Mill Valley planning panel approves Redwood Lodge renovation, grants variances and tree removals

The Mill Valley Planning Commission on Feb. 11 voted 5-0 to approve design review and tree removal permits for the Redwood Lodge property (addresses: 144, 160 and 178 Corte Madera Avenue and 9 Eldridge Avenue) and to grant variances allowing a lower-level conversion at 9 Eldridge that expands a legal nonconformity into the 30-foot creek setback and exceeds the city height limit by 3.75 inches.

Commission staff had recommended denying the variance applications while approving most design-review elements and tree permits. Lorraine (planning staff) told the commission she could not support the variance, saying staff's analysis and the findings in Exhibit A did not support permitting new encroachments into the creek setback. "Staff cannot support the variance for the reasons outlined in the staff report," Lorraine said during the presentation.

The commission moved to approve the project after extended discussion about trees, historic preservation and construction options. The approved project package includes a modest new basement conversion at 9 Eldridge (the applicant's plans call for a 1,679-square-foot lower-level addition and other interior changes), a 20-square-foot addition at 144 Corte Madera and a 173-square-foot bedroom addition at 9 Eldridge. Architect Michael Heacock, the project presenter, urged commissioners to weigh the site's historic value in their decision: "Why tear down one house in Mill Valley that somebody is kindly offering to preserve and make habitable?" he said.

Why it mattered: the property, known as the Redwood Lodge, contains multiple historic-era structures clustered among redwood trees and sits immediately adjacent to a creek. Page & Turnbull prepared a historic evaluation that, according to staff, found the rehabilitation plans "comply with the standards for rehabilitation and do not create a substantial adverse impact" to the resources. At the same time, several trees on and around the site are in close proximity to structures and utilities; the Southern Marin Fire District, the building official and an arborist all weighed in with different recommendations about which trees must be removed for safety if the variance and excavation proceed.

Key details and conditions

- Vote and action: The commission voted 5-0 (roll call recorded: Commissioner MacKris — Aye; Commissioner Yellis — Aye; Commissioner Hildebrand — Aye; Commissioner Sarango — Aye; Chair Scow — Aye) to approve the design review, tree removal permits and the requested variances (creek-setback and height) and found the project exempt under CEQA Section 15301 (existing facilities). The action is appealable to the City Council within 10 calendar days, with the appeal fee noted in the staff packet.

- Variances and what triggers tree removal: The project proposes to raise the cottage at 9 Eldridge roughly 3 feet to accommodate a lower-level living area; that lift causes the building to exceed the maximum allowed height by 3.75 inches and increases the use of space within the 30-foot creek setback (staff reported the existing house encroaches 27 feet 4 inches into that setback). Staff said it could not support those variances. Planning staff and the building official told commissioners that some trees (trees 9, 10 and 11, by the project numbering) would only be required to be removed if the variance and lower-level excavation are approved; tree number 12 is required to be removed for life-safety reasons regardless of the variance. Commissioner Randall summarized the net effect: "If the variance is approved ... the result is seven trees removed," unless alternative measures preserve some of them.

- Tree management options: Ben Anderson's arborist peer review recommended pruning or cabling as possible mitigations. Southern Marin Fire District said some removals were needed to meet defensible-space and life-safety requirements; the fire representative and the building official explained some removals are tied to structural work around foundations and to access or utility conflicts. The commission added conditions directing the applicant to pursue alternative means and methods with the fire district and to retain a project arborist to explore hand-excavation and root-zone protection where possible.

- Historic and demolition thresholds: Staff reported the project does not exceed the 50% structural-demolition threshold that would trigger a voluntary demolition designation; staff recommended a condition requiring the construction documents to verify demolition quantities at permit submittal. Page & Turnbull's historic review was cited in staff materials as concluding the rehabilitation approach does not cause a substantial adverse effect on the identified historic resources.

Public comment and neighbor positions

Twelve written public comments were received prior to the hearing; staff summarized them as eight in support and four opposed. At the hearing more than a dozen neighbors spoke. Supporters emphasized the owners' stewardship and the value of preserving and restoring the historic buildings; several neighbors said the property had been derelict for years and the current owners have invested heavily to stabilize and restore it. Phil Rhodes, a local historian who works with the Mill Valley library history room, told commissioners the grove is among the town's finest and said he nevertheless supported removal of tree 12 for safety. Nearby residents also urged the commission to allow the owners to make the renovation feasible so the buildings will be occupied and maintained.

What the commission required next

The commission approved the design review and tree removal permits and granted the requested variances, but it also added specific conditions requiring: - verification of demolition percentages at building-permit submittal; - retention of a project arborist and on-site arborist supervision during construction where tree roots may be affected (hand-excavation and monitoring to be used as needed); - that the applicant work with Southern Marin Fire District to pursue alternative means and methods (including possible wall or glazing upgrades) to try to preserve trees 4, 5 and 6 at 160 Corte Madera if feasible and safe; and - additional creek-protection best-management practices for any work within 30 feet of the creek, as set out in the staff memo (to protect stream quality and habitat).

What happens next

The approval allows the owner to move to building permit review subject to the conditions. The action can be appealed to the Mill Valley City Council within 10 calendar days of the commission's decision. The commission record makes clear that if the project team encounters additional structural damage during demolition that pushes the work over the 50% threshold, the applicant must return to the city for the appropriate additional approvals.

Selected direct quotes (from the hearing record)

"Staff cannot support the variance for the reasons outlined in the staff report," Lorraine, planning staff, said in the staff presentation.

"Why tear down one house in Mill Valley that somebody is kindly offering to preserve and make habitable?" Michael Heacock, the applicant's architect, told commissioners as he argued for preserving the cottage.

"We bought the Redwood Lodge about three years ago," said owner Robert Mattis. "It's super spiritual place to live ... we're asking for a very modest square-footage addition in the basement ... That house is a total wreck."

"Pruning or cabling up these trees could reduce the weight to mitigate the likelihood of failure," Ben Anderson, the arborist who prepared a peer review, said about options to reduce tree hazard.

An appeal of the commission decision must be filed within 10 days with the Planning and Building Department along with the required fee. Building permits, arborist monitoring plans and any required structural revisions will be reviewed at the plan-check stage, where final technical decisions about preserving particular tree roots, foundation details and root-zone protections will be documented.