Planning commission continues Fairway Drive review after concerns over removing 66‑inch sequoia

The Mill Valley Planning Commission on March 10 continued a design‑review application and tree‑removal permit for 69 Fairway Drive after residents and commissioners pressed the applicant for more information about a large sequoia and site details.

Planning staffer Wayne Farrens described the project as “a request for design review for construction of a new single family residence,” saying the proposal would demolish a 2,247‑square‑foot 1957 home and build a 2,910‑square‑foot replacement on a 10,350‑square‑foot RS‑10 lot. Staff reported that four non‑heritage trees were proposed for removal and recommended the commission find the project categorically exempt from CEQA (staff cited section 15303) and approve the design and associated tree‑removal permit subject to findings and conditions.

Neighbors and commissioners raised several concerns at the public hearing. Laura Cheriton, president of the Watershed Alliance of Marin, told the commission the sequoia slated for removal “is 5.5 feet across,” arguing the tree appears healthy, is effectively irreplaceable at that scale and that nesting‑bird protections and local wildlife concerns should be considered. Staff clarified the sequoia is not listed as a Mill Valley heritage tree (the city’s heritage list includes coast redwood species but not giant sequoia), and commissioners asked for more detail from the project arborist and clearer mapping of the tree on the site plans.

Commissioners also probed practical project details. They asked the applicant to show precise on‑site and on‑street parking dimensions rather than relying on narrative description; requested a clearer off‑haul calculation after the applicant said a civil‑engineer initial estimate had assumed a slab (the applicant explained the existing house sits on a crawl space and expects far less excavation); and pressed for documentation that the proposed yakisugi (shou sugi ban) siding would meet wildland‑urban interface (WUI) and fire‑rating requirements. The applicant team said they would check materials and noted that building‑department review at permit stage will verify WUI compliance.

After deliberation, a commissioner moved to continue the item to a date uncertain so the applicant could provide the additional drawings and clarifications requested by the commission; the motion was seconded and passed 5‑0. The commission did not make a final decision on the design or the tree removal and expects the applicant to return with revised plans, a refined arborist justification for removal (or replacement tree proposals), parking dimensions, and documentation on materials and drainage.

What happens next: The applicant was instructed to return with the requested details for a future hearing date. The commission recorded a formal continuance; no permits or tree removals will be finalized until the item returns and the commission acts.