City Council Upholds Approval for Millside Lane Carport After Appeal

The Mill Valley City Council on [date not specified] denied an appeal by resident Ryan Lofton and upheld earlier approvals of a design review and variance for a two‑car carport at 74½ Millside Lane.

The council’s vote affirms the zoning administrator’s and Planning Commission’s findings that a refined 2025 record of survey — approved by the Marin County surveyor — supports the project and that the municipal code does not require additional right‑of‑way dedication or a public turnaround at the site. Patrick Kelly, director of Planning and Building, told the council staff found "no procedural error" in how the project was processed and that the final recorded survey "represents the legally recognized boundaries for the site."

Why it matters: The appeal centered on whether the applicant’s updated 2025 survey shifted the Millside Lane centerline uphill and therefore reduced space available for possible future street improvements. Appellant Ryan Lofton said the shift could foreclose a future public improvement and argued that a three‑foot front yard setback would provide a safe buffer between private improvements and the public right‑of‑way. "A 0 front yard setback variance should never be approved for this project," Lofton said, calling for a city‑initiated survey of the historic centerline.

Staff and the Planning Commission countered that survey refinement is a normal professional practice and that the record of survey was reviewed and accepted by the Marin County surveyor. Ernest Sarango, chair of the Planning Commission, told council members the commission found the variance justified because of the parcel’s steep topography and to avoid damage to a nearby heritage redwood. Sarango said a three‑foot setback would have required moving the structure downhill and would likely have jeopardized that redwood.

Project details and safeguards: The proposal would replace an existing one‑car carport that currently encroaches into the public right‑of‑way with a structure placed on the private parcel and accompanied by a revocable encroachment permit for ingress/egress improvements. The applicant’s architect and engineer said the 2025 survey incorporated additional monuments and adjacent recorded surveys that refined, but did not materially alter, the site topo used for design.

Council deliberation and vote: Councilmembers and staff discussed tree impacts, turning movements, and enforcement options to prevent informal parking of the new apron. The motion to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning administrator and Planning Commission decisions was made, seconded, and passed; the mayor announced, "the ayes have it." No roll‑call tally was recorded in the hearing record provided.

Next steps: The council’s action affirms the project’s approvals and confirms a CEQA exemption was applied by staff. Conditions discussed during the hearing include a revocable encroachment permit, arborist‑recommended tree protection and mitigation, and screening plantings intended to reduce visual impacts from adjacent steps, lanes and paths.