Mill Valley reapproves city-led affordable housing project

The Mill Valley City Council has reapproved a four-story, 45-apartment complex for low-income families at the edge of Hauke Park.

The unanimous vote Monday came after two hours of presentations, public comments and rebuttals reprising many arguments heard since 2020.

Earlier in the day, opponents were denied a temporary restraining order in Marin County Superior Court to block the council from reapproving the plan.

“Clever attorneys have devised a shortcut for the city to silence us by trimming this sliver of wetlands off the site and calling it a new approval,” Jeralyn Seiling, an attorney who lives nearby, said during the council meeting. “I ask you to pause, step off the path laid out for you by developers and attorneys and look at what this project will do to this precious resource of our town.”

“The court agreed with the city attorney’s office that the court did not have the authority to stop City Council from taking a valid lawful legislative action with respect to land use,” said City Attorney Inder Khalsa, when asked by council members to recount the proceeding. “Zoning, general plan designation, etc., project approval, are all things that are 100% within a city council’s purview.”

“This is not an action that we’re taking because we are influenced by developers or attorneys,” Vice Mayor Caroline Joachim said. “It really was triggered with new state legislation that happened in June 2025.”

The project, known as Bayfront Terrace/1 Hamilton Drive, is on city-owned land. That cuts costs and allows developers to offer lower, more affordable rents.

The plan includes a ground-floor parking garage set into the hillside and three floors of residences above the garage. It was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in 2023 and 2024 and the City Council shortly afterward.

In mid-2023, a community group, Friends of Hauke Park, sued to block the project. It said the city was concentrating low-income housing in eastern Mill Valley and questioned various environmental impacts.

Last June, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation to speed new housing by blocking opponents’ use of the California Environmental Quality Act to delay development. That legislation granted a CEQA exemption if it met several standards, including not being located in a wetland.

The Mill Valley project’s initial footprint on 1.75 acres included a seasonal wetland in one corner. City officials proposed reducing the footprint to 1.5 acres to qualify for the CEQA exemption. No other substantive detail was changed from the project’s previously approved design.

The council agenda on Monday included rezoning the site to exclude the wetland and two resolutions updating other agreements and permits.

“This is, I would say, the most fully vetted housing project in the history of Mill Valley,” said Councilmember Urban Carmel, who chaired the Planning Commission during housing policy discussions dating to 2017 that led to the project.

“We did 14 public meetings,” he said. “We had multiple study sessions. We had design review of this project. We went through the entire community with workshops and then it came to the City Council.”

His remarks did not sway opponents.

“Mill Valley has a rare chance to choose a future rooted in justice, belonging and ecological leadership,” said Paige Anderson, who grew up in the city and moved back after college. “All six of our existing lower-income multi-unit buildings already sit in east Mill Valley. Adding a seventh and the largest yet on this fragile wetland will deepen a pocket of segregation rather than weaving families into our already existing infrastructure.”

“I would like to encourage you to think about integrating housing into other parts of the city because that’s where social justice happens,” said Sarah Stuckey Coates. “Putting a seventh unit … into our biological hotspot, in our crown jewel, our most used park, Hauke Park, is such, I think, a mistake.”

Other public commenters praised the project and council’s efforts.

“I’m just here to thank you all on the council and staff,” said Nancy Carlston. “It’s a lot of work and we really need the housing.”

Before voting, council members replied to the criticism. The counterarguments: The site is the best of four city-owned parcels that were evaluated to develop affordable housing. All suggestions in the environmental impact report to mitigate possible impacts – which were not required – would nonetheless be implemented. The buffer between the building and a seasonal wetland is larger than the county requires. The city could have used the state density bonus law to build 80 residences but is only developing 45. The site is near many public services and shopping centers.

“We have the opportunity today to change the life trajectory of 45 families, to allow children that grow up in this development to go to our public schools, to grow up in our community,” said Carmel. “And the impact on their lives is going to be enormous, and that’s a very powerful thing, and everyone here should be motivated by that.”

A hearing on the merits of the lawsuit opposing the development is scheduled for March, Seiling said after the meeting.