[0:07] Good evening. I am opening the January
6th meeting, regular meeting of the Corn
[0:15] Madiraa Town Council. Um, we just had a
closed session and we have nothing to
[0:22] report out of that closed session.
I ask for a roll call, please.
[0:29] Council member Andrews
>> present.
[0:31] » Council member Beckman
>> here.
[0:33] » Council member Azio
>> here. Vice Mayor Casissa
[0:36] » here.
>> Mayor Thomas
[0:37] » here.
[0:40] » So, um, we'd like to have open time at
this time. Any Oh, I'm sorry. We have to
[0:47] pledge first.
Pledge of allegiance, please.
[0:52] » Aliance
to the United States of America to the
[0:57] republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:03] justice for all.
[1:08] All right.
[1:12] Now, we will begin open time.
Any member of the public is allowed to
[1:19] speak for three minutes about anything
that is not on our agenda this evening.
[1:25] Uh those of you who would like to speak
uh raise your hands to be recognized and
[1:31] we will direct you to the podium. Please
speak into the mic loudly so that you're
[1:38] picked up uh for those online and
everyone in the room. Thank you. Uh next
[1:44] will be Miss Batty and we'll start with
you sir.
[1:49] » Bob Middlestead uh ebike access. Thank
you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and council
[1:54] members.
Two years ago, two Redwood High School
[1:59] students rode in the J about what they
called quote undercover undercover
[2:04] motorcycles on their campus.
We now call them emotos. They tried to
[2:11] remind public officials at the time and
the local police that the number one
[2:15] priority was keeping roads and the kids
safe.
[2:20] Here we are in 2026, two years later,
and the problem has only gotten worse.
[2:27] It's now been widely publicized in the
New York Times, CBS News, the J, and the
[2:34] Legislator Leg Legislative Commission
report by the Manetta Transportation
[2:39] Institute.
In response, we can try and pass the
[2:43] buck. We can congratulate ourselves on
everything we've done, but to be honest,
[2:49] I think we need to face the fact that
more needs to be done, and I think we
[2:55] should redouble our efforts. This is a
multiaceted problem, but at bottom, it
[3:00] is a law enforcement problem. So, I
asked the CMP
[3:06] um a uh representative why they were not
doing more to cure the emoto problem at
[3:13] Redwood High School. Um which is just
down the street from the police
[3:17] headquarters after all. And this is what
I got this afternoon. Quote, "Parents
[3:23] are not enthusiastic about us going
after children, nor our schools. We are
[3:30] not the Gestapo.
I found that that response chilling.
[3:36] Um, parents don't get to decide when to
let their children break the law and
[3:41] schools from the ones I've talked to and
I've talked to a lot want the police to
[3:46] help them enforce the law and get rid of
the emot. And the Gustapo comment goes
[3:52] without any further thing. So, here's
what I ask this court to do as part of
[3:56] our continuing dialogue. First,
agendaize the issue for an upcoming
[4:01] meeting and declare the policy of this
community is that emoto enforcement at
[4:07] Redwood High School and beyond is
important to the community regardless of
[4:12] what some scoff parents might want. And
second, remember that the Central Marine
[4:19] Police Council is charged with quote
developing policy for the CMPA,
[4:26] not the other way around.
And I don't think we should tolerate a
[4:31] policy of deferring to parents who want
their kids to break the law. In fact,
[4:35] it's a crime for parents to allow
juveniles to operate motorcycles without
[4:40] licenses. Uh and finally, the CMPA and I
did agree on one thing, which is the
[4:46] importance of going after the
manufacturers on a consumer product uh
[4:50] protection basis. So, I've submitted a
petition um calling on the DA and the
[4:56] attorney general to do just that. And I
ask each of you to consider signing it.
[5:01] Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[5:11] » Hello everybody. I'm Susie Batty. Um
hello to all of you who I know pretty
[5:17] well, most of you. Um I am here because
uh we had a flood the last few days and
[5:23] I happened to be um uh part of the
neighborhood response group in East
[5:28] Corder Madera. So I thought it would be
a good idea for me to just give you a
[5:33] threeinut quick thing and I wrote these
points down and I'll try not to talk as
[5:39] much as I usually do. I'll try to just
get these points out and maybe some of
[5:43] them will be helpful
um in my notes. Um my first note to
[5:48] myself is compliments and that really is
true. Um I think in general things went
[5:55] fairly well. Uh there were delays on
some things but uh the the street
[6:01] sweeper has not stopped. He's been
through Mariner Cove time after time
[6:05] after time from as soon as they could
get in there until um until even even
[6:11] today. Um I do believe that um and
public works and the fire department was
[6:18] present um more so the uh the fire
department I saw there the first day uh
[6:24] late in the afternoon. You know, it took
a while to see what was going on and
[6:28] this was January 1st and I want to
remind everybody that that's one thing
[6:32] to think about. It was a holiday and it
had to be a difficult time for all the
[6:36] departments. Um, I realized that and I
think in general they did a pretty good
[6:41] job. There should have been some uh we
ran out of of sandbags uh in in Mariner
[6:47] Cove and I think uh we needed to somehow
figure way and this is communication of
[6:53] letting the people in Mariner Cove know
what and when and where they could get
[6:58] those sandbags. A lot of this boils down
I think to communication. Um, I think
[7:02] the alerts could have they they were
prominent when they uh after a while,
[7:08] but in the very beginning it was a
little bit slow getting alerts out. I
[7:12] think um I'm also thinking that people
got on next door like during and after
[7:18] and all that and there was, you know,
somebody should have done this, somebody
[7:21] should have done that. I think it would
be really good if the town had someone
[7:26] who monitored next door and could see
the comments that are going on and we
[7:32] need somebody who will uh correct the
information, make sure that the
[7:37] information that people are yakking
about is correct. Um so I think that
[7:42] would be very helpful. Um vacation time
for uh particularly for uh public works.
[7:49] I'm I know that some towns do this and
there might be a way of splitting their
[7:55] vacations in such a way that
particularly in the winter months in the
[7:58] times when there we know that there's
going to be problems that probably out
[8:02] there people shouldn't shouldn't have
less vacation. They deserve plenty of
[8:06] vacation but maybe it can be divided up
in such a way that we at least have a
[8:11] pretty big staff because on January 1st
we only had one. I know that my time is
[8:16] up. The one thing that I think is
important is that uh can the town please
[8:21] schedule a meeting particularly for
Mariner Cove with the experts there so
[8:25] that questions can be answered and that
it could happen really soon. I'd like to
[8:29] see it happen at Cove School.
Neighborhood response group was asked if
[8:33] they could do it. I don't think it's our
place. I think it's better for the town
[8:37] to do it. And thank you for the
dumpsters that were delivered today.
[8:41] It's going to be very helpful to the
residents. Again, it's uh getting the
[8:45] word out. So, thank you.
>> Thank you.
[8:49] Anyone else like to speak? David, good
to see you.
[8:58] » Hello, David Bell. Uh 33 Echo. Um want
to just simply say echo everything Susie
[9:04] said, but for Marina Village.
[9:21] Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
My name is Lauren Cosgrave and my
[9:24] husband Shawn and I own 23 Harbor Drive
in Marina Village with our two daughters
[9:30] age 8 and nine. During the recent storm,
our home flooded as a result of water
[9:35] over topping the burm behind our
property. This was not a case of
[9:40] groundwater seepage or an unpredictable
failure. It was a visible, repeatable
[9:44] overflow of a known structure.
This burm has been a point of discussion
[9:49] between homeowners and the town for over
10 years. And regardless of formal
[9:54] ownership, it is clearly functioning as
a flood control infrastructure.
[9:58] When it over tops, water is directed
towards homes and streets and neighbors
[10:03] and including my home.
We are not here tonight to assign blame
[10:08] or debate fault. We are here because
this problem is foreseeable and it will
[10:13] happen again unless it is addressed in
an engineered way. We are asking the
[10:17] city to do three things. Commission or
share a professional engineering
[10:22] evaluation of the burm and surrounding
drainage on Harbor Drive. Clearly
[10:27] identify responsibility for preventing
future over topping of impacts to homes.
[10:32] and provide a timeline for implementing
a long-term mitigation solution.
[10:37] This flooding has real consequences
financial, emotional, and safety related
[10:42] for families living here. We are
committed to being constructive
[10:46] partners, but temporary or peacemail
fixes are not enough. Our request is
[10:51] simple. Please acknowledge this is a
predictable risk and commit to a
[10:55] permanent solution so residents are not
put in this position again.
[11:00] Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
[11:09] » Hi. Uh, my name is Robin. I live on 37
Kargo near Susie. I actually lived on
[11:14] Harbor when I was in high school. Um, so
couple things. I I won't get to all the
[11:19] details, but I have some older family
members that uh for decades have been
[11:24] very angry about the lack of dredging in
the area. So, I've heard a lot over the
[11:29] years about local regulations and
problems with
[11:35] SQUA and the strategies for flood
management and um probably way more than
[11:42] I would like. I understand there's been
various plans over the years with the
[11:47] flood wall and raising homes and things
like that.
[11:51] My understanding um is that you know
issues related to SQA stop things or
[11:59] stall things for years or decades
um not just with flooding but also with
[12:05] I've seen it with bike infrastructure
and and many things in so I'm wondering
[12:10] if the city has made any efforts to work
with the state on like streamlining SQA
[12:17] reviews or like you know there's a
stadium in LA that famously got put up
[12:23] quickly with SQL streamlining processes.
So I'm very curious to hear about that.
[12:29] Thank you.
[12:42] Hi, my name is Karen Grant. I live on
Meadow Crest. This isn't the issue I
[12:46] came for tonight, but I think it was
absolutely ridiculous that the town
[12:50] closed for two weeks. Unless you're a
school kid or a school teacher, who
[12:55] takes two weeks off at the holidays?
Most people get Christmas Eve, Christmas
[12:59] Day, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day. Has
this always been the case? I was really
[13:04] up against the gun to get a permit
because the solar
[13:10] um tax relief is ending. And it was I
just couldn't believe the town shut down
[13:16] for two weeks and gave themselves two
weeks off. Thank you.
[13:27] Would anyone else like to speak
in the room? Uh how about online?
[13:34] » We have three hands raised from
attendees online. We'll start with Patty
[13:38] Stolier. Right.
>> Go ahead, Patty. Good evening. Thank you
[13:43] everybody. Um I just want to report out
a couple things from the Twin Cities
[13:49] disaster preparedness committee meeting
yesterday. Uh one is we kept reiterating
[13:55] that people were thinking this was due
to the rain. It was not due to the rain.
[13:58] It was due to the king tides and the
rain didn't help any. But it wasn't
[14:04] anything like 1982 when we got 16 ines
of rain in three days. Um and so uh that
[14:12] meant it was very predictable.
People sort of took it in stride when
[14:17] they heard that the king tides were
coming. And we talked about the
[14:20] possibility of maybe having blue flag
days when there was going to be a a
[14:25] really urgent necessity to uh get the
word out and call people's attention to
[14:31] the potential threat. And the other was
um maybe some signs in neighborhoods
[14:37] that are low. I think there's one over
by Lucky that says this area is prone to
[14:42] flooding, but um that would be good to
have those. I think uh the town did an
[14:49] amazing job overall. Uh, as Susie said,
getting the word out a little bit late,
[14:55] but um, I kept trying to correct people
and Bob Bundy kept trying to correct
[15:01] people on Next Door if they were
thinking that the towns had, you know, a
[15:05] hundred years to figure this out and why
haven't they stopped the rain and the
[15:09] tide. So that I think people just need
to get an inflatable Bobo punching bag
[15:16] and let their um uh frustrations out
rather than posting on Next Door. But um
[15:24] I think overall we weathered so to speak
the storm pretty well and um hats off to
[15:31] Cord Madera and we made all the news.
Thanks.
[15:39] Um, next we have Roy Walford.
[15:46] » Go ahead, Roy.
[15:50] » Good evening.
I uh echo the compliments to the town
[15:56] staff who was on the point, fire
department. They're real good. Also, Mil
[16:00] Valley Refuge. Uh my wife asked her to
give them a call, say, "Hey, pick up the
[16:05] garbage real early."
uh because uh the day before uh it was
[16:10] one day delayed in picking up garbage
because of the holiday
[16:16] and the trash cans, all the cans were
floating down Seawolf Passage and I was
[16:20] going out trying to pull them up,
knocking on doors saying, "Hey, pull in
[16:23] your cans because the tide was coming
in." And I have, my wife and I have
[16:28] lived uh here since 1974.
And the most our garage or house ever
[16:35] flooded was a few inches into the
garage.
[16:40] We had on Friday three and a half inches
uh of water in the garage and the
[16:46] following day we had 8 and 12 in and we
had sandbags and everything else. The
[16:50] following day I got smarter about
sandbags. I also got a submersible pump.
[16:53] So I pumped out water as fast as it came
in. So if anybody's sandbagging, get a
[16:57] submersible pump. But the real key issue
here is with all the things going on
[17:02] with the earth, the astronomical, there
was uh there there was a confluence of
[17:08] unexpected items that were not
predicted. So the predictable tide uh
[17:14] was in the 7.2 ft area. It wound up
being about 8.71.
[17:23] Now, there was another flood just 200s
of a foot less in 1998,
[17:30] and it was on February six. You go check
the records, and it was an 8
[17:38] uh 57, something like that. We never
flooded from that. What's the
[17:43] difference? Well, there were a lot of
things. There was an offshore storm
[17:47] surge with the wind blowing from the
southsoutheast. It pushed the water in.
[17:51] We had lots of rain, lots of runoff,
settlement, subsidance.
[17:58] We settled our we had subsidance uh
between 1998 uh and this year of
[18:04] probably a little over a foot and that
one foot made all the difference. And it
[18:09] was obvious that an awful lot of the
houses uh along the shoreline have
[18:15] lowlying land. They need to build that
up. And I know Bob has been talking many
[18:22] years uh about getting a burm or a levy
out there. It's needed and it's got to
[18:28] be at least 10 foot. We've got lots of
material to build those leveies. It was
[18:34] from dredging Cordadera Creek in the
mid70s when the fairies were coming in
[18:38] and it build up a lot of the levies that
are out in the marsh right now. So, uh,
[18:43] I hope the town really presses to to get
those barriers built up because we don't
[18:48] know when another storm was hit and a
predicted tide is being predicted for,
[18:53] uh, December, but we don't know if all
the astronomical, astrological, and all
[18:57] those things will come together all at
once.
[19:00] » Thank you. Thank you, Roy. Okay. And
then we have one hand raised from
[19:05] Elizabeth Oul.
[19:10] » Go ahead, please.
Hi, this is Elizabeth and John at uh 19
[19:16] Harbor and uh we live two doors down
from Lauren who spoke uh a few speakers
[19:22] back and we're probably echoing most of
what she said but um I think our house
[19:28] was hit the hardest in our neighborhood.
We have tens of thousands of dollars
[19:35] worth of damage to our house and uh we
just we really need the burm to be
[19:41] reinforced along this stretch of San
Clemeni Creek. Uh it's it's affected so
[19:48] many homes along here. Uh and um we were
just wondering if there's any chance
[19:55] it's three days later, but
for the governor, Mr. Newsome uh to
[20:02] declare some kind of state of emergency
after the fact to get some kind of uh
[20:08] help, financial help to uh deal
>> FEMA or whatever to deal with
[20:15] » uh what we we're going through right
now. It's uh it's um it's not a good new
[20:21] year so far for us. So uh that's all I
wanted to say. Uh thank you and and I
[20:27] seed the rest of my time.
[20:32] Thank you. And then one more hand
[clears throat] raised um from Peter
[20:38] Butt.
[20:42] Go ahead, Peter.
Oh, he might have changed his mind and
[20:47] the hand went down.
Oh, it's back up. Sorry,
[20:56] » Peter. Go ahead. Sorry, I'm here.
Uh I live on Golden Heind Passage, uh
[21:03] part of the NRG with with Susie and I've
heard a couple of mentions um about
[21:09] communication and and there's there's a
lot of of um long-term planning, right,
[21:14] and and uh discussions that have
obviously taken place over the years and
[21:18] and and for the foreseeable uh future as
to what solves are. But from a from a a
[21:24] shorter term communication standpoint,
um I I don't feel and and maybe it was a
[21:29] miss on my part. I'm a little bit of a
weather nerd. I tend to to look at
[21:32] websites, but I don't feel that the
advanced warning and notification was as
[21:39] solid as it could have been. Whether
that's Alert Marin or or Nixie or, you
[21:44] know, from the town itself, but
something that seems to be an easier
[21:48] fix. Um, you know, at some point you can
only fight the water so much, but at
[21:52] least getting people prepared as best
they can to be as as as have as many
[21:58] sandbags as they can and and whatnot.
Uh, I felt like I was a little caught
[22:03] off guard and again, maybe that was just
me, but thank you.
[22:10] » Thank you.
No other hands raised from attendees um
[22:15] online and the comments that we received
via email were added to the website and
[22:20] are available for the public to view. Um
and no additional emailed public comment
[22:24] has been received.
>> All right.
[22:27] Thank you. Um thank you to everyone who
Oh, wait. We have another person in the
[22:32] house. Please step forward.
[22:39] » Good evening. U Thank you. I just I'm
Lucinda Smith and I would like to make a
[22:44] request. Um I love the fact that we have
the board over there, but when we're
[22:50] having detailed information showing on
it, it's sometimes difficult to see it.
[22:55] And I was wondering, I know you have to
have it for the the uh council, but I
[22:59] was wondering if we could have another
one that would be behind the mayor,
[23:04] which would be more visible for all of
the audience to see. just I know it's an
[23:09] expense but a consideration. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And is there anyone else?
[23:19] » All right then. So,
>> yeah.
[23:28] Yeah. And and thank you, Mayor Thomas.
One
[23:33] piece of clarification. We do have an
item a special meeting item on after the
[23:37] regular agenda which is the proclamation
of a local emergency. So this is I
[23:42] appreciate everyone speaking now. I'd
like to first off just um really thank
[23:48] everybody for providing coming here
tonight if you if you did or speaking
[23:53] online. I think we are still in a lot of
ways um just coming off. I think today
[23:59] is the first day we had some drying out.
We had flooding even as late as
[24:03] yesterday
um with road closures and um and I know
[24:08] other structures and garages closed um
flooded as well. But I I think it's
[24:14] really important for us to hear uh from
our community uh what happened. Um we
[24:20] aren't in all places at all times. So, I
think knowing what the damage was, uh,
[24:26] and really I'm I my heart goes out to
those that were really severely flooded.
[24:30] That's the first I'm hearing that
actually some homes themselves were were
[24:34] flooded and I was actually at um
Lauren's house, I guess, before it got
[24:39] really bad on uh Saturday. So, uh, but
thank you for coming here. Um, and I
[24:45] also understand council member Cassiso
is over at that same area of Harbor on
[24:50] the other side of 21. And so it's it's
just really important for us to hear the
[24:54] concerns um about what what went wrong.
You know, what I appreciate some of the
[25:00] comments about seeing staff out there
and what we did okay and did right. I
[25:05] mean, there's always room for for being
better as staff, being better prepared.
[25:10] Um uh and so I think hearing from all of
you is really most important for this
[25:16] evening. I know we'll have um
opportunity in the near future to
[25:20] discuss sort of more of the narrative of
how we responded and how we intend to do
[25:27] better going forward. Um, I will like I
I also wanted to use some of this time
[25:33] just to alert inform the council of
um
[25:38] some of our current thoughts and some of
the things that we observed
[25:44] um and uh talk about perhaps uh
following up at the next meeting or
[25:50] certainly in the future. There were some
suggestions for having separate
[25:53] meetings. We have a flood board as well
that has regular public meetings on just
[25:58] these types of issues, but we will
certainly be following up. And
[26:02] importantly, I think one thing we
certainly can do
[26:06] is um this was a this was an extreme
event. Um this was uh I kept hearing the
[26:12] news calling it an epic flood, which is
not I think that's only on the West
[26:16] Coast they're going to be using that
word, but but it was an extreme title
[26:20] event. Um I think there were uh many of
us not just CO Madera, Larksburg, up and
[26:28] down Marin in the county. I think it's
fair to say a certain degree caught off
[26:32] guard by the extreme. We we knew the
king tides were coming. We've had king
[26:37] tides tides before, but that additional
confluence of wind and the storm surge
[26:43] and the rain as well. Um I don't we've
we were at record levels if not record
[26:49] levels we were like this far below
record record levels from a actual title
[26:53] event and so um it was uh something that
we were not expecting when uh until
[27:01] Friday and then certainly once Friday
came around and we got the understanding
[27:05] that it was going to be about a foot and
a half above expected tide um we started
[27:10] preparing in and uh more significantly
Um, so,
[27:17] uh, this event did expose
our vulnerabilities that we've been
[27:22] talking about for a long time in terms
of title flooding.
[27:27] Uh, we haven't seen this, as I said, it
was a record event in decades. Um, this
[27:32] wasn't just an event that affected
private property. We had major regional
[27:36] highway infrastructure impacted uh, on
Saturday. I'm looking over at Chief
[27:42] Martin. I know his his team and and CMFA
was out there on the highway carrying
[27:48] people out out of the water and and uh
towing cars and really supporting and
[27:53] making sure that critical infrastructure
could could be safe to pass as much as
[27:58] possible. Um
we had low-lying commercial areas that
[28:03] were severely affected. Um, I did reach
out to some of the property owners, the
[28:08] the family who owns Big Five and and SF
Fitness. I think their their take is it
[28:14] was they did a pretty good job
mitigating. It was it was uh um
[28:20] certainly they were significantly
impacted but not to the extent that I
[28:26] think it looked like from some of the
images and we you know I reached out to
[28:30] say we're there to support you and what
can we do and I would say that to
[28:34] everybody here as well like the needs
what you know what are the things that
[28:38] the town can do this is the time that it
would be helpful to hear that we did
[28:42] hear from some that the that um the a
debris box would be helpful. And so
[28:50] we've got one out there with the help of
MVRS early today out at Cove Parking
[28:56] Lot. Um but if there's another location
uh in Marina Village, let us know. We we
[29:02] there are actually better locations to
to um place those perhaps at the end of
[29:08] of uh Harbor Drive, street end, one of
the street ends. We're happy to do that
[29:12] and get get right on that. Um
uh but we also had town facilities
[29:18] damaged. Our corporation yard um I I
should say flooded for the last 4 days
[29:24] and is out of commission. Um our interim
public works director Chris Goods here.
[29:30] Um that power is out there right now. Um
so we it was pretty extensive damage. We
[29:37] haven't seen that at the courtyard for
many many decades as well. Um, and we're
[29:43] we're figuring out how to actually so
while our maintenance team was out there
[29:47] actually trying to do all the good work
of uh keeping our pump stations running
[29:51] and delivering sand uh their own they
flooding as well at at um the
[29:56] corporation yard. And so we'll we'll be
talking about that. We're currently
[29:59] doing an initial damage assessment and
estimate for the town. Um and we'll be
[30:06] working on that with respect to mostly
our corporation yard and some pump
[30:10] facilities as well. Um, and so I do want
to just comment and thank our the team
[30:17] that was out there during the weekend,
uh, starting, you know, really New
[30:21] Year's Day, uh, through, uh, yesterday.
Um, our public works team,
[30:29] in particular, interim director Chris
Good. Um, I also really want to
[30:32] highlight Superintendent Wes Sitler's
work. He was non-stop for days. um our
[30:39] entire maintenance team uh Nick Udeni,
Neil, Lucas, uh other Nick and uh also
[30:46] just mention our support that we had as
we always do from Flores as well. They
[30:51] were out there in force as well and so
that was really important to have those
[30:54] extra hands.
um you know they our infrastructure held
[30:59] up relatively I I think it's fair to say
well um given the circumstances um you
[31:06] know our staff they're monitoring and
keeping all our pump stations
[31:10] uh working I think it can't be
understated the importance um not only
[31:17] the extreme on Saturday but this has
been four days our infrastructure has
[31:20] been dealing with these floods so it's
not just a one-day event of an record
[31:24] tide it's the length I think of the high
tides which we haven't seen before as
[31:29] well. And so that infrastructure, all
the pumps working constantly over that
[31:33] period of time really tested them and
they held up well. We had one pump uh I
[31:39] think one pump station over at Black
Kettle Lagoon um burn out and so that's
[31:44] in that's actually out right now and
we're um trying to seek uh repair and
[31:51] potentially replacement for that. Um,
our public works staff also assisted
[31:56] assisted CMPA
with road closures um throughout town. I
[32:02] want to thank CMPA for being out there.
Um, [snorts]
[32:05] uh, we had brought in some overtime um,
some additional officers to support that
[32:10] effort. Again, not only most of their
focus was along the major um, exits and
[32:16] entrances to Highway 101.
Um and public works also uh as much as
[32:23] we could procure and deliver additional
um sand to uh the stations as well as as
[32:31] out there. And I understand certainly
there's probably some lessons there
[32:35] learned as well. But according to West,
we had about 30 to 35 tons of sand. Uh
[32:41] well over,200 sandbags were deployed to
the sandbag stations throughout town.
[32:47] Um what we um
uh I'll just quickly report that with
[32:56] the corporation yard um we currently
where we have um as you know we we have
[33:02] some hazardous materials there. We do
have to do some cleanup with Serpro and
[33:06] some professionals. will be hiring some
professionals to uh assess the damage
[33:12] and it could be several weeks that um
that facility can't be used at this
[33:17] time. So, I just giving the council a
heads up on that and we'll be trying to
[33:22] make some temporary arrangements for our
staff in the meantime in terms of use
[33:25] the use of that facility.
Um,
[33:31] you know, I I think uh again just want
to
[33:36] focus on um taking in information at
this point. And so uh if there is
[33:42] additional information that the
community wants to uh share with us, we
[33:48] have set up a an email address. Um we're
going to tempor we're going to use for
[33:53] now public comment at uh court ofa.gov
uh for um reporting concerns. It's the
[34:02] public there's many eyes looking at that
public comment email. So I think it's a
[34:05] good a good way to make sure that we're
receiving any uh concerns from our
[34:11] community or needs that are um raised
over the next few days. Um, and as well
[34:18] we've talked about getting a form out
there just to get a better handle on the
[34:23] damage that's occurred at various
different locations. Um, we have a bunch
[34:28] of uh images and photographs. That's
also useful as we continue our
[34:34] discussions about how to better protect
uh the community out there uh on the
[34:38] east side, but also other areas of town.
Um and so this is a process of where we
[34:44] actually um are going to hopefully
better understand the weak points in our
[34:51] flood protection and address those um as
quickly as possible. I know we have a a
[34:56] good uh opportunity with our strategic
planning session with the council coming
[35:00] up to talk about that and I assume we
will do so. Um and this will be uh one
[35:05] of the most important topics to discuss
that. Um
[35:10] with that I think I can unless the
council has questions for me um I can
[35:16] stop my report at this time. Um,
you know, I I do think at the end of the
[35:22] day, we have to look at this as an
opportunity to raise awareness
[35:28] um and urgency as well, not only with
our community, but our regional partners
[35:34] and find longer term solutions to uh
this recurring issue. Um hopefully not
[35:40] as extreme as we've seen, but we know it
it will recur. So, thanks.
[35:46] Thank you very much. Um, council, do you
have any questions?
[35:51] » I have one. Ready?
>> I'm going to put you on the spot, Adam.
[35:55] » I think I've raised this before. Am I
allowed to ask a question?
[36:00] It turns it into an agenda item. We can
wait till the the next meeting then.
[36:04] I'll bring it up then.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[36:06] » Okay. Great. Then we will move on to an
interview for a applicant to the
[36:15] commission on aging and that
[36:21] applicant is an Sparkman.
Hello,
[36:27] welcome.
Good evening, mayor,
[36:31] uh, vice mayor, and council members, and
thank you for the opportunity to apply
[36:37] for this, uh, role and for speaking
tonight. Thank you very much.
[36:42] » Okay. Well, we will give you one minute
for an opening statement if you'd like
[36:47] and then you'll have four questions that
I believe have been provided to you
[36:52] ahead of time and um you'll have two
minutes to answer those and then each of
[36:59] those and then um a closing statement if
you prefer. All right. So um you may
[37:07] share a little bit about yourself
please. Thank you.
[37:10] We have lived here in Cto Madera for 35
years and it's been a great great
[37:15] experience. We live on the east side.
We're the hill dwellers on the hill
[37:20] dweller side and our kids went to school
here um actually through the Reed system
[37:26] but then to Redwood High and a lot of
their friends over here on the west
[37:29] side. So, it's um been a a good journey
and I'm very proud of the town and I
[37:36] wanted to talk about um age related
issues and I want to congratulate Corda
[37:42] Madera for being an age friendly town
and um we have discussed that fact and
[37:50] I'm going to stop my opening right now.
Okay, I'm going to move in to the
[37:55] questions but before I do that, can I
say one more thing please?
[37:59] » Yes. I'm a I have an interest in this
because I'm a nurse attorney and I did
[38:03] healthcare law so it's really near and
dear to me. Um so that's my opening
[38:08] statement.
>> Wonderful. So the first question is what
[38:13] well it almost answers that but you can
reiterate if you want to add anything.
[38:17] What motivated you to apply for the
commission on aging and what do you hope
[38:21] to accomplish with your participation?
>> Thank you. Yes, I did allude to that a
[38:27] bit, but actually some more distinct
events took place in the last 10 years.
[38:33] Um, a family member has um aged older
than me and requires a lot of of help
[38:40] and a lot of hospitalizations,
all of that. And I'm sure you and your
[38:45] families have been through it. So, it's
a lived experience, but also um we've
[38:50] discussed this. I'm um on the dis the
Marin Healthcare District and this is
[38:54] one of our subjects because aging
adults, you know, have um
[39:00] [sighs and gasps]
food, housing insecurity, everything.
[39:04] You know, they really do face a lot of
issues here in Marin and they're
[39:08] growing. So, that's what spurred my
interest. But in particular, and I don't
[39:14] know if you're aware of the civil grand
jury issued a report in 2022 to 2023
[39:20] on the silver tsunami in Marin, and I've
been kind of following that. So that's
[39:26] that's what motivated me as well.
>> Um, what do you see as the most pressing
[39:34] issues facing older adults and family
caregivers in Marin today? There's two
[39:40] kind of parallel um threads. One thread
is in the medical arena. You know, it's
[39:47] very hard to get PCPs through primary
care doctors. I was speaking with a
[39:52] woman at a at a Marin Villages event
recently and it took her one year to get
[39:57] a PCP. So, that's an issue. It's also an
issue with a hospitalization.
[40:03] Oftentimes, not having family members at
advocates, things of that nature. and
[40:08] then post hospitalization going to
post-accute care is very challenging.
[40:12] Those are hard transitions for the
family. They really are. So those are um
[40:18] pressing issues on the medical side, but
there's also issues on the home side
[40:23] with your caregiver, your activities of
daily living. It's very challenging. You
[40:29] can be very isolated. You have IT
challenges, home repairs, and you want
[40:34] to stay in place rather than go to a
facility. So, it's kind of a mixture of
[40:38] both of those threads. Those are the
issues.
[40:43] Um, how do you see the role of
commission in promoting dignity,
[40:47] independence, and quality of life for
older adults and caregivers in Marin
[40:52] County?
Um, in terms of the commission, I see
[40:56] them as kind of a
as a hub, a central hub, and then you
[41:02] have spokes going out with the towns and
the agencies and some of the um like the
[41:09] hospitals and other healthcare entities.
So, I see the commission as the hub in
[41:14] in coordinating and um in in addressing
all of these challenging issues. That's
[41:20] how I see the commission.
Wonderful. That's really good answer.
[41:26] Um, and then how would you encourage
broader community input and engagement
[41:31] in the commission's work?
I would say uh
[41:37] the commission and or towns actually
also need to promote their good work
[41:42] like uh the commission can share best
practices like with court of Madera
[41:47] we're age friendly. I don't know of the
other towns if they are things of that
[41:52] nature. Sharing also um challenges how
you overcome those um resources.
[41:59] So that's what I see as kind of a one of
the solutions.
[42:03] » Yes.
>> Thank you.
[42:08] » And um if you would like to give a one
minute closing statement, you may do so
[42:12] now.
>> You could have a little water.
[42:15] » Absolutely. I had an In-N-Out Burger and
they're too soft. [laughter]
[42:19] I know they make you thirsty.
Water in there. Okay.
[42:36] In closing,
I I want to see this as an opportunity
[42:40] to um kind of promote our town and our
our best work and also our elders. When
[42:46] we moved in, we had neighbors and the
women in our neighborhood bought the
[42:52] development on Ring Mountain. And I
don't think people know about that. And
[42:56] do you know how much we use Ring
Mountain and how important that is to
[43:00] our health and not only medical but
mental and that's the other thing in
[43:05] closing the mental health is just so
ignored and we really need to address
[43:09] that. So thank you all for your
consideration. We really appreciate it.
[43:14] Thank you very much. [laughter]
[43:18] All right then. Um,
would anyone like to make a motion or uh
[43:26] make a comment? I will move that we have
an Sparkman serve the remainder of the
[43:33] 2026 term on the age council. And um I
would like to say that I'm so excited
[43:40] for you to step up because I know that
once we get our intergenerational center
[43:46] going, you will be one of the smiling
faces that I see there. It's a great
[43:50] place to lobby people to get involved
and and do things. I think it will be.
[43:55] » We'll second the motion.
>> All right. Please take a vote. And just
[44:00] for the record, we didn't receive public
comment on that item. Um and no hands
[44:05] raised. No hands from um Zoom attendees
are raised at this time either. Um so we
[44:13] have a motion and a second. And I will
call the vote. Council member Andrews,
[44:19] » yes.
>> Council member Beckman,
[44:21] » absolutely.
>> Council member Ravasio,
[44:24] » wholeheartedly.
>> Vice Mayor Cassissa,
[44:27] » yes.
>> Mayor Thomas,
[44:28] » enthusiastically.
>> Thank you. The motion carries.
[44:31] » Thank you, Ann. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. Look forward to it.
[44:42] » Thank you.
>> Yes.
[44:54] We move on to the consent calendar. The
purpose of the consent calendar is to
[44:59] group items together for which uh which
are routine or have been discussed
[45:04] previously and do not require further
discussion. They will be approved in a
[45:09] single motion. Any member of the public
may comment on the consent calendar.
[45:14] Town council, town staff, or the public
may request removal of an item from the
[45:20] consent calendar. Um, do we have any
public comment on the consent calendar?
[45:29] Okay. Uh, anyone on the council wish to,
uh, remove an item or discuss an item on
[45:37] the consent calendar?
All right. Then, may I have a motion to
[45:41] approve?
>> I'll make the motion to move the consent
[45:44] calendar.
>> Second.
[45:47] » Council member Andrews.
>> Yes.
[45:49] » Council member Beckman.
>> Yes. Council member Ovasio,
[45:52] » yes.
>> Vice Mayor Thomas, Vice Mayor Casissa,
[45:56] sorry.
>> Mayor Thomas,
[45:58] » yes.
>> Thank you. The motion carries.
[46:00] » Thank you. Uh next we have um a public
hearing, the first reading and possible
[46:08] introduction of an ordinance related to
the subdivision and development of
[46:12] qualified Senate Bill SB9
projects and amending portions of title
[46:19] 17 subdivisions, title 18 zoning and
title 22 objective design and
[46:24] development standards of the Cord
Madiraa municipal code. And I believe
[46:30] that uh principal planner Martha
Batitalia has the report for us.
[46:36] » Yes. Good evening, honorable mayor and
members of the council. This evening,
[46:41] you'll be holding a public hearing and
considering amendments to the town's
[46:45] existing SP9 regulations.
A planning staff proposes amendments to
[46:50] the existing regulations to ensure
compliance with Senate Bill 450. Uh the
[46:56] draft ordinance also includes several
minor clerical and clarifying amendments
[47:00] that have been identified by staff. Uh
the draft ordinance is included as
[47:04] attachment one uh to the packet and the
proposed changes to the ordinance are
[47:09] shown in strikethrough for text proposed
to be deleted and underlined for new
[47:13] text.
[47:17] Uh the first portion of the presentation
includes some background information on
[47:21] state laws.
Uh, Senate Bill 9, also known as the
[47:25] California Home Act, was signed by
Governor Nuome in September 2021 and
[47:31] became effective on January 1st, 2022.
The bill allows homeowners within single
[47:37] family zoning districts to build up to
two housing units on their existing
[47:42] parcel or to legally split their single
family parcel into two separate parcels
[47:47] and develop each with two units.
[47:52] Next slide.
U most single family residential
[47:56] properties in the state were affected by
SB9.
[48:00] This legislation applies to all single
family residential zone properties
[48:04] within an urbanized area with some
limited exceptions which includes such
[48:10] things as if the parcel is located in a
historic district. The map on the slide
[48:15] shows the zoning districts in Cord
Madera and SP9 applies to all parcels
[48:21] that that are zoned R1 which is the
beige color and it's the most common of
[48:26] the residentially zoned parcels in in
town. Also applies to R1A shown in
[48:31] yellow to R1B shown in lime and to R1C
shown in green. Next slide.
[48:39] Uh there are two different scenarios uh
for development under SB9. Uh the first
[48:44] is additional development when the lot
is not being subdivided.
[48:49] Um on a vacant lot, two new SP9 units
can be built and the minimum size per
[48:55] state law is 800 square ft for each
unit. SP9 allows for an additional unit
[49:01] on a property that is developed with an
existing uh residence. And this type of
[49:06] scenario is not very common in court of
Madera. In instances when a property
[49:11] owner is not subdividing their property,
it's more common for an owner to add an
[49:16] additional unit using ADU state law.
Um SP9 also allows for property to be
[49:25] subdivided into two approximately
equalsiz parcels. Uh following the
[49:30] subdivision, each parcel but must be a
minimum of 1,200 square ft and
[49:35] homeowners can build uh two homes on
each of the lots for a total of four
[49:41] units.
[49:44] Next slide. Uh Senate Bill 450 uh was
signed by Governor Nuome in September
[49:50] 2024 and it became effective on January
1st, 2025.
[49:55] Uh this bill amends SB9 in several ways.
U most notably uh the bill prohibits
[50:02] local agencies from imposing objective
zoning subdivision or design standards
[50:07] that are not applied uniformly to the
underlying zoning district. A
[50:12] development standards that are applied
to SP9 projects can be more permissive
[50:16] than the standards applied um to the
underlying zoning district, but they
[50:20] cannot be more restrictive. and staff is
proposing several um amendments to the
[50:26] existing SP9 regulations to comply with
this bill.
[50:31] Slide.
Uh the next section includes some
[50:34] background information on prior
ordinances adopted by the town and also
[50:38] on applications that have been received.
uh given the limited time between when
[50:45] SB9 um was signed in January in
September 2021 and when it became
[50:51] effective on January 1st, the town
council adopted an urgency ordinance in
[50:56] January 2022 to regulate projects
submitted pursuant to SB9.
[51:02] The urgency ordinance adopted by the
town council established a ministerial
[51:07] review process for projects submitted
under SP9 and it also included objective
[51:12] standards. Uh subsequently on December
6, 2022, the town council adopted an
[51:19] ordinance uh which became effective on
January 5th, 2023 which established the
[51:24] permanent regulations for SB9 units and
for lot splits.
[51:31] Next slide. Uh, the permanent SP9
ordinance included amendments to title
[51:37] 17 subdivisions, title 18 zoning, and
title 22 objective design and
[51:42] development standards. The ministerial
review process that was included in the
[51:47] permanent ordinance was the same as what
was established in the urgency
[51:52] ordinance. The permanent ordinance
included a new chapter, chapter 1831A,
[51:58] which established the review process and
also included the development standards
[52:02] for both two-unit developments and urban
lots split applications.
[52:08] And most of the objective standards that
were in the urgency ordinance were
[52:11] carried forward into the permanent
ordinance. And staff believes that most
[52:16] of the existing objective standards can
continue to be applied to eligible
[52:20] projects.
[52:26] Uh, since SP9 became effective on
January 1st, 2022, the planning division
[52:32] has received 11 SP9 lots split
applications as shown on this table. And
[52:38] this table was also in the staff report
as well. Consistent with state law, the
[52:43] applications have been reviewed
ministerally for compliance with
[52:46] development standards in both the
urgency and permanent ordinance. Eight
[52:51] of these maps have been recorded and the
application at 489 Monaceto was
[52:57] withdrawn because the property owner was
unable to meet the fire hydrant
[53:01] standard. Uh to date, the town has not
approved any SP9 units. Uh the property
[53:07] owners of 208 Chapman Drive submitted a
design review application for an
[53:12] approximate 1,800 square foot residence
on the new lot created through the SBI
[53:17] lotslit. And this uh design review was
approved by the planning commission and
[53:22] it's currently under construction.
Next slide.
[53:27] This map shows the location of the urban
lots applications that have been
[53:31] submitted in CTO Madera. Uh most of the
applications are in the hillside
[53:36] neighborhoods and this map is included
as attachment three to
[53:43] uh the town council also previously
adopted an ordinance in December 2021
[53:48] which established objective standards
for qualifying multifamily projects in
[53:53] Porta Madera and this also included SB9
developments and these objective
[53:59] standards are applied uh to projects
when dis typical discret ary processes
[54:04] are not uh are not used. The objective
design and development standards also
[54:09] referred to as odds toolkit is codified
in title 22 of the municipal code. The
[54:16] odds toolkit includes a zone the T3 edge
neighborhood zone which applies to SP9
[54:23] projects that are proposed on in single
family districts.
[54:27] The permanent SP9 ordinance adopted by
the town council in 2022 included some
[54:32] changes to the T3 edge zone to better
align those development standards with
[54:37] the R1 zoning district standards.
Planning staff is proposing uh some
[54:42] additional changes at this time uh to
comply with SB450 and changes are
[54:48] proposed to the height standard to the E
parapit and also to the side setback
[54:53] standard. Those two are highlighted in
yellow on this table slide.
[55:02] The town's existing SP9 ordinance
includes different size and height
[55:07] requirements per unit which is based on
the setbacks of the unit.
[55:12] These next few slides also include
additional information on allowable size
[55:16] and heights and also on the existing
fire access and suppression standards.
[55:23] The urgency ordinance adopted by the
town council in January 2022 included a
[55:28] maximum unit size of 1,000 square feet.
The permanent ordinance adopted by the
[55:33] council in December 2022 included a
two-tiered approach to size which which
[55:39] limited the unit size to 800 square ft
if the unit was reducing side and rear
[55:44] setbacks which is allowed under state
law. and a unit could be up to 1,200
[55:50] square feet if the proposed unit met the
setbacks of the T3 edge zone which again
[55:55] are similar to the R1 zoning district.
Staff felt that the proposed increase in
[56:01] size could function as an incentive to
comply with the setbacks of the T3 edge
[56:06] zone instead of units reducing setbacks
to 4 feet as allowed by state law. And
[56:13] if a homeowner wanted to build a unit
larger than 12,200 square feet, they
[56:16] could submit a design review
application. And this is what the owners
[56:21] of 208 Chapman elected to do. And to
preserve the town's existing 1,200
[56:27] square foot cap on SP9 units while
complying with SB450,
[56:32] the design review chapter is also being
amended to exempt uh new units that are
[56:37] 1,200 square ft or less from the
discretionary design review process. And
[56:42] these units would be required to comply
with uh the objective standards in
[56:47] chapter 18.
Next slide.
[56:53] The existing T3 edge neighborhood zone
currently allows a maximum height of 22
[56:58] feet to the highest eve parapit and a
maximum height of 30 feet overall. Uh
[57:05] the height standard to the highest EVE
parapit is inconsistent with SB450
[57:10] because the underlying residential
zoning district uh permits a maximum
[57:14] height of 30 ft and it does not have a
separate height requirement to the EVE
[57:19] parapit.
So the draft ordinance uh removes this
[57:23] height requirement to the EVE parapit.
The permanent ordinance adopted in
[57:28] December 2022 included two different
height standards for SP9 projects. The
[57:34] allowable height is the same as the
height established in the T3 edge
[57:38] neighborhood zone if the project meets
the setbacks of the T3 zone which again
[57:43] mirror the R1 development standards. In
cases where units were located were
[57:50] reducing setbacks. The maximum height
was 16 ft and that height could be
[57:55] increased to 20 feet if the structure is
in the flood plane and is being raised
[57:59] to comply with FEMA and Madera Municipal
Code. And the next few slides include
[58:04] examples um of the allowable heights.
So in the first example,
[58:10] uh this project meets the setback of the
T3 edge neighborhood zone as being
[58:15] amended to comply with SB450.
So the setbacks are 20 ft for the front,
[58:21] 6 feet for the side, and 25 ft for the
rear. In this case, the maximum height
[58:26] is 30 ft and the maximum unit size is
1,200 square ft. And the draft ordinance
[58:33] is removing the height to the eve and
parapit and also modifying the side
[58:38] setback from 10 feet to six feet. And
these changes are being made to comply
[58:42] with SB 450.
Uh this next example uh the unit is
[58:49] reducing uh the setbacks to 4 feet as
allowed by state law. So the setbacks
[58:55] are 20 ft for the front and then four
feet for the side and rear. In this
[59:00] case, the maximum unit size is 800
square feet and the maximum height is 16
[59:05] feet. In this example, uh the parcel is
not located within a flood flood plane.
[59:13] Uh this third example assumes that the
property is in the flood plane. And in
[59:18] this case, the height of the structure
can be raised an additional four feet.
[59:22] So for each foot the structure is raised
to comply with FEMA regulations, the
[59:27] height can increase by a foot. So the
maximum height is 20 feet, which allows
[59:33] for a 4ft array. Um, in addition, the
side and rear setbacks are increased by
[59:40] one foot for each additional foot of
height. So instead of a 4ft side and
[59:44] rear setback, the setbacks are 8 feet.
and the maximum size of the unit is 800.
[59:54] Uh the adopted ordinance also included
several objective standards related to
[59:59] fire access which are shown on this
slide. Planning staff discussed these
[1:00:04] existing standards with the central
marin fire department fire chief Ruben
[1:00:08] Martin and Chief Martin confirmed that
all of these standards apply to new
[1:00:13] homes in the WOOI. Um so as such um no
changes are proposed to these existing
[1:00:18] standards.
Next slide.
[1:00:22] The adopted permanent ordinance also
included several fire suppression
[1:00:26] standards which are shown on this slide.
And one of the existing fire suppression
[1:00:31] standards um requires that when the unit
is located 5 ft uh to a a fence that the
[1:00:37] fence material needs to be a
non-combustible material. This standard
[1:00:41] is not required for other residences and
so it's proposed to be removed um from
[1:00:48] the ordinance to comply with SB4.
[1:00:54] The draft ordinance also includes some
additional amendments to title 17 and
[1:00:58] also to title 18 as well. The ordinance
revises the time that a final parcel map
[1:01:05] um can be obtained once a tenative map
is approved from one year to two years
[1:01:10] and this change is being made to ensure
consistency with the subdivision map
[1:01:14] act. Additionally, revisions are
proposed to section 1721040
[1:01:21] and these amendments bring the current
code language into alignment with how a
[1:01:26] map is actually filed. This existing
section is very outdated and it doesn't
[1:01:32] align with um how maps are actually
filed.
[1:01:36] Uh the ordinance also includes a new
section section 1824115
[1:01:42] and this section adds relevant housing
crisis act provisions into the zoning
[1:01:47] ordinance. Um among other things, the
housing crisis act precludes the town
[1:01:52] from approving a project that would
reduce the number of dwelling units on a
[1:01:56] property. And it also includes
requirements for a developer to comply
[1:02:00] with replacement or relocation
requirements of a protected unit that's
[1:02:05] demolished. And the ordinance includes
uh defines what a protected unit is.
[1:02:14] The planning commission held the public
hearing on December 9th to consider the
[1:02:18] proposed draft ordinance. Um, on
December 9th, prior to the the hearing,
[1:02:23] staff provided the commission with a
revised draft ordinance. The revision
[1:02:28] included the addition of two new
definitions in sections 1831A30.
[1:02:34] These new definitions were for
right-of-way and street and also
[1:02:39] included a a rec a modification to a a
section to clarify that each resulting
[1:02:45] parcel must have access to provide
access to or adjoin the public vehicular
[1:02:50] ride of way. Um staff believes these
changes reflect the intent of the
[1:02:55] current language. The planning
commission adopted a resolution
[1:02:59] recommending that the town council adopt
the ordinance with several modifications
[1:03:04] which include revising the general plan
consistency section to state that
[1:03:08] certain policies and programs related to
slopes and environmental constraints
[1:03:13] cannot be applied to SB9 projects.
correcting a government code citation
[1:03:18] and then revising a section to clarify
the procedures apply to
[1:03:21] non-discretionary projects.
[1:03:26] Next slide. Uh so there are several
options available to the council this
[1:03:29] evening. The council could consider
introduction of the ordinance as
[1:03:33] presented or consider introduction of
the ordinance with modifications or
[1:03:38] could direct staff to return with
additional information and analysis and
[1:03:42] continue the discussion at a future.
That concludes the staff presentation.
[1:03:46] I'm available for any questions. In
addition, Chief Martin is here available
[1:03:51] to answer questions about fire access
and also the assistant town attorney and
[1:03:56] Danforth is also participating remotely.
>> Thank you very much.
[1:04:02] Um, do let's see do public comment.
>> Okay. All right. Do I have questions
[1:04:09] from the council?
>> Jim. Yes, [clears throat] I'm looking at
[1:04:15] the access and fire suppression
standards.
[1:04:20] Uh
it says
[1:04:24] of a proposed unit is located more than
150 ft from a frontage roadway. Could
[1:04:30] you define what frontage roadway means?
So that would basically be your fire
[1:04:36] apparatus access roadways. So it's any
roadway that has uh meets the current
[1:04:43] town accord standards and some of these
that do not. So this basically every
[1:04:48] roadway that's here. So what we're
saying is that it needs to have access
[1:04:52] to a public rideway or a public roadway.
Okay.
[1:05:00] And then it says,
"Uquire a minimum 20 foot wide driveway
[1:05:06] for any project in the wildland urban
interface that includes a new driveway.
[1:05:14] If you're connected to a
couple of thousand foot long
[1:05:20] private driveway that doesn't meet the
16 ft standard,
[1:05:26] would you just ignore that?"
>> No. If uh that driveway sits solely on
[1:05:31] one parcel in one property, they would
have to improve that entire driveway to
[1:05:37] 16 ft.
>> Okay? And if it's a half a dozen or
[1:05:41] dozen parcels all connecting to a shared
driveway,
[1:05:45] » and so what we can only do is um allow
or require these improvements or roadway
[1:05:51] infrastructure improvements on the
existing parcel that's actually creating
[1:05:56] a project. So, for example, I can't have
one property owner fix the entire
[1:06:01] infrastructure for 12 parcels. Um, they
can only improve a pond and widen a
[1:06:06] roadway that sits adjacent to their
property. And you and you actually
[1:06:12] currently require them to do that.
>> Yes, we do.
[1:06:14] » Okay.
And
[1:06:18] if they're connecting to this private
driveway, but they're also
[1:06:24] one of the big lot, you know, the big
lot that's getting split
[1:06:27] » is on a main street.
>> Would you require them to have a
[1:06:32] driveway to that main street?
>> Um, if we anticipate requiring access to
[1:06:38] get to the property, then yes, we would
require a driveway to be 16 ft in length
[1:06:42] for us to get to the residence. Yes.
Okay.
[1:06:45] » Now, if the residence has say a short 25
ft driveway, which is typical for most U
[1:06:53] single family residences, and we have
access from that frontage roadway, that
[1:06:57] won't we won't require the long access
and turnarounds that fire departments
[1:07:02] need because we can access it from the
existing roadway.
[1:07:05] » Okay.
>> Thank you.
[1:07:12] » Uh, anyone else have questions? I I just
had a couple.
[1:07:15] » Okay, good.
>> Um, information overload, but I
[1:07:19] appreciate all the work. [laughter]
It seems assuming the height
[1:07:22] requirements higher than what we the
town had before. Is that correct? Or is
[1:07:27] that the way I'm reading it?
>> Well, the the main change is uh we're
[1:07:31] removing the height standard to the EVE
parapit because that standard doesn't
[1:07:37] apply to the under in the underlying
zoning district. So that's being
[1:07:40] modified so that if a if if a if a unit
complies with the setbacks then it can
[1:07:45] be up to 30 feet and there's no longer a
22 foot height standard. Um and then the
[1:07:51] the height of the structure is either 16
if they're reducing setbacks then the
[1:07:55] max height is 16 ft up to 20t if it's in
a flood plane and that is similar to how
[1:08:00] we treat allowable height of ADUs as
well if they're reducing setbacks.
[1:08:04] » Okay. And all these changes are pretty
much ma mandated by state law. Correct.
[1:08:08] Correct.
>> Okay. And then just one quick question
[1:08:11] for you, Ruben. On one of these
properties, um, it notes that a property
[1:08:15] owner was unable to comply with the fire
hydrant requirement. Can you just
[1:08:19] background what that was?
>> Yes.
[1:08:22] » Um, thank you, uh, Council Member Casa.
Yes. So, our uh objective standard for
[1:08:27] our fire hydrant requirements is there
needs to be a hydrant with the ability
[1:08:32] to supply 1,000 gallons a minute um
within 350 ft of wherever that
[1:08:37] resident's driveway or access point is
going to be. So, if you for example can
[1:08:43] think of I'm going to walk out my front
door, go to the roadway, whether I go
[1:08:47] left or right, do I have a hydrant
within 350 ft? Um the property in
[1:08:52] question unfortunately there was no
water man that it sat through the middle
[1:08:57] of the roadway all the way up quarter
Avenue. So it would have been too cost
[1:09:02] prohibitive for the property owner when
you split it to put in I think it was
[1:09:07] 1500 ft of linear pipe. Um so it would
have been a multi-million dollar
[1:09:11] project.
>> Okay.
[1:09:12] » Just to split it.
>> Okay. Thanks.
[1:09:16] » Uh any questions?
Thank you Martha. Um just a question
[1:09:23] about 209 itself. So I don't know if you
know all the details of that law but I
[1:09:28] understand there are requirements
regarding ownership and occupancy of
[1:09:33] these projects of these properties that
are involved. Is that true? And do you
[1:09:37] know what those requirements are? So SP9
has a requirement that the applicant uh
[1:09:44] needs to intend to live in one of the
units for three years once the the map
[1:09:49] is approved. So there's an affidavit
requirement uh that an applicant submits
[1:09:54] um stating the intent to reside in one
of the units. So, not that they've lived
[1:09:59] in it prior or they live in it
currently, just that they plan to live
[1:10:02] in it after it's built or
>> Yeah, it's they need to intend to reside
[1:10:07] in one of the units for 3 years after
the map is approved.
[1:10:12] » Okay.
Thank you.
[1:10:19] » Uh now we'd like to open it up to uh
public um comment. Uh is there anyone in
[1:10:26] the room who would like to um
step to the microphone and
[1:10:33] yes we have one. Thank you.
[1:10:43] » Hi Karen Grant again. Mine is the
property at 1161 Meadow Suite Meadow
[1:10:48] Crest which I subdivided
under SB9. I I first want to clarify. I
[1:10:56] feel like after attending the planning
commission meeting on this, you're
[1:11:01] debating all this, but it's my
understanding that you've been out of
[1:11:05] compliance with SB450 for a year now.
So, you kind of have to adopt the
[1:11:12] changes to comply with California law.
Anyway, um it took me three and a half
[1:11:19] years. I feel the town was an obstacle
to doing it, which wasn't the intent or
[1:11:25] the spirit of SB9. It cost me $50,000.
Um, the way the town deals with outside
[1:11:34] consultant, they have just one that kept
reviewing my plans. The public works
[1:11:40] pays whatever bills come in. They don't
question them. There's no transparency.
[1:11:44] I could not see their hours. They kept
making revisions and I'm like, "Why
[1:11:49] didn't you make this the first revision
or the second? Why are you bringing it
[1:11:53] up now? Nothing's changed." Um, I got a
bad attitude from the town that I was
[1:11:59] questioning,
you know, if they were patting my bill
[1:12:03] or not, whether this outside company.
So, I think it could have been
[1:12:07] streamlined. The town could have been
more helpful. It could have been less
[1:12:11] money. We intended to um age in place,
which Cordon Madera says it's in favor
[1:12:17] of. We were going to build two 1,200
foot homes, one for a daughter who's a
[1:12:24] single mom, uh and the other for my
husband and I and rent out or sell the
[1:12:29] big house. But since it took us three
and a half years and was such a mess to
[1:12:35] deal with the town, we just have an
accepted offer. a young couple will come
[1:12:40] in and build a $5 million mansion,
which, you know, it it doesn't meet the
[1:12:46] housing needs of California. It wasn't
what the intent, it wasn't what we had
[1:12:50] planned. Um, so very disillusioned of
how this was handled.
[1:12:56] And I just hope the town, if you really
like, we need infill. We need more small
[1:13:02] homes. We need um people are going to
age in place. they might want to do what
[1:13:07] we were planning, but it took us so long
and was such a mess, we just didn't even
[1:13:12] want to touch it. So, I just want to say
that first of all, you got to come in
[1:13:18] compliance with the law. 450, I think,
was put in place because SB9 wasn't
[1:13:23] towns were finding ways to stall it or
not comply or whatever. Um, there may be
[1:13:29] another Senate bill after this if things
don't start moving in a more timely
[1:13:34] manner. And I don't know, that was just
my case. I don't know what's happened
[1:13:41] with the rest of if everybody else's
experience has been that, but thank you
[1:13:46] very much.
[1:13:51] » Thank you. Uh, do we have anyone else in
the room who would like to speak on the
[1:13:55] matter? Yes.
[1:13:59] Albert D Lima with WA Associates and u
my my question is to do with um buyer
[1:14:08] access roadways and Mr. Martin. Um, at
the uh at the last uh planning uh
[1:14:16] meeting about this topic, um
there we were told that um the fire
[1:14:24] access roadway
doesn't necessarily have to be 20 ft
[1:14:29] wide per the um court of Madera
Municipal Code. Um that's not um what
[1:14:37] I've been experiencing.
um and dealing with um fire uh
[1:14:44] department and trying to see what's
compliant and um I'd just like to get uh
[1:14:51] some clarity on, you know, if there's an
existing frontage road, you're doing
[1:14:56] your lot split that's been a fire access
road for the neighborhood for, you know,
[1:15:03] as long as the neighborhood has existed.
Um, is that allowed to continue or or
[1:15:10] not? Because I get um one set of answers
from planning and a different set of
[1:15:16] answers from fire and um we need to um
unite the two.
[1:15:25] » Thank you. Is there anyone else who
would like to speak on this topic?
[1:15:30] Right.
[1:15:40] Thank you, Lucinda Smith. Again, thank
you, council, for giving us the time to
[1:15:45] kind of express our concerns and
questions. I do have some questions.
[1:15:50] Um with regard to the buyer impact fee,
is it applicable just to the new uh
[1:15:58] applications or is it applicable to all
residents courta? How will it be build?
[1:16:04] Is it build to the property owners or is
it build to the um developer?
[1:16:10] Um I wanted to talk about the number of
units that we have to provide housing
[1:16:15] for. 725 I believe is the number over
the current um arena period or your
[1:16:24] current period. We're two years into
that period and we've already approved
[1:16:29] or are about to approve 549
units which is over 50%. So I wonder
[1:16:37] what happens in a year or two when we
have another one come through and then
[1:16:42] another one come through. How long will
we let these go on so that our town
[1:16:48] doesn't get completely overbuilt? We
don't have the infrastructure to support
[1:16:53] it. So, I'm concerned about that.
Um, and I I wanted to
[1:16:59] um
[1:17:06] what's the basis for determining the
fire impact fee and who it applies to? I
[1:17:11] think I kind of already covered that
question, but I wanted to understand who
[1:17:17] pays for it and and how it's
built out to
[1:17:23] u
[1:17:28] and and I guess that's about the ends of
my questions, but thank you very much
[1:17:33] for your time.
>> Thank you. Anyone else in the room? Uh
[1:17:39] any people online?
>> We don't have any hands raised from our
[1:17:44] attendees online and we didn't receive
email and public comment for this item.
[1:17:48] » Okay. Um
would would you guys like to uh address
[1:17:53] any of those questions or
>> Yes. Uh thank you, Madame Mayor and
[1:17:57] members of the council and u members of
the audience. Uh Ruben Martin, your
[1:18:01] local fire chief here with Central Fire
Authority. Um so yes so to clear up the
[1:18:06] confusion is uh the fire department
requires a 20 foot wide fire apparatus
[1:18:11] access road to get to a property. Um I
believe the um the question that the
[1:18:17] gentleman had of whether um an existing
roadway which is 15 ft in width can
[1:18:24] still be sufficient enough to add three
or four or five units on it. We felt
[1:18:30] under our review and our objective
standards that this was the opportunity
[1:18:35] to improve the frontage of the roadway
as we mentioned earlier
[1:18:40] taking it from 15 ft to 20 ft in order
for the new residents of the new
[1:18:46] property owners have adequate access to
their homes and so that way they can
[1:18:50] receive adequate emergency services. So
for us it's a 20 foot wide fire
[1:18:54] apparatics access road to the properties
that are being built.
[1:19:00] Um and then um when it comes to uh the
fire impact fees, so Lucenda, the fire
[1:19:06] impact fees are designed um so the fire
department um can maintain adequate
[1:19:13] level of service with our equipment and
our facilities as the town continues to
[1:19:17] grow. Um the intent behind it is for all
new development coming in is for them to
[1:19:23] pay the impact fee and whether it's the
developer or if it's a single family
[1:19:28] residence whoever is designing that or
in charge of the finances would be
[1:19:32] responsible for making those impact
fees.
[1:19:40] And just another point of clarification,
the number of units that uh Linda
[1:19:44] mentioned, 529.
Um to date, there's been one multifamily
[1:19:49] project of 99 units that's been
approved. There's another application
[1:19:53] that's currently under review, an
assisted living facility with 150 units.
[1:19:58] And then we anticipate in next sometime
hopefully this year, there'll be an
[1:20:02] application at the Macy's site which
could be up to 300 units. But at this
[1:20:06] point, we have not seen an application
for that site. So, we don't um we don't
[1:20:11] know for sure what that what that will
look like. Um and then in regards to the
[1:20:16] the kind of processing of SP9
applications, um whenever there's new
[1:20:20] legislation, it oftent times takes a
little while to get implementation off
[1:20:26] the ground. We continue to develop um
materials. So since the Kurin's
[1:20:32] application, we now have additional
information on what should be on maps
[1:20:36] and then FAQ information um as well. But
we do use uh outside consultant to do
[1:20:42] the technical review of maps because we
do not have a surveyor on staff. Um so
[1:20:47] that is why it can still be expensive to
subdivide land in in California.
[1:20:56] » Thank you.
So, I will bring it back to the council
[1:21:01] for any comments.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we checked
[1:21:06] online. Did we check online already?
Okay. All right.
[1:21:10] Okay. So, um we'll bring it back to the
council for comments and possibly a
[1:21:16] motion.
[1:21:20] » I I would like to comment about what
Martha just said. There was a lot of
[1:21:24] kickback on 209. There were people who
said, "Are you kidding me? You're going
[1:21:28] to take a single family home and turn it
into four units." So, there was some,
[1:21:34] you know, let's wait and make sure that
the state is serious about this. So, I
[1:21:39] think you were just an early adopter
and, you know, just like the first kid,
[1:21:44] you get you get the unproven parents,
you know. So I think now, not that
[1:21:48] you're an unproven parent. I think that
now that we realize that the state is
[1:21:53] really digging in on these things and we
have to do them. We're doing them. It's
[1:21:58] not the end of the world. If you were
starting right now, I think you would
[1:22:01] have a much better experience. And I do
apologize for whatever contribution I
[1:22:06] made to saying what. So thank you.
>> Anyone else,
[1:22:14] Jim?
and and I'll move that
[1:22:18] » they uh
>> excuse oh sorry
[1:22:21] » I really hope they're serious about
enforcing the width of the roadways for
[1:22:26] uh
these lot splits and uh roads connecting
[1:22:31] to the lot splits cuz
in the past we've sort of uh
[1:22:38] gone with the minimum level of uh
when there's push back we've sort of
[1:22:46] backed off and I think the town over the
last 30 40 years uh where we ended up
[1:22:54] [clears throat] today
was not well served by backing off at
[1:22:59] those times. So anyway, good.
[clears throat]
[1:23:03] » Thank you. Uh so you need motions,
right? So do we have a motion or do you
[1:23:11] want to Oh, sure.
>> I just wanted to make one one quick
[1:23:13] comment. Um, you know, first of all, I I
don't think there's too much to say here
[1:23:16] substantively. The law is the law and we
will comply. Um, but I did want to just
[1:23:21] echo and and thank Pat for her
sentiments. Um, you know, I think it
[1:23:25] it's really unfortunate when members of
the public are trying to exercise their
[1:23:29] rights under the law and they find it
difficult to do so. And I know that for
[1:23:32] example, when SP9 was passed, I believe
I was mayor at the time and and you
[1:23:36] know, our town attorney was looking
through this thing and said this is kind
[1:23:38] of halfbaked legislation. And I think,
you know, we are the town, uh, you know,
[1:23:44] in my assessment as a government agency
is pro housing and I'm really proud of
[1:23:48] that fact. Uh, but I think a lot of
times we're working with very confusing
[1:23:52] or ambiguous state law and we're trying
to sort of piece together, you know, the
[1:23:57] local version of these regulations as we
believe we're required to do. And
[1:24:01] sometimes these things kind of evolve in
real time as our understanding of what
[1:24:05] state law is changes, as the courts
change their interpretation of what
[1:24:08] these state laws are. So, all of this is
just to echo, you know, Pat's sentiment.
[1:24:12] I I I am sorry that that you had a a a
dismaying experience um you know, trying
[1:24:18] to uh do your lot split, trying to
trying to do your project. Um and I just
[1:24:22] I I hope you know that that that was not
the intent of certainly the town or any
[1:24:26] of our staff members. Um but with that,
I'm I'm happy to make uh a motion here
[1:24:30] to introduce the ordinance.
>> Second.
[1:24:33] » And I'll second or Jim K.
>> Council member Andrews.
[1:24:38] » Yes. Council member Beckman,
>> yes.
[1:24:40] » Council member Roasio,
>> yes.
[1:24:42] » Vice Mayor Casisa,
>> yes.
[1:24:44] » Mayor Thomas,
>> yes.
[1:24:45] » Thank you. The motion carries
[1:24:58] » microphone.
>> Oh, sorry. Okay. Um, let's see.
[1:25:05] All right. So with that, we will go to
council reports. So we're going to do
[1:25:09] them. Yeah, we'll do them now. We won't
wait till the third meeting.
[1:25:14] All right. And so we will start with the
town manager.
[1:25:22] » Um I I think I've exhausted my time with
my report, which is entirely on the last
[1:25:29] several days of flooding that we've
occurred. So I'll seed back to the
[1:25:32] council.
>> All right. Great. So, uh, which, uh, uh,
[1:25:35] Jim, do you have a report for us?
>> No.
[1:25:38] » Okay. Um, Eli,
>> come back to me. I got to comb through
[1:25:43] my calendar.
>> Got it. I know. I
[1:25:45] » I'm ready. I'm ready.
>> Take it away. Just a couple things. Um,
[1:25:49] I met yesterday with the Marin Healthy
Youth Partnership and they, uh, thanks
[1:25:55] to the kids are on a campaign to ban
tobacco sales from Marin County. Ross
[1:26:01] and Tibberon have already done it, but
they don't have any people selling
[1:26:06] tobacco, so it was rather easy for them.
Um, but I'm hoping Cord Madera will take
[1:26:11] that on. And um,
[1:26:17] what was the other one?
The other one was oh the MCCMC's
[1:26:24] legislative committee which is a
subcommittee of the mayors of councils
[1:26:30] and and uh mayor and mayors in Marin
County has been challenged regarding the
[1:26:36] Brown Act. So, um, we have always said
that because MCCM isn't technically, um,
[1:26:46] I don't know all the details, but we're
going to allow public in the meeting
[1:26:50] until we get a final ruling on whether
the subcommittees also have to abide by
[1:26:55] the Brown Act or whether just the
overarching committee does. And that's
[1:27:00] all.
>> Thanks. Uh, just a couple things. Uh
[1:27:04] 12:18 I attended the um quartermad
employee Christmas party. Always a fun
[1:27:10] time.
And then yesterday I attended at Marine
[1:27:13] Transit Board meeting. Just a couple of
things there. Um one thing um we've been
[1:27:17] working on project on East Francisco
Boulevard for new maintenance facility.
[1:27:21] Uh we adopted the final initial study
and uh mitigated um declaration
[1:27:26] yesterday. So basically this year we'll
move into the design phase of that
[1:27:30] project and hopefully in 27 um that
project will get off the ground. One
[1:27:35] other thing a couple other things on
Marin Transit um we appointed Robert
[1:27:39] Betts as the new general manager for
Marin Transit. Um Nancy Whan who was the
[1:27:45] general manager she was there for about
10 years. She actually retired. Um she
[1:27:49] is a Cordera resident. So, just a shout
out to her because she did a great job
[1:27:52] with Marine Transit guiding Marine
Transit through COVID um electron trying
[1:27:57] to gear up for electronic buses. So, she
did a tremendous amount of work. Um it's
[1:28:02] a retirement welld deserved. And then we
reordered yesterday also. So, I was
[1:28:06] appointed um vice president of the board
and that's it. Thanks.
[1:28:11] » Yes, anticlimactic. I think I only had
one thing actually and it was today. We
[1:28:15] had a central marine sanitation agency
ad hoc committee meeting still trying to
[1:28:18] hammer out the details of that proposed
uh deal with Sanfell Sanitary District
[1:28:24] but the the lawyers are on the case
[1:28:30] » since we were in the holidays I don't
have too much I think the one one thing
[1:28:35] I did I think I won't
mention but um I did um
[1:28:43] is that two days ago, I think it was, uh
took a tour of the uh flood um areas,
[1:28:51] flooded areas here with our Congressman
uh Jared Huffman and a number of people
[1:28:58] from um uh Marin uh emergency um uh what
OEM and then also there was one thing I
[1:29:11] thought was interesting. There was also
someone there from uh one of the weather
[1:29:14] services that had been uh doing some
reporting for us and uh he explained
[1:29:20] that how they admitted that there were
some things that they just couldn't
[1:29:28] foresee with this latest storm. And um
they are working on their models with
[1:29:35] what they learned that they couldn't see
before but could see after and they're
[1:29:42] trying to work on their forecasting
models to give a little more better
[1:29:45] picture of what the strength of the
tides and basically the confluence of
[1:29:51] conditions what they would create. So it
was kind of a very very you know he was
[1:29:58] very humble and very clear that like
yeah we we really feel that we could
[1:30:04] have given um that that there was it was
bigger than they had thought it would be
[1:30:10] but because this particular confluence
of of uh conditions uh was kind of
[1:30:16] something they hadn't seen before that
it would all strike at once. So I
[1:30:20] thought that was that gives me hope. I
think you know learning from these um
[1:30:26] occurrences
it just makes us able to prepare better
[1:30:31] uh next time. So that was a very very
interesting um uh uh meeting for us. So
[1:30:39] that's my biggest meeting. [laughter]
[1:30:45] So, uh, with that,
we got the we are adjourned.
[1:30:52] No,
>> we're not.
[1:30:54] » Oh, number nine. Oh, yeah. So, the um
Oh, yeah. Well, I know we have that, but
[1:30:58] that's another meeting, right? So, what
I was trying to what I was getting at
[1:31:02] though is that we got the reports done
and the Oh, and the other the only other
[1:31:07] thing is um does anyone have anything to
suggest for the upcoming
[1:31:13] um
agenda for the January 20th meeting?
[1:31:19] » Can we make a a suggestion not
necessarily for that meeting but for a
[1:31:23] soontobe future meeting? the issue of
the ebikes. You know, we've been asked
[1:31:28] many, many times to take that on if we
could get Chief Norton here from the
[1:31:32] police and maybe I mean, I know Eli has
written to Lori Fugali asking her to get
[1:31:38] on these issues of the manufacturers who
are producing illegal bikes and selling
[1:31:44] them to our parents. Is there is there
anything we could do if we put it on the
[1:31:48] agenda, at least people can come and
talk about it and hear what's going on?
[1:31:52] I think based on some of these comments
we've had in the past several months, we
[1:31:58] I did arrange with CMPA that Lieutenant
Duanius or one of the lieutenants would
[1:32:03] attend the next uh BPAC meeting and
discuss it there. If the council wants
[1:32:08] to have that discussion instead at the
council level, of course, that's your
[1:32:12] discretion, but I think that's an
appropriate venue to have that
[1:32:16] discussion and really provide an update
on their enforcement, which they've been
[1:32:19] doing.
>> Okay. I know they just canled the BPAC
[1:32:21] meeting for next week though because
public works is kind of busy. So I
[1:32:26] understand that.
But an upcoming meeting, I guess that
[1:32:30] would work.
[1:32:34] » I support that, you know, but we need to
um
[1:32:39] respond it with some kind of a
decision.
[1:32:46] Um so
so um do I uh adjourn this one or keep
[1:32:53] going
and call the ones to order? Okay,
[1:33:01] we don't we do
>> okay.
[1:33:06] » So what say you attorney
[1:33:13] » if Okay. Uh so this is specifically
about the agenda of the next meeting.
[1:33:20] Okay.
[1:33:26] » And David Bell, uh flood control board.
Uh I think with a lot of emotions and
[1:33:30] we're all limited to providing input and
open comment. Uh I know the agenda was
[1:33:35] developed prior to the title uh wave. Um
well the king tides. Please put on the
[1:33:42] agenda for the next meeting a discussion
of the the flood events and a plan for
[1:33:49] the town to hold maybe more popup
sessions, meet with the community, uh
[1:33:54] delve into what Miss Ba uh Miss Batty
proposed, maybe meeting at the Cove
[1:34:00] School, put something on the future
agenda to show the town is addressing
[1:34:04] the king tides and the flooding events.
[1:34:13] All right. Um,
thank you. And I'm I'm sure we will need
[1:34:18] to, you know, we want to be well
prepared.
[1:34:21] » I think that that was the intention.
Yeah. I expect we can have some
[1:34:25] discussion on a more full discussion
about some of our past
[1:34:30] work that we've done with respect to um
addressing this issue and what we can do
[1:34:35] going forward. And so that sounds like a
good opportunity to discuss further.
[1:34:40] » Right. Sounds good. Definitely. So we
with that we will adjourn this meeting
[1:34:47] and then we have another meeting
afterwards. It's you are free to stay.
[1:34:53] » Yes. It's open to the public
>> and we will let them know.
[1:34:58] » All right. Now right into
[1:35:03] » next.
[1:35:10] » So do they know what the next meeting's
about?
[1:35:12] » Okay. Um yeah, I think it was noticed.
[1:35:23] » Okay. So actually some people are
staying. So, uh, if anyone is
[1:35:29] interested, yeah, if anyone is
interested, this next meeting is about,
[1:35:33] um, declaring, uh, an emer local
emergency that would be taking, um,
[1:35:40] helping us to get funds for fixing the
corporate yard, uh, the corpyard, um,
[1:35:47] damages from the storm.
Yes. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
[1:35:55] So, I'll
call this meeting to order. Um, do we
[1:36:02] have any
public Oh, you have to do the roll call
[1:36:06] again. Okay. Roll call. No one's left.
>> Um, Council Member Andrews,
[1:36:13] we're doing roll call.
>> Oh, I'm here. We have President Council
[1:36:16] » member Beckman
>> here. Council member
[1:36:20] » here.
>> Vice Mayor Casissa
[1:36:21] » here.
>> Mayor Thomas
[1:36:22] » here.
All right. Then um is there any public
[1:36:27] comment regarding this uh item 3A only
the consideration and possible action to
[1:36:35] adopt resolution
01206
[1:36:41] proclaiming a local emergency in the
town of Cord Madera.
[1:36:49] We did receive public comment um via
email prior to the start of this meeting
[1:36:54] and it was added to the website. We
haven't received any additional public
[1:36:59] comment and currently from our 11
attendees online, we don't have any
[1:37:04] hands raised
um at this time.
[1:37:07] » Okay. And um shall we please have the uh
report who's
[1:37:14] » Absolutely. uh mayor and council
members. Um so this is an item uh that
[1:37:20] obviously is related to the recent
events of the last weekend in the last
[1:37:25] several days. Uh and I'm requesting that
the town council proclaim a local
[1:37:30] emergency
uh for the town of Cordadera.
[1:37:34] Uh we've attached to the staff report a
resolution that would fulfill the state
[1:37:40] requirements
for an emergency proclamation and allow
[1:37:44] further state and federal processes
relating to providing financial
[1:37:48] assistance to Cordera for local
emergency
[1:37:52] um response. And and really I want to um
uh make sure that this is
[1:38:00] clear that this is really related to uh
the town's response and damages that um
[1:38:07] we've incurred obviously the most
significant one at this point. We're
[1:38:11] estimating the the value of the damages
to the corporation yard. um we have to
[1:38:17] basically do a this is a procedural move
where we actually uh proclaim this, send
[1:38:22] it up to OEM and then OEM was going to
support us with advocating with the
[1:38:27] state. Um and I think as well as our
other county jurisdictions as well who
[1:38:33] also participate in this and um it may
allow for reimbursement uh of some of
[1:38:40] our uh expenses particularly with the
corpyard overtime
[1:38:46] uh pump we heard you know we have damage
to a pump um those sorts of things and
[1:38:52] um but it's not assured I want to be
clear about that uh the governor has not
[1:38:58] declared a state of emergency or any
declaration of emergency uh statewide.
[1:39:03] Obviously, the federal government hasn't
either. And my understanding is it's
[1:39:09] um it's it's certainly not a given um
that we will receive money, but I think
[1:39:14] we if we do this step, we can we may it
might happen. So, without doing it, we
[1:39:21] have no possibility of recouping any uh
expenditures on this. Um so,
[1:39:27] That is uh essentially my report for
this. Again, there's a resolution sort
[1:39:33] of describing the events and why um this
serious nature of the events and
[1:39:40] [snorts] um we will be working if
adopted we'll be working with OEM going
[1:39:44] forward. Um and I think actually it's
been great to work with OEM on this
[1:39:50] process in particular with Steven
Torrance. I've been in communication
[1:39:54] with him over the last couple of days
and he's been providing guidance as well
[1:39:57] in terms of the appropriate steps to
take for this. So,
[1:40:02] » thank you. Uh, any questions?
>> Yes. [clears throat] How long would this
[1:40:09] state of emergency
be in effect?
[1:40:18] Ratifi. So, go every 60 days. I'll I'll
turn it over our town attorney,
[1:40:22] » Amy Acriman, town attorney. Uh, under
state law, uh, the council has a duty to
[1:40:29] terminate the state of emergency as soon
as practically possible. Um, if it isn't
[1:40:36] terminated, it needs to be ratified
every 60 days. So, it's really dependent
[1:40:42] on the nature of the emergency.
>> Basically, every 60 days, we'd have to
[1:40:47] review it unless it
Yeah. I mean, for example, I know we had
[1:40:52] one during COVID that lasted for a very
long time and it was
[1:40:56] » 2020 to 2023.
>> The last time we proclaimed a local
[1:41:01] emergency was related to atmospheric
rivers in 2023 related to a landslide we
[1:41:06] had up on um Marina states, I think it
was up on the um one of the hillsides on
[1:41:13] the east side of town uh to repair that
damage. So, this isn't infrequent. Um, I
[1:41:19] don't
I don't believe we would necessarily go
[1:41:23] past a six, you know, first this might
be the only time we actually would do
[1:41:28] this. Um, so
[1:41:33] » question anyone else?
>> So, is it possible that this emergency
[1:41:38] declaration could help with, you know,
we heard about the the burm
[1:41:44] uh breaking down and the water coming
through. So actual damage to
[1:41:49] infrastructure, roads, areas within our
neighborhoods, not just the corporation
[1:41:55] yard, but the community itself.
>> Well, town town property. It theor it
[1:42:01] theoretically could. Um, some of those
that we are describing are not town
[1:42:06] owned facilities or property. Even some
of the BMS are out in in in not in
[1:42:11] frankly they're some of those I think
are stateowned property with fish and
[1:42:15] wildlife and others. So
>> So that wouldn't be covered.
[1:42:19] » Those particular those particular BMS
not under this? No. And yeah.
[1:42:25] » Is there a way to get emergency
declaration that would cover losses like
[1:42:31] that and have it inventoried or is it
too late for that or No.
[1:42:38] Amy Amy wants something.
>> Well,
[1:42:41] so I will say I think in general my
understanding and again talking to OEM
[1:42:47] uh it is very unlikely that
um any governmental assistance will be
[1:42:55] provided to private property owners. Uh
even in the worst disasters, they only
[1:43:00] cover uninsur um sorry
uh
[1:43:05] losses after insurance already pays for
its share of the losses and damages. And
[1:43:11] so
that's not specific to your question
[1:43:15] about BMS and lot certainly pump
>> streets and sidewalks
[1:43:19] » pumps pump infrastructures.
Some of these other
[1:43:23] » BMS are not are not townowned
facilities.
[1:43:26] » Okay. But so they just have to be town
owned. So the pump stations, the
[1:43:30] infrastructure, the pipes,
>> anything that's been damaged would be
[1:43:34] inventoried. And then
>> Correct.
[1:43:36] » Okay, good. That's good to hear.
[1:43:41] » Yeah, just I just have a couple. One is
resolution says it's town
[1:43:45] manager/emergency operations manager. Is
that you?
[1:43:49] » Okay, just checking [laughter]
>> by the really spoken
[1:43:53] » dual title,
>> another title. And I'm just going to
[1:43:55] zoom in on one particular area. The burn
behind like um 192123.
[1:44:01] Do you know is that burn private? Is it
state? Or do you know I know the
[1:44:05] property lines may extend out or if
Chris knows
[1:44:08] » Chris here. I don't know if we've gotten
that surveyed, but I my understanding is
[1:44:12] when when R.J. Well, I'll I'll hand over
to you Chris. Go ahead.
[1:44:16] » Yeah. Um our understanding is it's I
mean it's in private property. We did
[1:44:21] find records that at some point the town
had dredged San Clementi Creek and
[1:44:25] actually put material up there, but it's
not clear if we ever actually got
[1:44:30] permanent easements
or anything for continued maintenance.
[1:44:34] So, as far as we know, it's private
property.
[1:44:37] » Okay. So, we're back to the point. Any
money we get would just cover town's
[1:44:40] property. It wouldn't cover anything on
Harbor.
[1:44:46] I I don't even know from it's hard to
ascertain damage to a burm. I mean, our
[1:44:52] you know, it's an existing facility and
it's not necessarily damaged. It was
[1:44:56] over topped during this event because of
the high tides.
[1:45:00] » Okay. All right. Thanks.
[1:45:08] » Wait, you need public comment first?
[1:45:13] » We already took public comment. We do
public comment.
[1:45:18] » Hey Adam, just one more quick question.
I assume that at that Larksboro, Mil
[1:45:22] Valley, other towns are going to be
filing the same thing we are.
[1:45:26] » Well, my understanding is for this event
uh the deadlines tomorrow. I have shared
[1:45:32] our proclamation with Larkpur certainly
as uh and so I'm not I haven't heard if
[1:45:37] they are actually putting this on the
agenda. The other thing to note is that
[1:45:41] as an emergency operation manager, I
could have signed this and then there's
[1:45:45] seven days by for the council to ratify
it, but since we already had this
[1:45:51] meeting scheduled, we just figured we'd
put this directly on and let the council
[1:45:55] um you know, make the resolution and
make the decision tonight.
[1:45:58] » Okay. And I know it's a double-edged
sword, but um with the co-op yard,
[1:46:02] possible put in insurance claim through
our insurance carrier
[1:46:07] going through that process today of just
thinking about that. Um and so I'm not
[1:46:13] sure uh exactly what we're still going
to we have some questions for Bay
[1:46:18] Cities, our insurer and property
insurance and what's covered and what be
[1:46:22] excluded under this.
>> Okay. And then I'm sorry, is Larks
[1:46:25] helping us out at all with trying to
store their co-op yard? I've talked to
[1:46:28] Yeah, I've definitely talked to uh city
manager Dench Wards. He's offered to
[1:46:33] support our our team to the extent they
they can and it's needed uh in their
[1:46:38] corporation yard. So, we'll be if if
there's a need, I think we're just need
[1:46:42] to sort of
uh dry out ourselves in a sense and sort
[1:46:48] of start to put it together a game plan
as soon as tomorrow and figure out what
[1:46:52] we're going to do on this temporary
basis. We're still receiving
[1:46:55] information. And I should say there was
also some uh because you know we had to
[1:47:00] turn the power off because of electrical
concerns as we saw. I'm not saying you
[1:47:05] know they're doing investigations right
now on the fire over on industrial but
[1:47:09] saltwater gets into electrical circuitry
down at that level. That's a concern. So
[1:47:14] we're being very obviously very cautious
about
[1:47:18] making sure it's safe um before opening
that facility back up.
[1:47:23] » Right. It also affects any of the
equipment with salt water getting in the
[1:47:27] croen. Okay, thanks.
[1:47:31] » It may have been in the report, but um I
I'm not quite remembering. Do we have a
[1:47:36] dollar amount of the damage yet or we
>> So the the process with this
[1:47:43] proclamation will also send an initial
damage um estimate up to OEM. It's it's
[1:47:49] very you're spitballing a little bit.
I'm just saying like it's
[1:47:53] » X dollars. So,
>> we don't know yet. We're still we're
[1:47:57] still we have um
>> contractor sort of assessing the
[1:48:01] situation. We've had our building uh
official and inspector down at the site
[1:48:06] taking a look and just going to have to
continue to go ahead.
[1:48:09] » Okay.
Thank you. So with that, um, do we have
[1:48:14] a motion to approve,
uh,
[1:48:19] yeah, the proclamation?
>> Make a motion to adopt resol Oh, go
[1:48:23] ahead.
>> Sorry. Motion to adopt resolution number
[1:48:25] 012026.
[1:48:29] » Council member Andrews,
>> yes.
[1:48:31] » Council member Beckman,
>> yes.
[1:48:32] » Council member Oasio,
>> yes.
[1:48:34] » Vice Mayor Cassissa, yes.
>> Mayor Thomas,
[1:48:36] » yes.
>> Thank you. The motion carries.
[1:48:38] » Thank you.
All right then. Um, and with that we
[1:48:44] adjourn our third meeting.
>> Third and final meeting.
[1:48:52] » Three meetings.
[1:49:00] [music]