December 9th, 2025.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the revolver, which is one nation.

Under God, indivisible with liberty and justice as well.

And the Constitution, too.

Okay.

Laura, if you please call roll.

Councilmember Eklund.

Present.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Present.

Councilmember Carkle.

Present.

Mayor Pertem Farak.

Present and Mayor O'Connor.

Present.

Thank you.

There are translation services available for anyone that's interested in attending them.

The ladies over to my right at that table will be able to provide you with headsets, should you need them.

There was no closed session this evening, so we'll move on to ceremonial matters.

And our first item of business is swearing in ceremony for Mr.

Sandeep Karkal, our new city council member for district five.

So I'd like to invite Sandeep to join me at the front of the room.

Thank you.

Front and center, my friend.

All right.

So please use your right hand and repeat after me.

I state your name, do solemnly swear.

That I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

And the Constitution of the I think your microphone might be on, is it?

Oh, good song.

Okay.

And the Constitution of the State of California.

And the constitution of the state of California.

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That I will bear true faith and allegiance.

That I will bear true faith and allegiance.

To the Constitution of the United States.

To the Constitution of the United States.

And the Constitution of the State of California.

And the Constitution of the State of California.

That I take this obligation freely.

That I take this obligation freely.

Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

And that I will, sorry, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties.

And I will well and faithfully discharge the duties.

Upon which I'm about to enter as a city of Novato City Council member.

Upon uh, yes, sorry.

Upon which I am about to enter as a Novato City Council member.

Upon which, we just speak there.

Upon which I am about to enter as a Novato City Council member.

Congratulations, Sandy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh no, it was me.

Okay.

Moving on to approval of the final agenda.

I make a motion we approve the final agenda as submitted.

As second.

Thank you.

And Laura, if you please take the vote.

Councilmember Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Aye.

Councilmember Carkel?

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tem Farak.

Aye.

And Mayor O'Connor.

I passes 5-0.

Thank you.

Moving on to reports from the City Council and City Manager.

City Manager Cunningham.

Yeah, no problem.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Oh, thank you.

I attended the Sutter Hospital Tree of Lights a week ago, and they had quite a few people there.

It was very nice, and they had uh San Marin Choir performing.

Also, the Novato tree lighting for our new tree.

Right outside here.

It looked great, and they had a wonderful large crowd, even with the cold weather.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Eklund.

Thank you very much.

So Novato hosted.

Actually, Novato didn't host it, but ABAG and MTC, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

Held a public hearing in Novato on Plan Bay Area 2050 plus.

And this plan projects what the population is going to be in 2050 and what the housing and the transportation needs are going to be as well.

So anyway, so we didn't get a lot of attendance, unfortunately.

So I think in the future we're going to have cities and counties get a little bit more engaged in this.

And it was held at the Best Western here in Novato, which was a wonderful venue for this event.

I also participated in a Bay Conservation Development Commission meeting on sea level rise.

I attended the North Bay watershed quarterly meeting.

I also attended two other Bay Conservation Development Commission meetings, where we took action on several permits applications.

I um attended and participated in the ABAG executive board meeting and the ABAG and MTC legislative committee meeting and the ABAG Housing Committee meeting and two other things that are pretty special.

One is I attended and participated in an offshore desalinization and pilot project meeting, which was really interesting because what they're looking for is how we can generate more drinking water and looking toward the ocean to actually desalinate the salinate the water and then actually pump it on shore.

And they're thinking about the West Coast is really fascinating.

And then the other thing that I participated in, I want to do a shout out for Marsha, who has been staffing this effort, but I participated in Team Up to Clean Up, Team Up to Clean Up.

And for those in Rin Valley, you'd be really surprised this last Saturday we did Navi Drive at Rin Valley Drive.

And so we had several teams out, and Marcia supervised us all.

And if people are interested in volunteering, it's one Saturday a month.

Please join me in helping to clean up Nevada.

Let's get rid of the litter.

And because our staff don't necessarily have all the time to do this.

So if you're interested, please contact me and I'd be glad to work alongside of you.

It's a great effort to help clean up Novato and make Novato shine again.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Carkel.

I don't have any comments.

Oh, thank you.

I don't have any comments at this time other than to note that I also attended the tree lighting ceremony.

It was wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Mayor Pro Tem Farek.

Yeah, so I was able to attend the tree lighting event as well, and just wanted to thank the downtown business association.

It was just a wonderful occasion to connect with residents and celebrate the holiday season together.

I also met with the AMG consultant just to continue discussion on their ongoing projects downtown.

And then I did participate in the Transportation Authority of Marin meeting.

And one impact we did discuss is Calcans is going to implement metering lines in DeLong and Atherton Boulevard.

So that's will be happening.

I don't have a timeline on that, but somewhat soon.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Then my time for my report.

I had to join my colleagues at the tree lighting ceremony.

It was a lot of fun.

Great to see so many people out enjoying themselves, and it really was amazing to see all the activity and people on Grant Avenue.

Shot local this holiday season, please.

I just want to thank the tree lighting committee, the City of Novato team, particularly public works, who I think the tree this year looks even better than the trees in the past.

They did an incredible work, thank you.

And then I also really want to give a special shout out to the downtown Novato Business Association who played a key part in the event.

If you're around this Saturday, there's uh not the not so silent night annual event is on starting at 4 p.m.

down on Grant Avenue and downtown.

Hope folks come back out for another evening of holiday fun.

And then I'm gonna circle back to City Manager Cunningham.

Do you have a report?

Yeah, thank you very much, Mayor.

Um, I'd like to echo everybody's comments about the tree lighting.

Thank you to the whole committee and particularly to our public works staff who spent a lot of time making sure that it would light up at exactly the right time, despite the um battle with the squirrels who enjoyed the wires.

I'd also like to remind you and invite you to celebrate the completion of the recently renovated Hogue Park Playground and park Improvements.

That ribbon cutting will be this Saturday, December 13th at 11 a.m.

at Hogue Park.

Um so please join us there for the ribbon cutting ceremony celebration and opportunity to enjoy the new playground.

Thank you very much.

That concludes uh comments.

Oops.

Moving on to public comment.

This is public comment for items that are not listed on the agenda or are listed on the consent calendar.

If you'd like to speak to any of these items, please fill out a yellow card.

Hand it to the city clerk.

I have one request to speak at this time from Matt Craterville.

Welcome, Matt.

Good evening and uh Merry Christmas.

We're on the island of Miss Vitoys.

Here we don't want to stay.

We want to travel with s magic slave.

A pack full of toys means a sack full of toys for millions of girls and for millions of boys when Christmas Day is here.

The most wonderful day of the year.

A jack in the box for the children to shout.

Wake up.

Don't you know that it's time to come out when Christmas Day is here?

The most wonderful day of the year.

Toys scattered on the floor, there's no room for more.

And it's all because of Santa Claus, a scooter for Jimmy, a dolly for Sue, the kind that will even say, who do you do?

When Christmas Day is here, the most wonderful day of the year.

How'd you like to be a spotted elephant?

Or a choo choo with square wheels on your caboose.

Or a water pistol that squirts.

Jelly.

We're all misfits.

How'd you like to be a boat that can't float?

Or a bird that can't fly.

I swim.

Or a cowboy who runs an ostrich.

We're all misfits.

If we're on the island of unwanted toys, we'll miss all the fun with the girls and the boys when Christmas Day is here.

The most wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, wonderful day of the year.

Thank you very much.

That concludes public comment, and we'll move on to the consent calendar.

I'll move the consent calendar.

I'll second.

Councilmember Ackland.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Aye.

Councilmember Carkle?

Aye.

Mayor Pratem for A.

Hi.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Hi, that passes 5-0.

Thank you.

And the next item of business is a public hearing.

We're going to hold a public hearing regarding building 12 at 6 Romore Court before the city councilor.

Two orders issued by the Housing and Building Code Appeals Board.

Shall the City Council approve?

First items, shall the city council approve, disapprove, or amend the board's order on appeal of Nevada Building Officials Notice in order to vacate and repair building at 12 at 6 Walmart Court.

And item two is shall the city council approve disapprove or amend the board's order on request for nuisance determination.

Just to review the process real quick for everybody.

Before we do that, are we going to do reports?

Or do you skip that?

Reports of council and the manager.

We did those a little earlier.

Oh, we're gonna do it later.

We did them already.

Oh, I wasn't called on.

There you go.

No, you gave your report.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, we can't.

Oh, that's right.

That's right.

I'm sorry.

Oh, that's okay.

Um so that just to provide a brief process overview of the process this evening, just so that everyone knows what to expect.

We'll be inviting the city up to make the presentation at the beginning.

There's a 20-minute limit.

Then the uh property owner will be making their presentation or the represent uh their legal representatives.

There's a 20-minute time limit for that as well.

At that point in time, members of the public may provide public comment if they wish to.

There's a limit of three minutes.

However, if translation services are being provided, the limit will be six minutes to allow the interpreters enough time to translate.

At that point in time, if the city wishes, they may provide a rebuttal of up to 10 minutes.

Then the property owner may provide a rebuttal of up to 10 minutes as well.

Finally, after those items have been completed, we'll hear questions from city council and any and any further conversation.

No questions will be taken from council prior to this time.

And with that, I'll hand it over to Steve Marshall to introduce the uh good evening.

I'm Steve Markle, Deputy Director of the Community Development Department, and tonight I'll be presenting on behalf of the co-enforcement and building divisions of the city.

Uh so as Mayor uh O'Connor opened, we are here discussing an appeal of orders given by the Navado Housing and Building Code Appeal Board.

Uh, that is a lower body of the city that is focused on addressing zoning and building code issues when there's disputes over interpretations or code enforcement actions.

Uh so this evening we'll be talking about uh two orders uh given by the board relative to sixth role mark court.

Um so tonight the council will consider the two items that uh the mayor introduced.

One is the order to vacate and repair building 12, and the second is an order declaring uh building 12 to be a public nuisance.

And the choices for this the council this evening are to approve, disapprove, or amend either one or both of those orders.

And I will mention uh representing the council this evening is uh Mr.

Rick Jarvis, so as the council has questions, they may uh look to Mr.

Jarvis for guidance.

So um, in terms of background, what we're looking at here uh is a photograph of building number 12 with the star on it.

Uh, this particular building was constructed in 1965.

It consists of 14 apartments, and it's a wood frame structure uh featuring two floors of apartments over a lower floor or ground level carport.

Uh, this particular design is often referred to in engineering circles as a soft story design, meaning that the lower floor is open and may perhaps be subject to um it's a it's called soft story because it may be subject to uh seismic failure during an earthquake.

Um, the owner in this instance is Walmart Court Apartments LLC, and they are represented this evening by their legal counsel here, uh Miss Emily Broth.

So to talk about why we're at an appeal, uh we have to go back to 2017 when the city performed a multifamily inspection.

During that inspection, it was observed that there were damaged uh columns at the carport level and that there were separations in the firewall uh protection that were at that carport level.

As you we move on over time, uh the owner applied for uh four different permits.

The first one was in 2018, it expired.

The second one was in 2021, that one also expired.

Um, and those expirations uh were timed with extensions granted by the city.

So there was extra time given by the city to perform the retrofit work to address the uh damage columns and the firewall separation, amongst other work.

So, what was left behind by these first two permits was incomplete work, so temporary structural shoring of the ground level of the building and then open excavations for the uh foundation footings that were supposed to have been poured to add in uh new support.

Uh there are two pending uh building permits, uh, one from April of 2025 and the other from October 2025.

Um these permits, one of them, the April permit, was for an emergency shoring uh option.

And in both instances, the owner has not responded to plan check comments to date uh regarding those permits.

As we move on in time, um the city has been issuing numerous uh notices of nonperformance.

These were information provided to the building owner and their representatives that there were problems with the columns at the carport and the fire separations, and it was intended to motivate the owner to correct the issues and follow through on the permits that they had been pulling for this item.

So as we move on to 2024, in August of that year, our code enforcement division stepped up with an administrative order.

This was to rail elevate the issue to a formal action where the owner would be compelled to make the corrections to the building to make it safe.

There was no response to that.

So the city then started a series of administrative citations and orders to again elevate the issue and compel the owner to make the necessary corrections to the building.

Most of those went unresponded to.

So that is basically the summary of all of the actions that were put through that ultimately are surrounding this issue of this notice in order to vacate.

So in April of 2025, given the concerns about the safety of this building, the city, with the permission of the owner, performed an inspection of the carport area, and that was performed by our chief building official at the time who is a licensed and registered structural and civil engineer in California.

And the owner's representatives did accompany this inspection.

So they went through the carport area, viewed the incomplete work and various compromised structural components and the holes in the fire separation.

And it was the judgment of the chief building official at that time that the issue was so extensive that it represented a threat to the life health and safety of the folks living in that building.

And so the building was determined to be unsafe for occupancy.

So I just want to go through some photos from this August or April 9th inspection.

Here you can see a picture of building 12, the carport level you'll see with the weathered plywood sheathing there.

That is the carport area that's the subject of our conversation tonight, at least in part on one of the orders.

And as you can see there, you can tell there's work in progress.

Keep in mind this is a picture taken in April of 2025, and we have permits dating back to 2018 and 2021.

So that lets you know how long these openings in the building have existed.

So moving on in the photos here on the left side, you see a temporary shoring feature with a hydraulic jack for support.

And then on the picture on the right, you can see some of the temporary shoring extending out of the building and openings in the stucco siding for this particular work.

And then here are the open excavations and rebar work for the foundation footings that were never poured, pursuant to those earlier 2018 and 2021 permits.

And then finally on the interior of the carport, you can see the openings in the ceiling, which are the openings in the fire separation, and you can see some of the temporary shoring in the photo on the left.

And again, these were all taken during the inspection performed on April 9th, 2025.

And last photos here, open electrical components in the carport area.

And then the photo on the left, if you if you look to the left side, there's a picture of this is a structural support or a beam in the carport area, and you can see horizontal cracking across that feature.

And I will mention Chief Building Official Setterland is here this evening, and he can probably speak more directly on questions around this particular item.

So once the chief building official determined this building was unsafe, the city issues a notice in order to vacate the building on April 23rd, 2025.

In advance of issuing that order, the city did work with local nonprofit partners to help with tenant relocation assistance, knowing that this was going to be highly disruptive to those tenants to have to move out in five days.

So there were arrangements made for temporary lodging reservations, financial assistance to help with the move out and their short-term residential needs, and then Spanish language translated information for the tenants of that building.

All of the tenants did leave within the five-day periods required with a notice and order, and then shortly thereafter in May, the owner appealed the decision to uh or the order to vacate the building.

So the next item that came up was uh the city received reports from tenants of substandard conditions within the interior of building 12.

So based on that report, the city had an obligation to perform an inspection.

Uh the owner was asked for permission to do that inspection, and it was declined.

So the city obtained an inspection warrant from the Marine County Superior Court to access the building without the owner's permission.

And so uh our code enforcement and building staff did an extensive uh review, and here um in the red bullet points are the findings that were found in many of the apartments in the building.

Uh so you have things like water infiltration and dry rot, mold and mildew, non-operable smoke detectors, non-operable appliances and vent venting, uh, more holes and firewall separations at the carport level, and also compromised structural elements and unpermitted work.

Uh there were several apartments that appeared to be under renovation without permits.

Uh, the full findings of that report were published in a very lengthy substandard building report that's provided in the council's packet this evening, and was provided to the Housing Appeals Board and the property owner and their representatives.

So here are some photos from the June 16th inspection.

Here in the first one on the left, you can see uh dead cockroach.

On the right, you can see evidence of rodent droppings.

As we move through other spaces, you can see evidence of mold on the walls indicating water infiltration or leaks.

In this photo here, you see on the left a cracked crackle on the wall indicating some stress on the structure resulting in that crack.

And then on the right is a picture of open walls in one of the apartments that I believe was being renovated, and uh doesn't show well on the photo on the big screen here, but there's dry rod occurring on the subfloor at the sliding door there.

Uh continuing on more shots of the uh carport level that were taken on the 16th.

So uh again, openings in the ceiling there at the drywall.

So that's an opening in the fire separation, and then structural uh shoring there on the photo on the left.

So moving on with the owner's appeal, or I should step back and say, based on the uh June 16th inspection, a decision was made to ask the housing appeals board to consider whether to declare building 12 a public nuisance based on the interior conditions.

So at the appeal hearing on August 28th before the board, they were presented two decisions or two requests.

One was to consider the owner's appeal of the chief building official's order to vacate, and then the second was the staff recommendation to determine that the building be declared a public nuisance based on the June 16th inspection.

Each party, that being the city and the owner's representatives were given an opportunity to submit opening and opposition briefs, and these were provided uh in advance.

Uh so they traded the respective legal council traded these briefs so they both know what the others were arguing, and they are provided to the appeals board in advance of their hearing.

Um at the hearing, the appeals board considered documentary evidence submitted by both parties.

So the briefs and other documentary evidence presented there.

Live testimony was given by witnesses, including an expert witness uh for the owner, as well as members of the public who made public comments during public comment time, and then, of course, our building official and code enforcement officer were there to give testimony as well.

And then the board also heard legal arguments uh from both uh legal counsel.

So, based on the evidence and testimony that was uh presented at the hearing, the board uh unanimously found.

So this was a 5-0 vote.

That uh on the first issue, the order of the order the appeal of the order to vacate, the board determined that building 12 is an unsafe structure, it is a public nuisance and shall be vacated, and they ordered the owner to repair or demolish the building accordingly with all applicable codes.

On the second point on declaring the building a public nuisance based on the substandard building report, the board also unanimously found that building 12 is a public nuisance uh under the Novata municipal code, and they ordered the owner to abate all the code violations subject to a timeline prepared by staff.

Uh so shortly after the uh board made its decision.

Uh the owner was provided final copies of that order, and then shortly thereafter, a second uh writing was sent to the owner with staff's timeline to correct the issues that were uh covered in the order and the substandard building report.

So on September 4th, the owner appealed the board's uh decisions, and that's why we're here this evening.

Uh the owner alleges that there are due process issues with what the board did and how the city has presented its case.

Um the owner's um writings on that issue are provided for the council this evening.

So that's an appeal statement, an opening brief, and an objection brief.

And I also do believe this afternoon.

Uh Ms.

Bruff representing the owner submitted two sample resolutions uh to the for the council's consideration.

That's that correct.

It is correct.

My understanding is that when she um comes up to make her presentation, she'll provide those to the council.

Thank you.

Uh so this evening, staff has presented a written report uh as a rebuttal to the points of appeal that have been submitted by the owner.

Um and I think that staff report summarizes a larger record showing um the following.

Number one, that there's substantial evidence of substandard building conditions.

That's apparent in the April 9th, 2025 inspection, and that's apparent in the June 16th inspection that there are issues with this building that are quite serious and justify issuing an order to vacate and a nuisance declaration.

Uh, this third point here is the timeline for abatement was reasonable.

Um, and I will say that if there were concerns about that timeline, staff was opening to have a conversation with the owner about those issues because our goal here is to resolve this issue, not to delay or defer.

Um the second one here, or the um fourth one, the city over a lengthy period of time has sent numerous notices to the owner and had numerous contacts trying to resolve this without ultimately arriving here or going further.

And there have always been opportunities for the owner to correct these conditions, and they've failed.

And so with that, um the last point here is there is no defect in due process.

The hearing tonight is part of that process, and there's Apple opportunity for the owner to represent themselves and respond.

Um so with that, um, I will go into staff's recommendations.

So for this evening, uh, we're asking the council to adopt a resolution that does the following.

It approves the board's order on appeal, uh, essentially approving the notice and order to vacate as issued by the board, approving the board's order on the nuisance determination, ordering the owner to comply with both of those orders, and then authorizing the city attorney to seek uh court enforcement if the owner fails to comply with the council's orders, and then confirming the city's entitlement to recover costs from its costs for this process from the owner.

And so, with that, um I will conclude staff's presentation and return to the council.

Thank you very much, Stu.

And so now I'd like to invite the property owner's legal representative, Emily Brough up to make her presentation.

Welcome, Emily.

Okay.

Good evening, Mayor O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tempor Farrak, and Council members.

My name is Emily Bruff, attorney for the owner at the subject property at Six Romer Court, building twelve.

Draft resolutions.

I also submitted them in Word version to Mr.

Jarvis this afternoon.

But I have paper copies here that I can give to.

So this appeal presents the separate but related questions of whether the city's order to vacate and the decision that the property constitutes a public nuisance.

Yes, sorry.

This appeal presents the separate but related questions about whether the city's order to vacate and the decision that the property constitutes a public nuisance should be upheld.

There's no question that this property needs work.

So we believe the evidence will show that the board's order should not be upheld because there was no emergency justifying the vacation of the building, nor did nor does the property pose a substantial hazard to the community, such as to constitute a public nuisance.

So starting with the notice in order to vacate.

This is a state law standard which controls here.

So again, there's no dispute that the building needs work, but the levels of violation needed to order out the occupants are simply not present.

So there has been communication as staff cited between the city and the owner, occurring for several years as far back as 2017 for various building permit matters.

And the direction from the city to ownership up until April 23rd of this year, not once indicated that the city believed that the building was so dangerous and the violation so extensive that all the tenants needed to immediately vacate.

Even several weeks before the order was issued in March of this year, the owner was in communication with the city regarding building permits.

Board member Mr.

Sneed said you can do emergency repairs, and the process is a little different than the standard permit pool, correct?

Mr.

Sutterland said yes, and it depends on the nature of the emergency repair required.

If it needs to be fixed immediately, then work can commence immediately and the permit can be applied for later.

Mr.

Sneed followed, so do any of these repairs that the city obviously has concern?

Could any of these be considered emergency repairs?

For example, like when a post got knocked out to get a permit to fix it, if there's an emergency there to fix it, shore up temporarily temporarily.

Mr.

Setterlin said, that's correct.

If a post gets knocked out and there's imminent danger of a beam falling or collapsing, then emergency action to support that replace that post.

Mr.

Sneed further asked, is any of this stuff that resulted in the vacation of the property would fall under an emergency repair?

And Mr.

Setterland replied, no.

In addition, prior to uh issuing the notice and order, the owner had been working on getting a list of items together as requested by the city.

At the hearing, uh chief building official Setterlin said he did not respond to the owner's engineer during that process simply because he didn't want to.

When asked, if do you recall Kevin Treat, an engineer contacting you on March 31st, Mr.

Sederland said yes and asked what did you respond to him?

He said no.

Why not?

Mr.

Sutterlin said, because I had already made my point real clear in the incompleteness letter that a geotech report was required.

And when asked, so you didn't want to have any communication with him, Mr.

Setterlin responded, no.

He also did not communicate with the owner's agent when contacted on April 3rd about the pending permit.

He ignored them and issued the notice instead.

And when asked, so the solution was to issue the notice to vacate instead of communicate with the engineer.

Mr.

Setterlin simply replied, my opinion was a part of the incompleteness letter.

So rather than work cooperatively without and with open communication with the owner and the experts, the city decided to issue this notice instead to try and force the owner's hand into making the repairs, but which just did not justify in order to vacate the property.

In addition, two days after the order was issued, the owner's engineer, Dr.

Peter Geisler submitted a temporary shoring plan, which would have corrected any alleged emergency structural issues at the property.

Notably, Mr.

Geisler submitted a declaration stating that the tenants could remain safely at the property while repairs were made, and that's in the record.

Dr.

Geisler is a local, very experienced Stanford Berkeley and Yale educated engineer.

At the board hearing, he explained that one of the deficiencies in the city enforcement efforts is that its staff was not following the building code that applies to the property, which was built in the 1960s.

He first clarified, I know this building and I've worked with this owner for many years with his other buildings in San Francisco.

So we have a long building owner relationship with an engineer, but I am not here as a paid consultant today.

I'm here to give you express my opinion as a professional engineer, because my highest fiduciary duty is to the safety and well-being of the citizens of California.

And that's why I'm here today speaking.

So I'm speaking on my behalf, not their behalf.

He went on to explain, I'd like to point out something that you need to understand at the onset of this.

There's sort of a melancholy chain of a misventure having to do with code compliance.

This particular building was built in 1965.

The applicable building code of the time was the 1964 uniform building code, not the current 2022 building code.

So be mindful that when your building inspector, your chief building official, looks at the building, he's got the glasses on now.

He's interpreted he's interpreted current codes, that's what he does all day long.

In this particular case, that's the wrong set of glasses.

He should be using an old set of bifocals from 1964 instead because that's the applicable building code.

So that's my important point that I want to bring to your attention.

I think when you take that into consideration, you'll realize that much of the discussion about seismic safety is couched in the current language in the current code and is frankly not applicable.

However, the city did not consider this, nor did the city even respond to him or is submission of the temporary shoring plans, which he submitted two days after the notice was issued.

We can immediately go in and fix anything that's been asked of us, but when we were precluded to do so, and then we're ending up with a situation where the poor tenants of the buildings have been displaced now for weeks and weeks.

Everybody's at a loggerhead, and this thing could have been solved much easier and much more quickly.

After the owner submitted the emergency shoring plan, again, two days after the order was issued, and three days before the tenants were required to vacate, the owner submitted structural and fire separation report on May 9th for the city's request.

It followed, excuse me, by submitting building permits on May 22nd.

The city didn't respond for several weeks and then deemed them incomplete.

This is all to say that this delay has not been the city is pinning the delay in this on the owner, but it's been a a joint delay, I would say, and it's persisted both prior to and since the notices issued.

Vacating the building without justification based on the actual issues of the property instead of working cooperatively, has led us to where we are today.

The April order to vacate was not sufficiently supported.

And the city has tried to retroactively back that up now with its subsequent June inspection report.

It lists alleged violations of the property that have nothing to do with the violations in the order.

This is extensively detailed in the briefing.

But in short, due process does not permit this type of government behavior.

That is issuing one order and then searching for alleged search new problems to justify that order.

That's what's happened here.

The building official has admitted that the type of permit needed to correct the issues of property are not emergency ones.

The temporary shoring plan was not considered, and there was no finding of imminent danger prior to issuing the April notice and order, which is required before a building is vacated.

There are multiple other due process violations here in the order itself.

The health and safety code requires that the orders say whether a public hearing on the property will be held or not.

It doesn't say it.

The order also failed to include any reference to Civil Code Section 1942.5 to inform the owner and tenants of the rights, which is expressly required by the code section authorizing such an order.

These are basic notice requirements that were not followed.

Regarding the public nuisance issue, the arguments are similar, and I'm not going to repeat them.

In the briefing before the board, the city improperly argued that a private nuisance standard applies here, which does not.

Private nuisance can be as broad as anything injurious to the health.

Private nuisance is significantly lower standard than a public nuisance, which is what the city is requesting this council uphold today.

So the public nuisance standard is one that's uh the city must prove there is a substantial and unreasonable interference to the community.

And the evidence and documentation and history in this case, as already presented, established at the property, just simply does not rise to this level.

It does not endanger an entire neighborhood or community.

The property has needed repairs and has been in substantially the same condition for years, but has had relatively minor violations up until the city escalated in this April.

The owner has continuously worked with the city on correcting, and while there has been some delay, the city has made really only minimal enforcement efforts up until now.

In addition, the city started enforcement efforts on the public nuisance matter after it vacated the property and it had a safety fence around it, it.

It was barricade.

It was not impacting anyone at all.

The reviewing board conceded the property was not, did not appear to be a danger or a nuisance in this condition, but decided to declare it one so it would have leverage to speed up the repair process.

Board member Mr.

Rand opined, you know, the point I'm getting at.

If I board it up my window and the guy across the street has to look at that, does that make me a nuisance and therefore it's a problem because he doesn't like a board-ed up window?

No, it's my window.

I can do what I want.

Being out there in the building, no apparent neighbor is impacted, everybody's playing, cars are parking.

There's a fence around it, so nobody can have access or nothing.

And but the point I'm getting at is that if you correct me if I'm wrong, but if you don't declare a nuisance, what leverage do you have to get them to complete the work?

The board also said they were fed up and pulling the trigger to declare a nuisance was the only way to get compliance.

Mr.

Ren again opined, and in my view, a lot of it is the human interaction.

And when you're dealing with a builder or a client that has, you know, a number of building permits, inspection reports, etc.

It's everybody's kind of getting I'm done with this.

So let's just pull the trigger and give them a notification that we'll need them to vacate.

That's my impression because of the absence of performance.

So the city falls far short of its burden to establish vacating the building, and that this affects a large community.

The owner uh again does not dispute and is never disputed that there are violations that exist at the property.

The owner all the way up to and after the notice was issued, has continuously worked with the city to correct these issues.

But while some issues exist, they are simply not the kind that justify forcing all tenants out of the property within five days, plus requiring the owner to pay their relocation costs.

The April order and investigation that preceded it simply did not support a finding, especially when an expert submitted a shoring plan two days later that would have remediated any speculative danger and allowed the tenants to remain safely in their homes.

So compliance with the code here can and must be achieved, but it should be and must be achieved lawfully.

The city's order went too far, it went too fast, and it ignored the tools the law provides for balance and safety with fairness.

We asked this council to correct that misapplication and allow the owner of the property to bring the property into compliance without continued unnecessary tenant displacement.

Owner therefore respectfully requests that the goard, excuse me, that the council grant the appeal and reverse the city's uh the board's orders.

Lastly, just on the costs issue, the city is requesting attorney's fees.

I didn't say that expressly in its presentation, but um even if the city council upholds the substantive findings in the board's orders and finds the city the prevailing party here, it must reverse the board's orders for attorney's fees.

If the city wanted fees here, it was required but under state statute and local code to make that election at the initiation of the individual proceeding, and that is a quote.

The notice and order proceeding was initiated.

Notice to vacate proceeding was initiated when the city issued its April 22 2025 order.

It did not put the owner on notice that it would seek attorney's fees.

It did not put the donor on notice when it would circ attorney's fees on the July 15th date when it provided a tentative hearing.

Again, on August 7th, the city filed its opening brief on this matter.

It did not put the owner on notice.

On August 14th, the public hearing notice was issued.

Nothing about attorneys' fees in that.

On August 20th, the city mentioned in passing in its opposition brief on this is both the public nuisance and the notice uh to vacate issue that it wanted fees awarded, but it didn't cite any relevant authority for that request.

It was not until the proposed order provided to the board shortly two days before the hearing, I believe, that the city made this request, many months after initiation.

Because the city did not elect at the initiation of this proceeding to seek fees.

They do not get them awarded in this matter, even if they prevail.

Thank you.

That's all I have, unless uh the council has questions.

Thank you.

We'll be taking questions in a little while.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

So at this time, we'll take public comment on this item.

If you're um going to be addressing counsel directly and you do not need the assistance of a translator, you will have a three-minute limit.

If you are using translation services to speak to counsel, you will have a six-minute limit.

If you'd like to speak to council, please fill out a yellow card and hand it to the city clerk with a number of requests to speak.

Uh so to get us started, uh, is Amarantha Silva.

Welcome, Amarantha.

I wasn't thinking that it will be the first one, but um good evening, council members.

Um, mayor, congratulations, council.

Um, my name is Amarantha Silva, I'm the community organizer of Farm Voices California here in Marine County, and I'm also a neighbor and resident of Novato who believes firstly in justice, dignity, and safety for every family in our city.

Tonight, we're we just heard legal arguments, technical explanations, and economic appeals.

But before we got lost in that conversation, I want us to remind to remember something simple.

The people who live at 12 Romer Court were families, children getting ready for school, elders doing their best to stay stable, working parents trying to afford life in Marine.

There were numbers, there were no numbers on a spreadsheet or units in a case file.

There were members of our community who trusted that Novato will keep them safe.

The try the truth is painful, and it cannot be softened.

These families were displaced not because the city acted, but because the property owner failed to act for years.

The red tax was not sudden.

It was the result of a long-standing neglect under address code bully violations, abandoned repairs, expired permits, mold, electrical hazards, fire risk, and conditions known as in this room will accept for themselves or their families or their loved ones.

When inspectors documented those dangers, the city didn't make a choice, it fulfilled its legal and moral duty.

Waiting even one more day will have meant exposing dozens of people and kids into a harm.

Safe cannot be negotiated.

Human life is not peritable.

Now the property owner and their attorneys ask you to reverse this decision.

They will argue about the cost, the inconvenience, everything.

The court truth, the families at Romer, were already living in danger long before the city intervened.

An appeal can already erase the months and years in which the owner was given opportunities to fix the property and chose not to.

It can already use the pattern of negligence that created this crisis.

Reversing the red tax will also set dangerous precedent for the entire city.

It will sign up to other property owners that if they if they delay long enough, if they let conditions deteriorate enough, if they hire a good lawyer, they might escape accountability.

That's not a message that Novato should ever send.

We cannot undermine the very standards that protect our most vulnerable neighbors.

But I'm not here only to ask you to take the right decision.

I'm here to ask you to take the next step to ensure that this never happens again.

The families of Romer Court don't just need temporary hotel rooms, emergency support, they need lasting protections.

This moment demands leadership.

It demands an ordinance that truly stays forward standards in Novato, one that includes proactive inspections for older buildings, clear accountability for property owners whose negligence leads to displacement, mandatory relocations assistance, enforceable habitatability standards, and a stronger emergency protocols.

So no family is ever told they must leave their home with barely any notice and nowhere else table to go.

I just have one more paragraph.

Sorry.

Passing a tenant protection ordinance is just under a policy.

It is a statement about who we are as a community.

It says that in Novato, safety matters no more than profit and dignity matters more than convenience.

It says that we will not wait for the next building to fail or for the next family to be displaced.

Tonight, I urge you to uphold the red tax.

Stand firm in defending the lives and safety of the families and take meaningful steps forward, creating a protection stake every renter in our city deserve.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you, Amaranth.

Our next speaker is Maria Peck.

Welcome, Maria.

Good evening.

I feel more confident.

This is no problem at all.

Yeah.

Would you like if one of the translators would help you?

Or they'll join you.

This night I'm here with my daughter.

Can she have a microphone, please?

No, this evening.

I'm here with my own.

Perfect.

After looking at these pictures de los apartamentos de estas familias.

Of the apartments of these families.

My question to all of you is apartamentos.

Did you ask that there were children also living in these apartments?

Would you be in favor of the building's owner?

I think it's important to look at human rights.

And no family should have to live in this way.

My name is Jesus Portillo.

We were kicked out of our unit in a very horrendous way.

But what happened is not there.

Because the owner never called us.

So we had no choice, we had to leave all of our furnishings or things we left a lot of it there.

We never received a phone.

And here is a picture.

Of the structure of this building.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jesus.

Our next speaker is Antonio Gramajo.

Welcome, Antonio.

Good evening, everyone.

I hope you have a wonderful holiday season with your loved ones and with the grace of God.

The reason I'm here still is nothing has changed yet in las unidades.

In these units.

Because there's no immediate answer.

We need all of this to stop.

Newborns living there.

And the last two months.

And I believe that when there's a red tag, there was an inspection and people were notified.

Is if they receive a notification.

I have usually seen this in all of the county of Marin.

It is vacated and the tenants are able to live in another place while the conditions are fixed.

But what I have seen in Roman Park is that that does not exist.

But logic by logic.

So it's not safe.

One of the things that I want to be clear on.

None of us were kicked out because we were late or did not pay our rent.

If the landlords want us unidades to live in their units.

As I said before.

And I have lived in Romer Park for 10 years.

Just to give you an example, Council members.

They haven't done that.

And in the pictures we were able to see that there was plagues in the building.

But after living there for ten years.

There's codes, there's laws that need to be respected.

And the tenants living there were respecting all of them.

So we cannot.

We are human beings.

I also live in Ronald Park.

And I see that nothing has been changing and nothing's been fixed.

And the rent keeps increasing.

But they've been trying to fix some things.

But they're not put in placing new things.

They're just kind of just painting over it.

And all of the old stuff is still underneath it.

I would assume that if people want to fix things, they would replace it with something new and not just paint over it.

I've seen that they're and they paint over it just so it doesn't look cracked anymore.

And I would assume that some kind of responsibility should be done over this.

Because the reason why we pay our rent is for things to be right and proper.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Jenny Gomez.

I was one of the family owners that were vacated from this unit.

I was living in apartment seven for six for seven years.

And I was hearing what the representative of the apartments was saying.

But I don't think it's right that she say that we were fine living there because she never came to see where we were living.

I called the office many times, but they never paid attention.

For me, it's really important.

It's as if council members did not exist.

It was in all of our units.

And if you listen to them, you might get confused and think that we should blame the city council for this mass displacement.

So putting that aside, I would just like to remind the city council and everyone here that you know we're here today listening to these presentations, considering these appeal decisions directly because of the lack of adequate tenant protections and measures to ensure landlord accountability in Novato.

We can stop this from ever happening again by enacting a strong just cause ordinance and giving Novato tenants a seat at the table in its drafting.

All landlords must be required to maintain safe and habitable rental units.

It's unacceptable that the landlord at Romar Court neglected upkeep and endangered tenants for financial gain.

All tenants deserve protection and should be included in any future just cause ordinance.

And also tenants must have a right of return.

If a tenant is evicted or displaced due to no fault of their own, they deserve the chance to return to their unit at the previous rent.

This avoids renovictions, and not only is this fair, it will empower tenants to report health and safety hazards without fear of losing their homes.

And so many more things that come from being suddenly displaced from your home.

And finally, the city of Novato must institute a penalty or other strong deterrence to give teeth to the city council to enforce these codes and to ensure landlord accountability.

And I'll just add that a lot of people are here with photographs, even if you can't see them very well, because there's a frustration that we come and speak about these issues, and at the end of the meeting, somebody will reference that it just needs to be repainted, or maybe there's a little bit of a spot on the wall, and these are serious issues.

So I leave that to the professionals, but again remember that people are here, children are here, that's what we're talking about.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening, my name is Marina Monzon.

Milma Irma.

Thank you once again for taking the time to listen to us.

I was one of the tenants that was vacated from Ronald Park.

Because now we are living in the reality.

But then everyone had to be kicked out.

Because the vacate order was already in process.

It's very frustrating.

And if the city wasn't there to support us and have a hotel for us to live in while all of this was happening, we don't know how we would have suffered or struggled after being kicked out.

It's not fair that the representative says that the tenants living there were fine, were living fine.

Sometimes our children would go play outside.

And as parents we didn't really realize how dangerous it was.

Because by themselves they could have injured or hurt themselves by playing around the jacks.

So it's really important that everything that we have done to request support be uh taken into consideration.

I was one of the tenants that struggled to find a stable home after that.

And until this day I'm still struggling to find a stable home for myself and my daughter.

It's been frustrating.

And we would not like those families to also go through the struggles that we went through when we were kicked out.

Or other children to suffer more.

Yes, that's the problem.

I'm one of the little kids that got affected.

I always thought that she used the handheld I I can't hear her at all.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you for coming.

Um I'm one of the children that were suffering for this.

I always played outside, but I told my friends to not go around where the thing was broken.

I was scared if it will fall if all this stuff until one day my mom came picking me up sad and telling me that the house we had to leave the house in two, three days or four days.

I'm like, how are we gonna leave everything?

We just had one suitcase, a lot of backpacks.

I had to use my backpack from school to help everybody, my teacher keeps on helping us.

She always thinks that we are always gonna be okay, that no nothing wrong will happen, and if we need her help, she always will be for us.

And then I said thank you very much, and then we had to leave.

We had to leave some stuff.

My birthday's coming up, my mom said we can't do a party.

Because we don't have enough money for it.

That's why I said that's okay, because the only thing I want is my dad.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

You're very brave.

At this time I don't have any other requests to speak, Laura.

Okay.

So we'll conclude public comment at this time.

I've received a request for a brief recess.

Um so we'll uh resume the meeting at seven thirty, at which point the city and the property owner may provide the rebuttals, and then council members will provide their questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

We're gonna reconvene in one minute.

Okay, we're about to reconvene.

Okay.

So our meetings reconvene at seven thirty.

At this point, we're gonna move on to rebuttals.

Uh, I'll open it up to the city if they would like to make a rebuttal argument.

You have up to 10 minutes if you wish to take advantage of it back.

Yeah, I would happy to be happy to do that, Mayor.

And council members.

Gary Bell representing staff in these proceedings.

Um, we do believe that the staff report that's been submitted adequately rebuts um what was presented earlier, so we're happy to answer any questions should the council have any about the specific points that were raised or the specific points that we have in the staff report, but we do think that's rebutted adequately by the record in the staff report that's been presented.

Um, on the attorney's fees, I would like to make a couple notes.

Um she made a point that the costs and attorney's fees are not recoverable in part because of the notice and and whether or not these were elected at the initiation of the proceedings.

I would draw the council's attention to the end of the staff report, subdivision G, that provides the notices.

Um these are two separate proceedings.

There's a nuisance um proceeding that started at the board.

There's the notice in order to vacate that started on April 23, following a long history of code enforcement.

These are separate proceedings, the facts are shared between them, but they are separate proceedings legal.

They follow different legal standards, they had different notices, they were held as different hearings, and even before you tonight, there are two separate orders that you are considering.

So these are separate things.

Um the question is whether or not we gave the notice that was required by the municipal code and also other law at the initiation of the proceeding.

Uh, we believe that we did.

Um the notices speak for themselves.

You have a record here in front of you, um, and that I um that you can review and that we can talk about as well.

Um, but we believe those notices were adequate and were made at the um initiation of the proceeding.

I will pause there.

Um if there are any questions though, we're happy to answer them.

We have the deputy director, uh, the chief building official, and also the chief code enforcement officer here to answer any questions.

Should the council have any.

Thank you very much.

Does that conclude your rebuttal?

Okay.

And at this point, I'd like to offer Ms.

Broad the opportunity to provide a rebuttal on behalf of the property owner.

Okay.

There we go.

Okay.

Before I turn to the slide, um, I did want to just note you heard from the residents of the property tonight about their grievances with the owner.

Um I did want to note to the council.

Obviously, the issue before you is much more narrow here today.

Uh, the residents have the right to seek their own legal remedies against the owner, and they have done so.

That is a separate ongoing court proceeding.

Um before this council, the issue is narrow.

It is whether the violations rise to the standard under the health and safety code and under public nuisance law.

And we submit that they do not.

There was also some discussion about a Jack or JACs at the property.

Um, and a picture appears of one of those in the staff report.

Um, and as a lay person, and I include myself in that category, I don't have an engineering degree.

Um, I agree that it looks worrisome, but this was actually discussed at length during the board appeal hearing.

And Dr.

Geisler opined on it, and it's up here.

And I've highlighted some pertinent parts.

He says there's a picture of a wooden column with a big screw jack at the bottom, and the screwjack is like a hydraulic jack, except you literally tighten it up like a proper screw.

I've looked at it and it's fine.

Would I stand underneath the building with that screw jack in place?

Absolutely.

And I do that all day long, every day on lots of buildings because these big, magnificently strong screwjacks are at least as strong as the original hardware.

That's not dangerous.

Many, many buildings.

Sorry.

So be mindful that that is, it has sort of a visual impact that something is terribly wrong, but allow me to advise you that that's an illusion.

It's nothing dangerous about them.

And then I did want to note also, um, that I this is something I meant to raise in my opening.

Uh Dr.

Geisler says, I asked to go into the building immediately after these read the building was red tags so that I could do a proper seismic analysis according to the 1964 building code, which is the applicable one.

And then I was told by the chief building official that I could not, no one could enter the building but for doing repairs.

But of course, we didn't have a repair plan because we can't get a permit for the repairs.

And so there was some discussion about the JACK, so I did want to raise that.

With respect to the attorneys' fees, I agree the record speaks for itself.

The initiation of the um the notice and order to vacate occurred in April of this year.

Again, there was no mention of a request for attorney's fees until a couple of days.

Well, in the opposition brief and later August, and then a couple of days officially with the authority cited a couple of days before the hearing.

The nuisance proceeding was initiated, I believe, in June.

Um the city put the owner on notice that they would be seeking a notice an issue, uh, a nuisance decision that is.

And then again, the briefing schedule that followed was combined with the uh the notice to vacate matter, filed the opening brief on the nuisance issue, did not put the donor on notice it was seeking attorneys' fees.

The public hearing notice was issued, did not put the notice owner on notice it was circling uh seeking attorney's fees.

So, in any event, these were not the city did not elect this uh remedy at the initiation of the proceeding, and that's that's what the language in the statute requires.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so at this point I'm gonna bring it back to council.

Um, this is an opportunity for council members to ask questions for either set of representatives.

If you have some questions, uh please use the raise hand button.

Councilmember Eklund.

Uh I have a couple of questions.

First of all, um the attorney for the owner of the property indicated that the 1964 building code applies.

Uh could you help me to understand that issue?

And um, sure.

Um I might also call on the chief building official, but I'll I'll have the first go at it.

Um, so buildings are built to the code that are in effect at the time, of course, and the building codes are updated every three years, at least they were recently.

Now it's every six years.

But um, this city just went through um uh a building code update as other jurisdictions in the state of California did.

So it is true that there was a different building code in effect when it was built.

Um that's a separate question though, as to whether or not um the current state of the building violates the municipal code or is a nuisance or otherwise violates the health and safety code and the state housing law.

Those laws include standards for nuisances, you have a separate nuisance provision in your municipal code.

Those things can be violated even if a building was built to the building code that was in effect in 1964.

So, what I hearing is that uh the building codes applied to 1964, but because of the municipal law that we have, um, they also have to apply they have to um uh be at the state uh to state on the current municipal code, correct?

Um yes, the current municipal code and other legal standards, yes.

Okay, and so the municipal code would apply to um uh the safety of the buildings and the health and the safety part of it as well, correct, and state law as well.

Right, which is really separate from a building code when they constructed it.

That's right, because the building code when they constructed it would have set the standards for construction, not the standards for habitability today.

Right, right.

Okay, great.

That helps me understand that part of it.

I'm gonna go through my notes for others.

Wow, other council members to ask questions.

Thank you.

Councilmember Freck.

Yeah, thank you.

Just a quick question.

Just um that rebuttal, um, there was a mention of they didn't have a repair plan, so they couldn't get a permit.

Um, is that true?

Or is there a background on that?

Um I think I'm gonna ask um if the deputy director or the chief building official um recalls that piece, and if you could give us a little more detail of the facts surrounding that the repair plan was that.

Good evening, Councilman Farrell.

Could you repeat your question, please?

Yes, so um during the rebuttal.

Um what was the lawyer's name, Miss?

It's brown.

Yeah.

Um mentioned that they couldn't get a permit because there wasn't a repair plan.

So I just wanted to just to ask, um, was that true?

So I think she was referring to a permit application that she called a temporary shoring permit.

Um that was submitted a few days after the notice in order to vacate.

That permit application was made.

It was deemed an incomplete application for various reasons, a part of what is included in the record.

And so the application was uh um we responded that it was an incomplete application, gave them a list of items they needed to do to make it a complete application, and to this date they've not responded.

Perfect, thank you.

Councilmember Jacobs.

I've got a couple questions.

Um it was stated that the building was fully occupied at the time the city red tagged it.

Is that true?

I thought there were only I thought there were a couple of vacancies in it at the time.

You were correct, Councilman Jacobs.

There was I believe two of the 14 units that were vacant at the time that we issued the notice in order to vacate.

Okay.

Also, um, there's been talk about this jack that was put under the post to secure it.

That would typically be for um temporary shoring, if I'm not mistaken, and that jack had to be there, was it there for seven years?

Or do we really know?

We really don't know.

Um there was evidence though that the uh temporary shoring that you saw in the photos.

The the post and temporary beams had been there dating back to the original permit, which I believe was issued in 2018.

So that was the original temporary shoring.

Whether the jack was part of that original installation, I can't speak to that.

Okay, and that temporary shoring was were those six by sixes with two by fours at 45 degrees.

I believe the posts were six by sixes and the beams were eight.

Okay, but the there were 45s from the horizontal to the vertical.

Yes, there were some other type of braces in the system there, yeah.

And those were just nailed in.

There weren't any.

I didn't I didn't see any brackets in the pictures.

They looked no, there were no records, it was all nailed, nailed in with like 10 penny nails.

Um, okay, thank you, Councilmember Eckland.

In the um City of Nevada opening brief um on page three, it states that building twelve has been in violation of the building regulations since 2009, and um that the uh this particular um uh action was uh really started in 20 uh 2017 when there was an annual inspection of building 12 that revealed damage to structural supports in the soft story.

Help me to understand what happened between 2009 and 2017, um where we were trying to work with the owner to help uh uh better the condition uh of the living environments, so councilman Eklin, as you know, there is an annual um property maintenance inspection for all multifamily units.

And when did that start?

What year did that start?

Pardon?

What year did that start?

The annual inspections.

2007.

2007.

And so every year we go out, we do this inspection, a report is generated, and um whatever the violations are or um maintenance issues are a part of that report, that report is issued to the ownership of the building or the structure.

And so, yes, we have a record back in 2009 during the property inspection that there were issues that were identified.

However, none of them were of an imminent danger nature, and so they were put in the report, given to the owners, and um they were not egregious enough at the time to generate a uh compliance issue from our code enforcement.

This was just notification, uh um, which is part of the annual inspection.

In 2017, during the annual inspection, it was noticed that there was damage to one of the carport support posts.

Now this elevates this to a little bit higher level.

Now we do have a safety issue, and so that's when code enforcement got involved, letters and actions were directed to the owner to repair this, and that's when this cycle that we've talked about and is outlined in our staff report began.

Right.

Um but between 2009 and 2017, uh, did the city meet with the property owner to at least um work on improvements that were identified through those years, or were there any issues identified between 2009 and 2017?

No, there was just the report that identified the issues, but there was no code enforcement action that was initiated during that time because staff determined that the nature of these uh violations were minor and that on uh only notification was required.

But did staff actually follow up on the minor uh on the minor uh problems that they saw?

Let me let me tell you why I'm asking this question.

I was in charge of the enforcement program at one point at EPA, and we would issue uh a violation notice, and we would follow up through the year um on whether or not those improvements were made.

Um so my question is is that when we started noticing that there were some violations in 2009, did we follow up each year and say okay, it's 2010, we identified these issues.

What have you done to help correct those, even though they might have been minor?

Since that predated my time, I'm gonna invite Mr.

Beretta up to answer that question.

Thank you.

Hi, Gary.

Hi, everyone.

So, yes, Gary Bretta, supervising code enforcement officer.

Um, really hard question to answer because it we have over 200 properties that we inspect on an annual basis, and there's one person that does that.

So following up on any violation, whether it be very minor or extreme, like what we're seeing tonight, it is hard for us to follow up.

So we had to adopt the policy, okay, we're gonna stick to the ones that are very dangerous or imminent.

So the other ones by what we would consider minor violations would be like the smoke detector isn't working, okay, need to get that fixed, or outlet is broken, okay, get that fixed.

That's great.

So it it was a challenge, and and to not take away from what uh CBO Sutherland was saying, we did meet with one of the representatives on not an annual basis, but on occasion between 09 and 017 to help them understand this is what we're looking for, this is what we'd like to see done.

And we would help them, and but since probably 1617, there was very little cooperation as far as when we did the annual inspection, we always like to have the property owner and the manager there, but they always weren't.

So it was harder for us to get the information across to them.

Did the ownership change or has the ownership been consistent from 2009 to today?

At some point it did change the landmark.

I can't remember the exact date, but they weren't the original folks at the time that the program began.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much for the answer.

Appreciate that.

Sorry, did you have any other questions?

Um not right now.

Okay.

Uh so two sets of questions.

Um, so for the city, that the first couple are going to be for the chief building official.

Um you were quoted in in the in the the presentation we were provided regarding comments that you made about emergency orders.

And I was just wondering if you could clarify those comments, particularly what I'm interested in under understanding is what are the differences between an emergency order versus a life and safety emergency.

And then the other the second part of that question is were those were these repairs that were identified eligible for emergency order repairs, and if not, can you just explain a little bit about why?

So emergency repairs that do not require a building permit be obtained prior to commencing the work, are things like I quoted before, a water line breaks and there's water flowing all over the place, or a uh car hits a column and knocks part of a canopy down, um, and immediate action needs to be taken to stop the flow of water, or to temporarily support the uh collapsed carport or canopy.

Um those kinds of actions can be taken without first obtaining a building permit.

Those are emergency actions that um allow immediate action and a follow-up application for a building permit, and this is all outlined in the California Building Code and the new and the NMC model municipal code.

Umminent danger is not necessarily uh an emergency action, but it rises to the level of I believe the Health and Safety Code talks about if a fire were to happen or an earthquake were to happen, would there be substantial damage?

And so that on term imminent danger is what is the triggering event for an immediate evacuation versus the kinds of um compromise or violations that are more minor in nature that although could potentially be serious would allow for timely design application of a permit and construction.

Did that answer your question?

It did, thank you.

And then um just one other question for you.

In the notice to vacate, the initial notice to vacate.

Could you briefly summarize the issues you identified that led you to determine that the building had to be vacated immediately?

So there were two main issues at play when the notice to vacate was issued subsequent to the April 9th inspection.

One was structural in nature, that we had these temporary supports that had been in place for over eight years that were showing signs of deterioration and weathering, that uh there was notable subsidence in some of the supports, the jack picture that we all saw.

There was um notice noticeable um deformation in the building that was reflected in the cracks that you saw in the drywall and subsequent pictures, the horizontal cracking in the wood beam that you saw in those other pictures.

These are all indicative of settlement.

And we noticed that these temporary supports had settled and created some deformation in the system.

So there was concern about the structural integrity of the building based on this settlement.

But probably more important in my mind at the time was the compromise to the fire resistive barrier between the carport and the dwelling units up above.

It was noticed when we were out there that there was substantial combustible material stored in the carport.

Some of it was wood and construction materials, and others was debris that I think you was noticeable in some of the other pictures that were presented to the board.

In the building code, and this goes all the way back to the 1964 building code, and actually way before the 1964 building code, that when you have a uh more hazardous occupancy, a garage that consists of automobiles with um gas and flammable materials in there.

There's a requirement in the building code to provide a fire separation between that and dwelling units above.

And as you noticed in all of the photos that you saw tonight, as well as the photos that you'll see in the substandard building report, as well as the photos that were presented to the board, there was significant removal of the ceiling elements in that fire-resistive barrier separation.

And so, in my mind, that was critical.

That with the combustible materials being stored in the carport down below there, and the lack of fire-resistive separation, that was the primary trigger for determining imminent danger.

Thank you.

Um my next question, I'm not too sure if this is with you or for uh Mr.

Bell.

It was around the definition of a public nuisance.

So the the argument was made that because the building doesn't endanger a larger range of people or an entire community, it shouldn't be deemed a public nuisance.

And I was just wondering if if that was in line with your de your understanding of the definition or if the definition of the law is different.

Yeah, there are different definitions.

So the state law um nuisance sections of the government code that apply to cities, including this one, allow the city council to determine by ordinance what constitutes a nuisance.

You've done so by adopting um section one-six of your municipal code, which has your nuisance and nuisance sections.

Those include things like any violation of your code is a nuisance.

Work that remains incomplete without a permit for no more than 90 days is a nuisance, which is another one that was listed.

Um these are sometimes called nuisances per se.

So you have authority under state law to declare what a nuisance is, and you and most other cities in the state of California have done that in your municipal code.

Um, and that's what was relied on in both the April 23 order and then also the later nuisance uh proceeding uh before the board.

Um so that's the basis for the nuisance.

The standard that she's applying does not apply in this case, given what was cited for the nuisance.

Thank you.

Um moving on to the the question or the cut questions around attorney's fees.

Um, so you're you're taking the position that the city is entitled to to claim them uh that the property owners stating that were not because they weren't noticed at the correct time.

Correct.

Um are you able to uh direct us towards where we may see that initial notice?

Yeah, so well, so keep in mind these are two separate proceedings, as we've pointed out.

Um, if you look at the end of the staff report, subdivision G, uh, the very end, uh, there's a notice there um that talks about the, and that's in the April 23 order.

So I'm gonna kind of take this in reverse um based on the way it was done in the staff report here.

Um, it uses extremely broad language.

So this is the April 23 order to vacate.

City reserves the right to use any and all legal and equitable remedies to enforce and collect its costs, including costs for the notice in order, abatement of the nuisance, and other activities for which costs may be recovered.

I think that is broad enough to put anyone on reasonable notice that the city would be recovering everything that it incurs in this proceeding.

The term cost is a term of art in this context as well.

The municipal code define costs to include attorney's fees and anything else that the city incurs in the code enforcement action.

So that's the notice in order to vacate.

And then, of course, when we got to the board.

So before you move on, just pass that.

I just want to confirm.

That section, I didn't I didn't see it in the staff report, but I did see it in the notice, the copy of the notice that was sent to the to the property owners that is that correct.

It was contained there as well.

I'm sorry, I didn't catch that last question.

So I'm looking at the the notice to vacate.

I think it's I I can't hear you either.

If you could speak into the microphone.

I'm looking at uh page 12 of the administrative records.

There's a section titled advisements in the first paragraph.

The last section of that first paragraph repeats what you just said, and I just wanted to confirm that's that's when what the property owner received.

That's correct.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um, and then after that, um there were um briefs to the board that included the city's election and notice about um attorney's fees.

The board orders themselves, of course, included entitlement to attorney's fees, both of the board orders that were adopted.

So the board below you determined that the city is entitled to its costs, including attorney's fees.

And of course, the notice for this hearing also included a resolution that included costs and attorney's fees.

Um the question is when those in those proceedings were initiated.

Um I think there's a um I think that the city's notices were when it was initiated for the proceedings based on the record.

And we think that this is adequate.

I think readings, especially the April 23 notice, that any reasonable property owner would be on notice.

Thank you.

And then Mr.

Jarvis, I'd like to uh ask the same question of you if you don't mind.

Um so referencing the section that was that was included in the notice.

Is that adequate notice in your opinion?

Or uh I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with your city attorney on that.

If you don't mind bringing the microphone a little closer, sorry.

Okay.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, thank you.

So I I do respectfully disagree with with Mr.

Bell on that.

Um, I the code sections, both the government code as well as the city code sections that implement the government code really require a specific election by the city to seek attorneys' fees.

And I did not see that in any of the language of anything in the administrative record prior to the city's response brief that they filed in late August.

Uh and I don't feel that that was sufficiently at the initiation of either of the sets of proceedings.

Um I agree that there are two sets of proceedings.

We have the nuisance proceeding, and then we have the appeal.

And so I I'm just uh I guess in answer to your question, no, I don't feel that there was enough of an notice of an election to trigger that statutory right to attorney's fees.

Okay, and then just to help me understand that a little bit better.

So it states that the city reserves the right to use any and all legal and equitable remedies to enforce this notice in order and collect its costs.

So it am I understanding you correctly when I by saying that they should have explicitly said legal costs or it should have explicitly notified elected that they were going to seek their attorney's fees and say that they were going to seek their attorneys' fees.

Costs may or may not include attorney's fees under, you know, and what the code here says is the city can recover its attorney's fees as part of its costs if it makes an election to do so.

And I didn't see enough of a communication of an election to do so, certainly prior to the filing of the response brief.

So that's my opinion.

The reasonable minds can disagree.

I think I'm looking down the road, and if this gets into court, I think a judge is gonna say that there's not enough here to trigger that.

Does the does the code provide explicit examples of what must be stated, or is it just your interpretation and their interpretation in this?

The code is annoyingly vague.

The government code section that sets forth the groundwork for this, is annoyingly vague and unclear.

It doesn't specify what form this needs to be used to make this election.

Um, so there's room for argument on both sides.

Uh certainly there's room to disagree.

Uh in my own honest opinion, I don't think there's enough here.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'm sorry, addically to that.

Yes.

I also agree that reasonable guy's can disagree on this one.

I think though the question is when did the pro when was the proceeding initiated?

Right.

So I think what I'm hearing from counsel for the city council is that to the extent the April 23 notice initiated the action, it would have had to include that notice in there.

But there was notice provided at later stages, and that is in the record here.

Certainly in the briefs before the board, and certainly in the board's order.

I believe that there's an argument to be made that the proceeding was initiated at later stages when those notices were given.

And I think it's reasonable to conclude that.

And so that's the point I was making in my rebuttal to the council or my opposing counsel's statement is that I do think it was made when it was initiated.

And of course, the rule can't be that city staff that has to be the first thing out of city staff's mouth when they speak to a code violator.

That just can't be the rule.

So it must happen at some later stage.

And I think that's been met here.

Thank you.

And then Mr.

Jervis, I just uh it's an extension of that feedback.

Do you have an opinion on when you believe proceedings were formally initiated in this instance?

Uh yes, I I don't think it needed to be in the April order.

Um I think the current proceeding, well, there were two sets of proceedings.

One is the appeal of the April order.

So in May, the property owner filed an appeal of that, and I think but in doing so, that was sort of when these proceedings started.

So the city could have at some point after the appeal was filed, uh, make that election.

Arguably, if it was in the city's opening brief, uh, which it wasn't, but if it was in the city's opening brief, there would have been an argument that that was the first time the city was speaking, and therefore, you know, in its initiation there, it could have been done.

With respect to the nuisance proceeding, uh, there's a notice uh in the administrative record, I don't have the page number here, where the city notified the property owner in early July that it was going to seek this nuisance determination.

And so that was that early July notice to the property owner by email.

Uh my view was that's when the city initiated the nuisance proceeding, um, and it did not include the language either in that notice or again in the city's opening brief.

So there was a reference in the city's response brief on the last in the conclusion section to seeking fees, but before that, I I don't think a court will find that to have been a timely invitation of the election.

Thank you.

Um, pardon me?

Yeah, I I just want a chance to respond to that too, but I don't want to cut you off, so go ahead.

No, please go ahead and then I'm gonna move on to questions for the property owners.

Um yeah, so on on the whether or not the July notice um initiated the proceedings.

Um the way that I view that is that the notice is providing information to the property owner that the city is going to ask the board to do something, but someone someone from the city with actual authority to do it would need to do it to initiate it.

In this case, the board was making the nuisance determination in the first instance and ordering it abated, and so it was reasonable for the board to have it in the board's order, and that that's when the proceedings were initiated.

The notice from staff was simply saying we're gonna hold a hearing, we're gonna ask the board to do this.

The board may or may not do it because we're gonna go give evidence to the board, the board's gonna hear it.

When the board acted, that initiated the proceedings, um, and I think that's a reasonable reading of the record in the process.

Thank you.

And then I'd add a few questions for uh Ms.

Brow as well, if you don't mind.

So earlier on I asked attorney Bell for the city's definition of a nuisance I heard from you earlier.

Having heard what he stated, do you still take the position that it's not a public nuisance?

Uh yes, absolutely.

The state law is uh in our view controlling and preemptive of the Novato Municipal Codes public nuisance definition.

It's um essentially they're asking, they're they're suggesting that the property could be put under receivership for very minor violations, and that's just not correct.

So we believe that would preempt that that view.

Thank you.

And then um I just want to steer back to the the shoring uh presentation you provided and feedback in relation to the the um spring spring jacks.

Sorry, I couldn't think of the word.

Um as I was listening to both groups that the issue of context really struck me in the sense that when I was hearing your engineer's report, he seemed to be speaking to going to building sites when work is ongoing and you'd stand underneath those in the perfectly fine and perfectly safe.

And thus I understand the city's position, they're not contesting that they're safe from the perspective of them being used in a temporary measure, but as a long-term fix, they're not safe.

Um have you a position on that?

I I again I rely on our experts to to uh to make an opinion on that.

Dr.

Geisler's opinion on that at the hearing was that this particular Jack didn't pose a danger.

Okay, and do you happen to know if he did he provide that feedback in the context of it being used since I don't know for five or six years at least?

I believe he did.

I I believe that's in the transcript.

There was some discussion about potentially how long it had been there.

Okay.

And then um, do you have any any feedback in terms of why the tech why the shoring was left in place rather than a more complete or uh permanent uh semi-permanent?

Nothing other.

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt.

Nothing other than I I my understanding, you know, our office wasn't involved until the notice was issued, but my understanding that that was that there had sort of been this ongoing um process that was really not escalated to this point until um very recently before the order was issued, and that and and I'm not sure why things weren't done.

I think there was delay on the owner side, I think there was delay on the city side.

Nothing felt urgent until um until the the order was, you know, until they decided it was essentially.

Um, so well, the other part that strikes me as urgent, frankly, has to do with the fire protection.

And can you speak to why it was removed and perhaps give us some background on when it was removed?

I my understanding is that there was ongoing construction there, in part related to various violations that were found at the property, um, and that was um that was removed, and this is in the record as well.

It that those that sheetrock or fire separation was removed to to remedy some of those things.

Um the items that were stored there, I recall were tenant items.

Um they weren't owner items, um, so that's my recollection of the tax money.

Do you do you recall when though the fire protection was removed?

Like was it was the work going on that week, or did they take it down three years earlier and just not come back?

I don't recall.

Okay, thank you.

Um, if I may, just on briefly on the attorneys' fee, if I can comment just because uh with respect to the the nuisance proceeding, um, I think that there's also I and I appreciate uh counsel for the city council indicating there was a June or June 15th email, I believe, uh letting the owner know that the city intended to initiate the proceeding.

Even if that wasn't the official notice, the notice of hearing, which is always required for any of these kind of proceedings, should have uh let the owner know that the city was going to elect that.

It wasn't until really that the proposed order was submitted and it was discussed at the board hearing that the city indicated its intent to elect fees.

So, thank you very much.

Thank you.

And then did any other council members have any other questions?

And I read one thing.

Yeah, please, Councilmember Jacobs.

So this is from attachment seven, page one seventeen.

Uh it says that uh construction progress progress was intermittent during the duration of both permits and minimal progress towards completion.

Construction was abandoned approximately in November 23.

And that's on page 117 attachment seven.

Uh also on page 75, it talks about despite the best efforts by the landlord and management company to enforce the fire codes for the benefit of all.

Put simply, there's a fine line between enforcing fire codes and being an overbearing and unfriendly landlord, and that's on page 75.

And if you have a bee on unfriendly landlord, in order to keep your building fire safe, I think then you need to be.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, we'll close the section for questions and open it up for council deliberation.

So I'd like to um move the council resolution of the City of Novato, approving the Housing and Building Codes Appeals Boards Order on appeal of the Novato Building Officials Notice and order to vacate and repair building 12 at 6th room or court appeals order.

I don't have to read the whole thing, do I?

Okay, I'm just moving the council's resolution.

And then we can have discussion.

I'd recommend that you vote to close the public hearing.

Oh, I apologize, yes.

And so at this point, I'd like to make a motion to.

So I'll move to close the public hearing.

Thank you.

And Laura, if you wouldn't mind calling the vote.

Councilmember Eklund?

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs.

Aye.

Councilmember Carpel.

Aye.

Mayor Pertem Farak.

Aye.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Aye.

Thank you.

And then I move the resolution.

Is there a second?

Or did someone have additional questions?

I mean, I just have a little bit of concern as far as um what's we.

If we can um move the resolution, then we can ask for changes to the resolution.

Okay, I'll second the resolution, which opens up the opportunity for additional conversation and feedback.

No, so I was just saying there is a little bit of hesitation just as far as um the attorney fees just because our lawyer has concerned as well as um the different arguments that were discussed today.

I can certainly provide my perspective, and if other people want to weigh in they can.

The reason I'm I'm comfortable with it is the language that was included in the notice in April.

Tim, if you could speak into the reason I'm comfortable with it is because the notice that was provided in April, and I certainly appreciate the feedback that it wasn't explicit.

Um the law isn't explicit, unfortunately, either.

So I think it it's down to a reasonable determination, and I think when you look at the section, any reasonable person would, or not any reasonable person, everyone's very reasonable.

Um, but I think the majority of reasonable people would read that to include all fees incurred by the city, which would include legal fees in most instances.

So that's the reason I'm comfortable supporting it.

And I also am very comfortable with that because um, you know, each attorney can look at things differently, and um, and so the fact of the matter is is that um we have the right to be able to ask for attorney fees, and um uh I think that um staff did um a good job um uh in doing so.

I think in the future we're gonna have to think about the process a little bit more, but I think that's for the future.

Did anyone else have any comments or questions in relation to the motion?

No, okay, Laura.

If you please take the vote, Councilmember Eklund, aye.

Councilmember Jacobs?

Aye.

Councilmember Carpal?

Aye, Mayor Pertem Farack.

Aye.

And Mayor O'Connor.

Aye, motion passes five zero.

Thank you, everybody.

So that closes our public hearing.

Moves it on to the next item of business this evening, which is to hold a public hearing and consider adopting a resolution to one, amending the safety element of Novato General Plan 2035 regarding climate change adaptation and resiliency, the identification of residential developments of less than two evacuation routes, incorporating the local hazard mitigation plan and the general plan by reference and other edits for clarification consistency with state regulations, and two adopting a California Environmental Quality Act CECO addendum to the Novato General Plan 2035, certified environmental impact report EIR, and adopting findings.

This is long and adopting findings there too pursuant to CQA guidelines section 15164 for proposed amendments to the safety element of Novato General.

If we could take a break, there's a lot of other noise in the room.

Certainly no problem.

We'll take a five.

Five minute recess will reconvene at 8 20.

We're going to reconvene.

No problem.

Amy, before would you mind getting our newest member and reminding him where you're sitting?

Okay.

So everyone's here.

Okay, it's eight twenty-three, so we're going to reconvene.

And then just to finish up.

So I'm just going to restate the item in full.

So item two is to hold a public hearing and consider adopting a resolution, which one amends the safety element of Novato General Plan twenty thirty-five regarding climate change adaptation and resiliency, the identification of residential developments with less than two evacuation routes, incorporating the local hazard mitigation plan and the general plan by reference and other edits for clarification and consistency with state regulations.

Welcome, Brett.

Thank you.

And good evening, Council members and mayor.

And she's here to make a presentation regarding the work completed today and the draft safety element under consideration tonight.

So at this point, I'd like to turn the presentation over to Tammy, and then once she concludes her presentation, I'll have a brief summary of our the staff presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brett.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

As Brett mentioned, I'm Tammy Seal, a principal with Placeworks, the city's consultant, and tonight I'm filling in for our project manager, Jacqueline Pratzman Moore, who is joining us by Zoom, so we can have her expertise later if needed for questions.

So tonight I'm going to go over, provide an overview of the safety element, what it does, what its purpose is for the city, and then highlight our work on the update, which was to prepare a vulnerability assessment to conduct community outreach, to update the safety element, and then to come back to you tonight.

So the safety element is a mandatory component of the general plan, and the general plan is required by the state of California, and it guides the city as we know that guides the city's growth, development, and use of resources.

So it's required to by the city, and it includes several elements, including the city's safety element, which is packaged as part of the City That Works chapter.

The safety element identifies hazards of concern and related risks to the community.

The goal is to protect the city and the community and help increase resilience to natural disasters for residents, businesses, infrastructure, and the environment.

These hazards include flooding, wildfire, hazardous materials, emergency evacuations, and hazards that may worsen due to climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme heat, and drought.

So we're conducting this safety element update because it's required by the state to be done after the adoption of a housing element and/or a local hazard mitigation plan.

And specifically, this update is focusing on the requirements the state has enacted since the adoption of General Plan 2035, which is to integrate climate vulnerability to include climate adaptation goals, policies, and strategies, and address resilience, and then to comply with other current requirements, which I'll highlight in just a moment.

It's also an opportunity to incorporate other planning documents that are also part of the city's public safety and hazard mitigation space, which include the local hazard mitigation plan, the climate action plan, which also addresses climate change, GHGs, greenhouse gas emissions, as well as climate adaptation, and the emergency operations plan.

So this is an opportunity to integrate these plans to ensure consistency in their implementation.

And then by doing so, upon adoption, it does have the opportunity to potentially enhance eligibility for state grant funds and possibly federal funding from the federal emergency management agency in the event of a disaster.

So as I mentioned, the state has and continues to add requirements for safety element, but the most recent ones we're addressing are what are known by their bill numbers, Senate Bill 379, which is focused on climate change vulnerability and adaptation and resilience.

The newest assembly bill 2684 that requires extreme heat now to be treated as a standalone hazard, similar to wildfire or flooding.

Senate Bill 99, which requires the identification of evacuation constrained residential areas throughout the city, and those are residential parcels that don't have at least two emergency evacuation routes, and then to also address assembly bill 747, which is to evaluate the capacity, safety, and viability of evacuation routes and locations under a range of evacuation scenarios.

So that's been the focus of this safety element update.

Our primary technical work that we conducted, and I we did give you a more detailed overview of this during the study session was a climate vulnerability assessment.

And the vulnerability assessment evaluated how people and key community assets like buildings, infrastructure, and economic systems may be affected by climate change hazards and the degree to which they're vulnerable.

So we followed a four-step process outlined by the state and the California Adaptation Planning Guide, which does a deep dive into identifying the exposure to hazards, the sensitivity of all these assets and populations, the potential impacts to them, evaluation of adaptive capacity, which is how our current systems are ready for these climate changes and from hazards.

And then we assess vulnerability through a scoring process and identify priority vulnerabilities.

So we looked at 10 different climate change hazards, which were drought, emergent groundwater, extreme heat, human health hazards, inland flooding, landslides, sea level rise, severe weather, shoreline flooding, and wildfire.

And we considered how those might affect 58 different population groups and community assets.

And from that analysis, we came out with some key findings and what we call priority vulnerabilities, which reflects the severity of climate change impacts and the level of harm, which while also considering factors such as the size of the population, current and historic injustices, the role that the assets play in maintaining community well-being, and the potential of the population or asset to be impacted by what we call compounding or cascading effects of interacting hazards.

So fairly complex analysis.

From this evaluation, shoreline flooding and sea level rise, inland flooding, severe weather, and extreme heat hazards created the most priority vulnerability compared to other climate related hazards.

Key findings of the vulnerability assessment found that the most vulnerable populations include low resourced households due to limited financial resources to prepare or recover from hazards, people of color and immigrant communities due to historic housing patterns, concentrated in hazard-prone areas and potential language barriers, unhoused individuals, and older adults who may have mobility and health challenges that may worsen during hazard events.

For built systems, the vulnerability assessment identified energy and communication infrastructures, priority vulnerabilities due to transmission lines and fire hazard zones, transportation infrastructure, including highway 101, State Route 37, bridges, and the smart rail are vulnerable to flooding.

Homes and residential structures due to mobile home communities at high risk of extreme heat flooding and severe weather, and hillside neighborhoods at risk of wildfire and landslides, and water and wastewater systems due to risk of inundation from sea level rise by 2030.

And then finally, for natural systems, the Hamilton wetlands, marshlands, and riparian ecosystems were indicated as priority vulnerabilities due to permanent inundation from sea level rise and extreme flooding and drought cycles that can lead to potential contamination and increased sedimentation during flood events.

As part of the, in addition to the technical work that we conducted to do the safety element update, we also conducted community outreach and engaged engagement starting from last December, so for the past year, we've conducted it.

The project included two key phases of community engagement.

The first phase was from roughly December through June, where we were doing our collecting information, conducting the climate vulnerability assessment.

So we held six service provider meetings from December to March.

We after we prepared the draft vulnerability assessment, we posted it on the city's website and offered a community survey for input in May and June.

And during this time, we also had a community workshop here in this room, the city hall.

The second phase was conducted from August to October with study sessions with the sustainability planning, sustainability commission, planning commission, and your council, where we presented policy concepts, provided the results of the draft vulnerability assessment, and map updates.

We released the draft public safety element for a 30 day comment review period, again opened a community-wide survey to provide community members the opportunity to comment on the draft safety element.

And then throughout the project, staff's maintained a project website where we've updated it regularly with project deliverables, offered the online surveys, and provided outreach summaries of all of the events.

So we, as I mentioned, we met with service providers and you know conducted interagency coordination.

So we met with or conducted coordination with 15 different service providers, which includes the city's own departments of public work, civil engineering, and human resources and safety.

So the list of the slide shows all the service providers we met with.

So throughout our year-long community engagement process, we've heard very thoughtful, detailed recommendations, comments and questions, concerns from the community.

So we've attempted to condense and summarize them here for you on the slide.

When we asked the community, you know what impacts of climate hazards they experience the most.

We heard poor air quality, power outages, and increased insurance costs from wildfire disruptions to daily activities and health concerns from extreme heat, loss of power for medical devices from public safety, power shutoff events.

When we asked for feedback on community priority vulnerabilities, community members stated that persons with chronic illnesses and disabilities, older adults, and low-income households were top of mind for vulnerable populations with energy systems, major transit routes, emergency services for critical infrastructure as key infrastructure and agriculture, outdoor recreation and health care for economic drivers of concern.

We took the opportunity to ask community members what a resilient Novato would look like, and communities said it would be a socially connected, environmentally conscious, and strategically prepared city.

During the recent public review period, we heard concern about long-term financing for implementing implementing the proposed policies and programs, clarifications needed for what the city's responsibility would be versus other regional agencies and service providers, and that there's critical infrastructure and hazard areas that need to be upgraded and protected from hazards.

So we compiled our community engagement results, the results of our safety element, our vulnerability assessment, and all the other information and analysis, and proposed some changes to the safety element, particularly based on state laws.

So the summary that you've seen in the proposed safety element are to include a new appendix which would house the vulnerability assessment as appendix F.

We've updated the goals and provided revised policies to address the climate climate hazards and vulnerable populations and infrastructure as identified in the vulnerability assessment, added new implementation actions to address identified vulnerabilities, and we also conducted evacuation constrained mapping for residential parcels and provided recommendations based on the results of that map, and incorporated the findings from the countywide evacuation risk assessment as for compliance with AB 747.

So I'll go over a couple of the changes, these changes that we've made in a little more detail.

So Senate Bill 99 requires, as we've mentioned, the identification of evacuation constrained residential parcels with only a single way in or out.

So we conducted a mapping analysis to identify these and then developed policies and strategies to address identified constraints.

I think we focused on areas that overlap with hazard zones, particularly fire, flood, and sea level rise.

And the map shown is the map that's currently in the safety element, which uses a threshold of identifying single access parcels and parcels on cul-de-sacks of 10 parcels or more.

We had the benefit of using the countywide evacuation risk assessment, so the city didn't have to conduct its own study and was able to leverage that, which is a great efficiency measure.

The countywide risk assessment and analyze analyzed roadway difficulty traffic patterns and emergency scenarios in five test areas, including Novato.

And the safety element update includes new policies for improved evacuation planning, supports fuel reduction along evacuation corridors and improved communications.

Then finally to our policy and goal updates, we've done some reorganization.

If you looked at the track changes, you saw there are a lot of red lines and strike throughs.

So is moving some of the content around and then also just freshening up and making sure that we were using the best information for the climate change topics and having responsive policies.

So the previous safety element included only one goal covering all hazards and policies for each hazard.

So for clarity, this update elevates the policy level topics to goals, adds sea level rise, severe weather, and human health hazards as new goals, and adds or revises several policies under each goal and includes new and revised implementation programs.

So our updated policies include policies as we've mentioned for sea level rise and inland flooding hazards, enhanced wildfire and evacuation policies, a stronger focus on equity and community resilience to address vulnerable populations in response to the vulnerability assessment and revisions to policies related to critical infrastructure to improve resilience to hazards and also added resources for extreme heat since we've elevated that to a standalone hazard.

The safety element update is a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

So we did conduct that analysis.

The results was preparation of an addendum to the certified general plan environmental impact report.

The determination is that the safety element does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts in the general plan environmental impact report.

So that consultation, as I noted earlier, was conducted between May and October of this year.

Staff consulted with the federated federated Indians of Great and Rancheria and have added tribal consultation policies based on the recommendations from that consultation.

So that brings us to our recommendations for council, and I think Brett, you are back up.

Thank you.

So one of the changes that we are proposing and that the Planning Commission is recommending is the draft document map figure CW3 includes a 10-unit threshold for mapped areas with that are evacuation constrained.

That is used in some jurisdictions in California.

But after speaking with the fire marshal at Nevada Fire Protection District, their recommendation was to amend the map for a 30-unit threshold, and that is consistent with a proposed amendment to policy SH 50.

And policy SH 50 in the draft document.

Um, so policy 50 in the draft document says consider updating Nevada's development regulations to require a minimum of two evacuation routes for proposed residential developments of 10 units or more that are located in identified hazard areas in consultation with Novato Fire Protection District.

And after speaking with Lynn at the fire district, she had made some recommendations to not have a specific unit count in this policy based on California fire code regulations, some other state regulations related to WUE and other fire hazards areas, and recommended that that unit count be removed.

And so in consultation with the fire district, we revised policy 50 to state, continue to collaborate with the Natavato Fire Protection District during the development review process to implement the California fire code and other applicable regulations to ensure adequate evacuation routes.

So, based on this revised policy 50, we also felt it would be uh prudent to revise map figure CW3 for consistency with that.

Um, so this slide here does show the difference between a 10-unit threshold map and a 30-unit threshold map.

You will see there's quite a bit of reduced area on the 30-unit threshold map, but that is mostly within the more historic core of the city where you have smaller cul-de-sacs that access some of our main evacuation routes, such as Center Road, Nevado Boulevard, and that sort of thing.

Um the second recommendation by the planning commission.

Excuse me, was specific to policy SH 33.

The draft document includes the term require all private property owners, and the planning commission felt it would be better to revise that to encourage all private property owners, and part of the reasoning was that it's actually the Novato Fire Protection District that um enforces the um the vegetation in the uh in the city of Novato in the wooy areas in the fire hazard severity zones.

So part of it was to not give the public an assumption that the city has a regulatory oversight on um vegetation removal.

Um then the last thing would be some minor text in the narrative of the document that references figure CW3.

There's one paragraph that does reference the 10-unit threshold, and so the recommendation is to revise that to recognize the 30-unit threshold.

Um I think that covers the revisions that were recommending be approved tonight.

And so with that, staff is recommending that the city council adopt the general plan environmental impact report addendum and the general plan amendments with modifications to incorporate the planning commission's recommended edits to policies SH 33, SH 50, Figure CW3, and its associated texts.

And with that, I think that concludes staff's presentation.

I'm here, Tammy's here, and also remotely we do have uh Jacqueline to answer any questions.

That's great.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

So I'll bring it back to council for questions.

If you have any questions, please use the raised hand button.

Uh Councilmember Jacobs.

Thank you.

Brett, thank you very much.

It's a great presentation.

There's a lot of detail in there and a lot of important stuff.

It's a lot of work.

I was at the community workshop that day, too.

Um, so in regards to SH 33, the defensible space, changing it to from require to encourage.

Um if we get a complaint in code enforcement, does that get forwarded to uh fire district?

I believe so.

I believe our code enforcement department regularly works in concert with the fire district regarding uh complaints that might have some overlapping jurisdiction between city enforcement and the fire district.

Okay, and um your other one.

Where is it?

Going to the 30-unit threshold.

I know noticed a big difference in the map, and we've got a lot of like you say, call de sacs that have 10 12 houses on them, and that will eliminate uh you know the threshold there will change it.

I think that's a great idea because it would we'd have a half the city.

So all right, thank you.

Sure.

Councilmember Eckland.

Uh thank you.

Um I'm a little concerned about uh changing the word required to encourage.

And only because the fire district and the city always work hand in hand, and it's always good for two agencies to require something, so that at least that the uh property owners would take a little bit more of a um sincere attempt to try to do some of these things that you're gonna have to do in the wildland interface um area, and it does show that we um by saying that we require it, um uh you know you could say we could we've required it in concert with the fire district or something like that, just so that the people would know that um uh both of us are engaged in it, and by just saying encourage uh doesn't really help support the fire district very much, in my opinion.

Um so help me to understand what uh at this point I I'm not supportive of doing encourage.

I think require is a little bit stronger because then we can um help the fire district in making sure that people do this.

Because I know there's a lot of people that are in the wildline interface that are not really looking at what their property vulnerability is.

Yes, so uh this was uh a fairly large topic of conversation at the planning commission meeting and um one particular uh planning commissioner brought up the question to staff, and so that was a topic of conversation at the planning commission meeting, and at that meeting the uh commission came to a conclusion that they wanted to recommend that that be changed to encourage since the uh fire district does have the authority to enforce that.

Um so this recommendation does come straight from the planning commission discussion.

Yeah, I know I I understand that, but um I don't necessarily agree with what they're and I was not privy to that that discussion, but um I don't see what the danger is, there's a lot of things that we require people to do that are also required by the fire district and the water district and the sanitation district.

So I I just don't understand why that's such such a big deal to them.

So, yeah, I can just only relay the comments I heard at that meeting, but yeah, there were there's a healthy discussion, and they all came to an agreement to uh request that change.

Well, I I'd like to have some discussion about that on the council, because I think it it's always good when there's you know several agencies that are requiring something because then people will actually probably do it one way or the other.

And the 30 unit threshold, um I didn't see anything uh splitting, um I don't want to use that term, but what about 20 units?

I mean, how how did you determine 10 versus 30 instead of 20 versus 10?

Yeah, uh a couple of things.

In my conversations with uh the fire district, the the fire marshal, um their requirements in the California fire code, and I'm certainly not an expert at this, so I'm just paraphrasing the conversation I had with her, is that for residential single family and two family residential developments, the requirement for secondary access is triggered when you get to more than 30 units.

So that was sort of the justification and reasoning behind the fire district's recommendations specific to policy SH 50.

Okay, okay, great.

Thank you.

Mayor for Temp Frack.

Yeah, thank you so much for the presentation.

I know we um saw this well, some of it before.

A couple questions.

So on I guess page 25, um, when it says continue to collaborate with Novato fire production district during the development review process.

How often are we meeting with the fire production district to make sure we're adequate evacuation routes?

Yeah, so for all new development, it's standard procedure that when we get a new application for development, we do a referral process that includes the fire district, water district, sewer district, a number of agencies, and through that process, the fire district reviews a development plan for consistency with the California fire code and any other regulations or ordinances that they enforce through their authority, and so that's the main way that we work with the fire district with new development.

Okay, and then um just looking on that the change from 10 unit thresholds to 30 unit thresholds.

Um I have a little bit of concern.

Uh what other jurisdictions are using the 30-unit threshold in Marin?

Uh I did look into that and um trying to remember off the top of my head here, um second.

I know the County of Marin.

Um I can uh try to find that and get back to you on that one.

Yeah, no worries.

And then I'm just doing some research and um stuff like that.

One interesting um thing that Fullerton did was they established like a secondary cat category.

So they did the third 30 unit threshold, but then they did 20 to 29 as like the secondary.

Um, and I think that would just be interesting to at least visualize and see the real like impacts to our constraint mapping.

Um, so that would be something I would be interested in, just because I think jumping from 10 to 30 is a little bit aggressive.

And uh just first um we did uh I did have a conversation with placeworks about what to do with the 10 unit threshold map, and one thing that we discussed to maybe not include it in the plan for confusion, but we could still post that just as a uh um onto our safety element web page.

So if people do want to see what the 10-unit threshold map looks like, sort of as a disclosure document, we could post that on the city's safety element web page if that's something the the commission would want to consider.

Okay, yeah, I mean I would be interested in like 30 unit thresholds just because I feel 10 to 30 is a big jump.

So thank you.

Councilmember Kirkell.

Um, so uh just kind of following the vote buttons, I guess.

Um so just kind of following up on you know questions that council members eckland and um of council member for a cast.

Um the uh trend, you know, the change from a 10 unit threshold to a 30 unit threshold.

So back in the uh earlier policy, I guess um we had a threat 10 unit threshold.

I'd be curious to know uh you know where the 10 unit threshold came from.

Is that the den fire code or the recommendation from the fire district at the time?

Um that actually came out of I'd like to transition that question over to Tammy and possibly Jacqueline, because that 10-unit threshold was their original recommendation.

So they might be able to give some feedback on maybe some other jurisdictions that have adopted that.

Um I don't have the number or all the names, but what I can elaborate on a little bit is in the lack.

Um when faced with no guidance, you use best practices to come up with a method.

So when this requirement went into effect, we didn't have and we still don't have adopted uh approved guidance from the state on how to implement SB 99's method.

So our firm having conducted um well over a hundred safety elements across the state.

We you know, we talked with Calfire and other agencies and came up with the method that we thought was a conservative approach to give us the best information to inform policy making, recognizing that each jurisdiction has the option to adjust that as is appropriate to its jurisdiction.

So we do adjust it in some places, it doesn't always make sense in all communities or unincorporated counties.

And then what we do have, as Brett mentioned from Calfire, is this 30-unit threshold, which in the draft guidance that is currently available from the governor's office, um, they are recommending consistency with this 30-unit threshold.

However, the 30-unit threshold is Calfire and responsive to fire hazards.

So, you know, we sometimes think that we adjust the threshold to be considerate of other hazards.

I mean, once we made the adjustment, the team felt that the 30-unit threshold told us, you know, elevated the most important choke points or can areas of concern in the community.

They made sense.

Um, and then to go back to the question about um who's using the 30-unit, this is done by right now.

Cal FIRE's using this when they do subdivision reviews.

So within every community, for every subdivision that's 30 unit or more, they're doing a focused um review as well.

So they've done several of these in Marin County, and then work with jurisdictions to uh improve the evacuation to come up with two or more.

So would it be fair to say that um, you know, there's uh, you know, in terms of what the threshold is, it's kind of uh maybe an evolving uh practice or uh, you know, evolving of a code somewhere, um, and you know, going back to when these subdivisions, you know, we'll construct verb and in uh in the areas in the pink, that those thresholds probably didn't exist, but were just basically a matter of best practice in terms of how you uh planned um evacuation routes and stuff.

Um okay, all right.

Well, so then the only other thought I have is I would you know tend to agree with councilman member uh, and you know, I'd be interested in seeing how the transition would be in terms of going from a 10-unit threshold to a 20-unit threshold or maybe some range in between, certainly somewhere between uh 10 and 30 units, just to just to get a picture of how you know um that would look like uh and then if I may, uh I do have uh maybe a question uh for Gary Bell of the City Attorney, um, in terms of I'm kind of looking forward to the or looking ahead to the uh adoption of the resolution uh encapsulating these two items here.

Um I don't know what the historical practice here has been, but I would suggest that when we adopt the resolution that we do add some language in there if if this works uh in terms of adopting the resolution subject to minor edits.

Yeah, I don't see any issue with adding that in as long as the staff um corrections are mostly typographical or not going to the substance of the resolution, yes.

And occasionally that does happen.

You might have numbering or typos or or other incorrect things, and so that does happen occasionally, and if the council wish to do that, yes.

There were any substantive changes though, we gotta follow the process in the planning and land use law that requires a recommendation from your planning commission than a hearing like this.

Council Member Eckland.

Did you want to follow up on that?

Oh, I did, but that's a regulation says, sorry, I can come back to if you remember.

Okay, so if we change from 10 to 20, for an example, because I'm I'm concerned about that 10 to 30 as well.

Um so that we then we shouldn't adopt this tonight, is what you're saying, and that we should um have that looked at, or would you suggest that we make the change and then have to readopt it later and go through the whole process?

Um I I think if the council makes a decision that we want to do 20, not 10, um, I think that's okay because we could disagree with the planning commission, but if we approve it tonight with the way it is, I I'm a little concerned about the process of having to go all the way back to the planning commission again.

Okay, well, not um not all so I appreciate the question.

Not all changes at the council level require that it go back to the planning commission.

It has to be an issue that has not been considered by the planning commission yet.

Okay, um, and so I it sounds like this was discussed, and I might look to staff and also the consultants if this was discussed and considered, um, as in it's a change that's already been proposed or recommended to you, and you went in a different direction.

Um, that's not a new one that hasn't been considered yet.

So I think in this context, I think you could make the change unless I'm hearing that they didn't consider it, and I'm I'm getting the no's from over there.

So yes, you could make the change.

Okay, and then um, do are we required to uh are we in a time constraint to adopt it tonight, or can we come back after we get more information between the 10 and the 30 because when you look at that, that's that's a substantial change.

You know, there are some deadlines to update the safety element.

Um, and I think those are tied to other.

Well, I'll let you go ahead and I I believe there are changes.

Are you aware of any upcoming deadline for this?

Um well, I think technically are we a little bit behind already.

Um with the idea that um SB 379.

I off the top of my head I can't remember, but um I think we're a little bit behind already as far as the timing of having these um amendments updated.

Yeah, so what I was referring to is that um different elements of your general plan need to be updated when other elements are updated, and the legislature has recently required updates to different elements by certain deadlines in 2028 is one, but I know that's a ways off.

Uh but what I'm hearing is that um this this is under a little bit of a time crunch, so perhaps based on that, and I'm adopting it this evening with some direction, and and if staff can come back with those further revisions or comments, um, sounds like that might work.

Can I make a recommendation?

I have some more questions though.

Oh, okay.

I think it would solve just what you're trying to accomplish.

Thank you.

The other question I had is um on page three of the staff report.

Um you have the amendments are organized into nine hazard topic areas, and um obviously I'm very engaged in climate change and sea level rise and all that kind of stuff.

And when I look at the different um uh categories here, there really isn't like climate adaptation.

Um but you know, we got heat extreme heat, fire hazards, flooding, um, drought, emerging groundwater.

Uh a lot of that is related to climate adaptation.

Um, so are we are we able to put all the climate change stuff that we need to do, like in one section, so it's in one place and it's not in different chapters throughout the safety allowment?

Um I just think for organization it it would be easier for people to uh especially the public, um, have a better understanding about all the things that are related to climate change or climate adaptation if it was in one section rather than two or three, and how they might relate to one another.

So I'm I'm kind of kind of curious: is there a requirement that we have these, or is there is there a way that or do other cities have climate adaptation as a as a section?

So I have no idea.

Well, so we completed the vulnerability analysis, which is to look at the impacts of climate change on the city, and the nine hazard areas that are in the draft safety element before you tonight, all have a tie-in to climate change and adaptation.

So, and there is a I just did a word search for climate change for the number of times it's in the this chapter, uh, and it's in there 26 times.

So I think climate change from my perspective from staff's perspective, is that the safety element itself is being revised to reflect climate change and be a disclosure document so the council and the community knows what we might need to do in the future to adapt and prepare for that.

I guess the future, in my opinion, is a little bit closer than what um others may think.

Um, you know, I think of like Bahia and which you know they have levies, but they're you know, based on what I'm seeing at the BCDC C level rise working group, it's gonna be faster than what we all think.

Um Hamilton that levy is gonna be pretty good, but you know, that levy has vulnerabilities also because it's already almost 30 years, or it is over 30 years already.

So I don't know.

I was just I was just kind of curious that it might help uh implementation if there is some reference in this document where all the climate change um action items are located.

Um I don't know.

So anyway, comments from uh peanut gallery up here.

So, one more uh request for questions, Mayor Pro Tem Freak, and then after that we go to public comment because we have a couple of folks that have been waiting to speak.

So, Mayor Pratem?

Yeah, so um just looking at Fullerton, so what they basically did was put parcels of concern, which are um 20 to 29 unit thresholds, so we could keep the 30 unit threshold and then could add like the green area that encompasses 20 to 29 and put those like parcels of concern um or whatever you want to name it.

I just pulled it up.

Is that something we could do so then we could kind of meet um councils, I guess address council's concern regarding the big jump?

Yes, so uh looking over to Tammy, but I think it sounds like what you're requesting if the council agrees would be a second map that has a 20 to 29 unit threshold that's sort of an intermediary between the 30.

No, so just in all one map.

So like for example, so like the I don't know if you can see my screen.

Fullerton did a really nice job, and the yellow is the 30 unit threshold, and then the green are parcels of concern, and it's all just in one map.

Okay, and this I think gives a really good picture of just overall areas of concern, and then we're not doing this huge jump.

Okay, yeah, so I just wanted to offer uh Steve Marshall, deputy director.

Um, I just wanted to offer another option.

So the original language of SH 50 starts out with consider updating uh Nevada's development regulations to require a minimum of two evacuation routes for proposed residential dwelling uh developments of 10 units or more.

It says consider so we can always come back when we develop the the regulations that would implement this program and discuss whether it's 10 or 20 or 30.

So I don't know that that needs to be decided by the council this evening, and correct me if I'm wrong, Tammy.

Our our requirement under SB 99 is that we actually have a map that shows constrained properties and there's no real threshold established where it's 10 or 30 units.

So whether we add the 30 unit map or the 10 unit map, it satisfies the state law.

What we do later with development regulations can address the specifics of whether the regulation applies to 10, 20 or 30 units.

So if the council doesn't want to make a decision on this tonight, just know that it would come back when we uh if you accept the policy as originally drafted, we would be coming back with regulations that would go through planning commission and then up to council.

Okay.

So at this point we're gonna move on to public comment.

If you'd like to speak in this item, please fill out a yellow card and hand it to the city clerk Laura.

I have two requests to speak.

Uh the first person is Kay White.

Welcome, Kay, and thank you both for your patience this evening.

This has been a long night.

Uh thank you very much, Mayor O'Connor, and I want to say hello to all of the our representatives here and particularly to Sandy Cackwell.

Uh you are our representative.

I'm here tonight from the Pacheco Valley Firewise Committee.

We're residents, and I just thank you so much for keeping this map up there.

If you will look at the uh threshold uh and the in the red, we are the one under the 30-unit threshold that looks like uh cactus at the bottom of the southwestern border of Novato.

That's where we're we're across we're across the highway from Hamilton, and I'm here tonight, and my colleague uh Neil Peterson is here also to make sure that this heavy duty safety element is considered fully as you are.

It is a very rich document, and I must say that I've spent since about May of this year studying it.

Uh and here tonight to agree and recommend that the safety element update be adopted by Novato for our general plan.

When I first looked at the earlier uh plan, the one that this is updating, um it had a lot of the flood control and the uh groundwater rising uh difficulties, but it didn't speak to our neighborhoods on the west side of Highway 101 sufficiently at all.

And I must agree with uh council member Eklund that the climate change is here now, it's not in the future.

Every summer we walk around uh patrolling and trying to control uh various fire risks.

Our neighborhood, Pajaco Valley, was the first city uh in Novato to be recognized as a firewise community, and that was done with the help and encouragement of the Novato Fire District, and I must say they are a wonderful uh guide.

We follow them as well as Fire Safe Marin and the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority, and and it we we follow their directions, so we feel the urgency.

I don't care what the whether we recommend or we uh require uh the the findings we are f we are trying to implement them and we will as uh as soon as we can.

I'm here tonight in particular, just to make sure um that you know this is not just a wonderful report that uh includes a great deal of information of our city, which I didn't know until I started setting.

And in particular, that um we would like you to know that we are one of those exit limited uh we have a we have a challenged traffic choke point to get out.

We're not the only neighborhood in Novato.

There it's listed in the report, many other neighborhoods that are.

And we have one lane in order for our residents who are just about, well, it's over 1,100 people, about 600 housing units.

And we have one lane to get out on Alameda Del Prado, which is a problem.

And I'm I'm asking the council tonight, or if whenever you can answer, how is it that we link this report to the development of the Novato City Capital Improvement Plan?

Because that one lane isn't isn't serving us well, and it's of great concern.

We went to the Planning Commission, and they were they tried to help us too, but I I realize the planning commission is there to talk about future development.

I thought, okay, so what do we do with existing developments?

That uh especially the 30 unit threshold in greater gives you a picture of our challenged traffic chunk chop choke points for in case of an emergency.

So uh my question to you is how do we link this and carry this forward?

And I'm very happy to have council member Carkell here to uh pick it up because we lost Mark Milberg.

Uh and he was uh he was watching it for us before then.

And my second question is um, is there a connection from Novato City Council to the uh transportation authority of Marin?

Because what we heard from Mark from uh Eric Lugan the other day, from supervisor now running for their election, uh, is that both the county TAM, the Transportation Authority of Marin, and Caltrans are looking at the freeway exits for Alameda County for Alameda Del Prado.

I used to live in Alameda, worked for Alameda County, um, and and the Nave Drive and the Ignacio uh exits there.

So there is something afoot.

It's probably 10 years in the future, but it's it's afoot with the TAM group and uh Caltrans also.

I thank you very much for the time, and I must say for the what I consider to be a full and complete and heavy duty report through our city, our senior planner Brett Walker, as well as the uh placeworks consultant.

They picked up our our comments that have straggled through various hearings and tonight.

Um I will now be quiet and go home and have dinner.

I'm a little tired.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

And then our next speaker is Neil Peterson.

Welcome, Neil.

Uh Mayor O'Connor and uh Mayor Pro Tem and Council members.

Uh my name is Neil Peterson.

I thank you very much for allowing me to speak tonight.

I'm a resident of Pacheco Valley and a director on the uh Pacheco Valley Woods HOA board, one of five HOAs in the Valley.

Um, and I'm also a member as uh K White is of the Pacheco Valley Firewise Committee.

I support the comments uh made earlier and online by Kay White about the safety element for Novato uh general plan.

I wish to add that our valley neighborhood has over a thousand residents and nearly 600 homes and only one street entry or exit point.

Yeah, we have several concerns about the safety of that one exit.

When the time comes for the city to consider improvements on that street or repaving it, we would encourage your staff to consult with us about the safety concerns we have.

We have given this a lot of thought, obviously, and we have some ideas that we could uh contribute to the uh whatever the solution might be.

Um my other concern is more of an economic one.

Uh I recall some years ago, and this may not be uncommon elsewhere.

San Francisco did some extensive street repaving only to have the utility company come through shortly after and tear up the streets again for plan maintenance of its underground lines.

So Novato has been adding or repairing sidewalks and completing paving recently, which I've seen around the city and will continue to do so, I'm sure.

Please consider consulting with the neighborhood communities, whether it's Pacheco Valley or elsewhere, on the other safety issues, maybe somewhat minor, but still a cost that could um your staff could work with us on so that all this could be done at the same time.

Um, and uh try to solve several problems at once at the least cost.

So thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Neil.

Um, I don't have any other requests to speak at this time, Laura.

You okay?

I'll close public comment.

I'm gonna bring it back to council.

I'll make a motion um to adopt um what was presented with the change of adopting figure CW 3 with the 10-unit threshold.

I think that's just safer today.

And I will second vote.

Okay, any additional comments?

Okay, Laura, if you please call the vote.

Councilmember Eklund.

Aye.

Councilmember Jacobs, aye, Councilmember Carkle.

Mayor Pertimferak, aye, and Mayor O'Connor.

Hi, motion passes five zero.

Thank you, everybody, and thank you again for all of your hard work on this.

It's it was a big lift.

Okay, one more.

Then our final item of business this evening is K-1.

Consider reviewing, discussing, and possibly making appointments to the following commission, committee, and board seats, three regular seats on the complete streets and pathways oversight committee, two alternate seats on the design review commission, three regular seats on the Economic Development Advisory Commission, three regular seats in the Finance Advisory Commission, one regular seat on the Recreation Cultural and Community Services Advisory Commission, and two regular seats on the Sustainability Commission.

I'd like to call on City Clerk Laura McDowell to present this item.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

So again, this is the item to make the commission committee and board recruitment.

As a little bit of history, um, the city has 11 city created commissions committees and boards.

We hold recruitments each spring and each fall, although we do accept applications year-round, and those are available on the city's website at nevado.org/slash ccv.

This recruitment was to fill seats on all of the commissions listed and the housing zoning and building codes appeals board, however, no applications were received for that seat, so that one will remain on the city's website, and we will try and fill that seat in the spring when we do an additional recruitment.

So for the complete streets and pathways oversight committee, um council was to vote for three members, and we had three applicants.

So Mark Merhadad and Casey have received majority votes for that commission.

For design review commission, there were two alternate seats available and two applicants.

So Lou got the two the shorter term, and then William got majority votes for the longer term for the economic development advisory commission.

We had three seats and eleven applicants, and for that one, Christina Mendez, Susan Warnick, and Bradley Wright received majority votes.

And please um ask me to slow down if you need to.

For this one, Chris McKenzie, Tina McMillan, and Larissa Thomas received majority votes.

For Recreation cultural and community Services advisory commission, there was one seat and two applicants, and Jane received majority votes for that commission.

And then for sustainability commission, there were two seats and three applicants.

Um Nicole Ty received four votes, but then both Todd and Meredith received three votes each.

So that one I will need direction from the council.

And with that, I'd be happy to turn it back over to city Council.

Okay, I think everyone's bringing up the application for that particular one.

Do you mind?

Yeah, thank you.

Please, Councilmember Eckland.

Just going back to the uh just going back to the um sustainability commission.

You only had one highlighted.

Yes.

Was that an error?

No.

So Nicole Ty received four votes.

Um, and then we need to select one additional commissioner.

However, both Todd and Meredith received three.

So we need to select one from those two people.

Okay.

Okay, got it.

Let's see.

So I I picked Todd, and I think because this is sustainability, he had some environmental background.

Um, but I'm gonna have to go back and look.

You're gonna look in a very show.

Okay.

They were sent to us on email, right?

Yes, I'll have to go back onto the email then.

I'll change my um vote to Meredith.

Okay, so with that, then for sustainability, it would be Meredith and Nicole.

Yes, she is um a master's in environmental policy and management.

Even though Todd was uh he was good too.

Okay, that concludes the presentation.

I'll bring it back to council for any questions.

If you have any questions, please use the raise hand button.

Not seeing any, I'm gonna go to public comment.

If you have any uh if you wish to make public comment on the end, please fill out a yellow card and hand it to city clerk.

I have no request to speak.

Laura, I have no request to speak.

Okay, that case I'll bring it back to council for a motion and a second.

I'll make a motion we approve the uh commission appointments as submitted and with the change.

Thank you.

I'll second back.

All right, and then Laura, if you'd please call the vote.

Councilmember Eklund, aye.

Councilmember Jacobs?

Aye.

Councilmember Carkle?

Aye.

Mayor Pertem Farak.

Hi and Mayor O'Connor.

Hi, motion passes five zero.

Thank you, everybody.

Our next regular council meeting will be held on December 16th, 2025.

Does council have anybody they'd like to injourn a memory of?

No.

Okay.

We're adjourned.

Thank you.

Have a good night.