, there is pushback across California. Lawsuits and an audit of the numbers, which seem way out of proportion and are one-size-fits+all, are underway.  The state did not take drought, water supply, fire danger, evacuation egress, infrastructure, or any other relevant facts into account. The methodology was opaque, and is being reviewed by the Department of Finance after an audit showed sloppy work. Everything has been dumped on the cities.

For more information, and to see the entire Housing Element list of businesses (I had to compile it by matching addresses to sites on the list; it was not transparent) go to citizenmarin.org . I will post the list to the front page today to make it easy to see. 

Do you love Mill Valley? Get your letters in by Friday, and plan to attend the meeting if you can. 

To the Members of the Mill Valley City Council, 

I appreciate your efforts to find space for 865 new housing units in our already overbuilt town. I know Mill Valley must continue with the RHNA process, but the numbers are so out of scale with what our infrastructure can safely support that I urge you to explore ways to push back even as you move forward. 

Repurposing vacant buildings, second-story spaces over retail, and unused office space is the least impactful way of adding housing; your list includes the potential for 65 of these types of units. Multi-unit housing has wisely been kept out of the high fire hazard areas.

But from the looks of the current Housing Element list, getting to 865 means losing a lot of our local businesses and replacing them with housing. This doesn’t affect the major chains (like CVS) that take up large lots. The state exempts (and privileges) them as outside our jurisdiction, and does not allow us to disrupt their operations.

Without the larger lots of the national chains, the city has resorted to eyeing the smaller lots of local businesses. I took some time to match the non-descriptive addresses on the Housing Element to what was there, and the list shows just how little wiggle room you have; it is peppered with businesses our community can ill afford to lose. 

The proprietors I’ve spoken with had no idea that their land was being considered for redevelopment. The owner of Grilly’s and the Malugani property did not know (until I contacted him) that his property, as “underutilized land,” accounted for 11 homes in the Moderate category. He had no interest in such a conversion. 

So, local jobs will be lost and replaced with housing — for people looking for jobs? What is a small town without businesses and services? The public rallied behind these local businesses to keep them afloat during the pandemic. That the city has had to put them on this list to make the RHNA shows how severely constrained we are.

Do we really want to consider replacing Goodman’s and Tamalpais Paint with housing, with building materials in such desperate demand? Three of the older auto shops?  Happy Feet? The entire strip mall where Sol Food, Sloats, and Doggie Styles are sited? We are already hard-pressed to find affordably priced groceries and services. With an influx of lower income residents, shouldn’t it be a priority to preserve restaurants such as Grilly’s, serving quality, affordable food? 

These are locally built businesses which have served the community for years. More than 40 of the 65+ listings are still operating. 

I’m sure this wasn’t what you had in mind when you ran for City Council.

The unreasonable mandates are causing undue stress on the city, and it shows here. Is Mill Valley expected to broker deals between landlords and developers? Will the state strong-arm businesses into closing if the Housing Element isn’t certified? Are fines and the use of eminent domain the end game we should expect? 

At the same time that the city is targeting parking lots for development, new housing laws limit the amount of parking required for new construction. How will this deficit be mitigated?

Three of our gas stations are also on the list. While there is a current movement to intentionally limit gasoline availability to fight climate change, we still need cars (especially with our inadequate transit system). Low-income residents cannot upgrade to electric vehicles as quickly as more affluent drivers and will be further disadvantaged by fuel unavailability. 

Because of our geographical constraints, without cars fire evacuation is greatly imperiled. The Google/MV evacuation simulation took 6,000 cars into account (the RHNA will add 1,000+) and showed heavily managed success for the Mill Valley population of 16,000 (soon to be approximately 17,800). Unfortunately, the simulation failed to consider the fate of the additional 14,000+ unincorporated residents (and potentially thousands of tourists) backed up onto the windy roads of the mountain and out Highway 1. 

A California State Audit found the RHNA methodology seriously flawed, and the matter has been referred to the Department of Finance for review. Without confidence in the numbers, the process should have been paused until February, when the report is completed. 

Many cities across the state are overburdened with unfunded mandates. Without state backing, developers have no motivation to building low-income housing, especially starting with land that is off-the-charts expensive. If our RHNA exclusively reflected lower income needs, the 579 units requested in the city appeal could be created in the space available without destroying our town. However, this will only work with state subsidies, as lower income housing does not “pencil out” for developers.

The state has shown no willingness to collaborate in this process. Rather than being treated as partners, we are threatened with further loss of control over the fate of our communities. We are at the mercy of private, for-profit contractors (under abysmal economic conditions) to meet the numbers or face grave and irreparable consequences. 

The RHNA process has set us up for failure. We can agree that housing is essential, but our unique environmental and geographical constraints have not been appropriately considered. Plan Bay Area 2050 assured us that “one size does not fit all.” Mill Valley’s ABAG appeal, based on profoundly “changed conditions” (including infrastructure, environmental concerns, traffic, flooding and sea rise, fire hazards, and drought) was solicited — and then ignored.

A recent Grand Jury Report excoriated MMWD’s seriously inadequate planning for current population needs, let alone a huge increase. Climate change has changed everything. Most of Mill Valley is WUI or worse, and we are under constant threat of fire. But these hazards, even our lives, are irrelevant to HCD’s methodology.

Last year SCAG granted a reduction of nearly 3,000 units in the city of Pico Rivera, based on an Army Corps of Engineers statement regarding possible dam failure and flooding. There is ample evidence that Mill Valley’s fire danger and byzantine evacuation infrastructure pose a severe risk to residents in the city and Unincorporated Areas. Even with vigilant mitigation, the danger persists. The expert opinions are there. The state will not listen.

There is power in numbers. I hope you are open to participating in an upcoming challenge to the RHNA/HCD methodology. The process has become a bitter, punitive exercise pitting cities and state against each other. We need a collaborative approach to yield real housing solutions. Instead, we next move on to SB 35, and are punished with ministerial approvals, no CEQA, and no community input. 

It’s time to challenge the HCD’s right to set housing numbers that are siloed from our new reality. Someone must step in and mitigate this disaster. We need the state to hear us. Instead, we got Newsom’s veto of SB 182 — the only law that would have required improved evacuation routes in areas to be developed — as a reminder that nothing must slow down the housing.

I urge you to join the legal challenge to SB 9, as other cities have done. Pam Lee is the attorney handling this suit. She can be contacted at plee@awattorneys.com 

The state is undermining our ability to plan for a sustainable future. Without pushback, Mill Valley will be reduced to nothing but housing and hazards. Our local democracy is our voice. Please use your voice to protect Mill Valley even as you continue with the RHNA process.

Sincerely,

Amy Kalish, Director 

Citizen Marin: www.citizenmarin.org