Friends of Mill Valley

To City Planners,

Although I could not attend the Monday meeting , I am strongly opposed to the 20 unit development. The scale is massively disproportionate and the traffic impact on The Worst intersection would be terrible. Who would be the beneficiaries?

Sincerely,
Julia Evans

Dear Mr. Moore and the Planning Department,

I have spent my entire life looking at, playing on, and simply enjoying kite hill. In a sense, I grew up on that hill. I am 28 years old and, aside from living in Los Angeles for college, and attending law school in Minnesota, I have lived my entire life in Mill Valley, a City within a County that I care about.

Mike and Commissioners,

When I came to Mill Valley almost 50 years ago, the disposition of the Richardson parcel (which, I believe, was then owned by someone in New Jersey) was also being discussed publicly. It has always been available for purchase since then. However, consider this:

There are a lot of very astute and business-wise developers in southern Marin. Some more environmentally sensitive than others, but nevertheless successful businessmen. But NONE of them in that half-century has bought that parcel. Why not? Because they've all done their homework before purchasing – and they concluded that developing the parcel was inconsistent with the best interests of the future of Mill Valley. Hence, they knew that, for a multiplicity of reasons, they could not get development approval from responsible planners.

Dear Mr. Moore and members of the Planning Commission,

First, thank you again for the long hours you put in to the benefit of our town.

Mill Valley would be ill served if the Planning Staff attempted to move the DEIR to the certification round without recirculating it to the public. Members of the community and the Planning Commission raised far too many reasonable questions about the DEIR's project description and mitigations. There's no way that the applicant could satisfactorily respond to these without providing new information, which, under CEQA guidelines, triggers recirculation.

Dear Mr. Moore,

I am extremely disappointed with the quality of the Draft EIR and in our own City staff for allowing this document to be released to the public. We expect our City to represent and protect the citizens of Mill Valley.

It seems that every resident who attended Monday night’s meeting believes that developing the proposed project on this site would result in significant impacts to traffic, safety, and aesthetics that would be difficult if not impossible to mitigate. Yet somehow our environmental consultant failed to identify these obvious risks or too quickly dismissed others with minor mitigation measures. The report is just not credible to the public.

The EIR is also required to consider a range of alternatives, and it’s not clear why only the proposed 20 unit project was considered.

Dear Mr. Moore,

Further to my message of 5/7/2010, I would like to call attention to the listing of birds and mammals in appendix B of the DEIR.

I realize that this list simply represents species noticed during one particular visit occurring sometime in the past; however, the list gives the impression that there is not much wildlife at the site to be concerned about.

This site is used by squirrels and racoons and of course field mice, and I noticed that a young lady at the planning commission meeting of May 10 mentioned a bobcat.

Also, while I am not expert in bird identification, I can say there are various hawks, blackbirds, turtle-doves, robins, and many smaller birds of the size of finches and sparrows.

Hello Mr. Moore

The following comments are a follow-up to the Planning Commission meeting last night (Mon. May 10).

1. Commissioner McCauley requested the EIR contain research on traffic impacts during all the "peak traffic" periods. Morning commute, mid-afternoon school pick-up time, and evening commute were specifically mentioned. I would submit that weekends, and especially Saturday morning should also be studied. Saturday mornings are atrocious on E. Blithedale.

First thanks for your thoughtful review and analysis of the flawed DEIR. I have two issues to add to the ones raised Monday night and two questions.

1. Traffic. How will the proposed project impact traffic at the site of the bus stop, what mitigating measures will be taken, and with what results?

2. Aesthetics. A dictionary definition of aesthetics says it is "a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty." Mill Valley is cherished as one of the most beautiful cities in the world. In the EIR, please address how replacing the open hillside with a wall of 80' or higher buildings will not have a significant impact on the aesthetics. Specifically, from my backyard I see the hillside. Explain how my property value is not deflated if open space is replace with view-blocking, dense, unsightly buildings.

Hello MV Planning,

In thinking about this project what comes to mind immediately are the famous words of tennis great John McEnroe "You've got to be kidding"

Please accept these responses to the EIR study:

Traffic: The traffic situation is ALREADY unacceptable and unsafe at the camino alto / blithdale intersection. I assure you I voice the opinion of the Nelson Avenue neighborhood. How can ANY new construction be considered let alone a monstrosity totally out of character with the community? There is no way in/out access on blithdale at this location could be acceptable. No way. There is no possible mitigation of this fact.

Aesthetics: The proposed construction is totally not in character with the neighborhood. What is in character with the neighborhood and Marin county in general is to preserve this property as open space.

Sincerely,

Theresa Adams
32 Nelson Avenue

To whom it may concern,

This letter is regarding 575 Blithedale Ave project, where the project will result in extensive hydrologic modification, loss of habitat, loss of species and increased stormwater and pollution run-off. Other issues arising from the project will be loss of carbon sequestration, loss of aesthetics, loss of open space and historic and cultural identity, increased traffic and noise, use of non renewable natural resources, dust and debris and increased threats to public health and safety.