The Corte Madera Town Council on Sept. 2 voted 3–2 to adopt Resolution 36‑2025, memorializing its Aug. 5 decision to uphold an appeal and deny a design‑review and variance application for a proposed second driveway at 800 Corte Madera Avenue.

Town staff and the town attorney briefed the council that the Aug. 5 public hearing resulted in a 3–2 council vote to uphold the appeal because the council found it could not make all the required findings for design review and variance approval. Town Attorney Amy Ackerman explained that to overturn that decision the council would need a motion to reconsider under the council’s procedure rules (Rule 8.13) brought by a member of the majority and approved by the council.

Attorney Todd Williams, representing the applicant, asked the council for a continuance to reconsider the matter, saying the record does not support the findings in the draft resolution and that staff, the fire department and the planning commission had indicated a path toward approval. Williams argued the project would provide secondary access and improved evacuation and fire department access, and he said additional time would allow the applicant to work with staff and neighbors.

Dozens of neighbors who live near the site spoke in opposition during public comment, saying the project would create an unnecessary privilege for the property owners, remove mature trees and degrade neighborhood character. Speakers cited slope and retaining‑wall concerns, disagreement with the variance findings and asserted the proposed driveway would not meet fire‑code design limits (speakers noted a cited maximum slope of 18% vs. the proposed 25% and turning radius differences raised at the hearing). Neighbors also said the proposed work could exceed local weight limits on narrow streets for heavy construction equipment.

Councillors discussed whether any member who voted on Aug. 5 to uphold the appeal wished to move to reconsider; no council member pressed to reopen the hearing. Council member Beckman moved to adopt the resolution; the motion was seconded by Council member Andrews. The council voted as follows: Andrews — yes; Beckman — yes; Casiza — no; Vice Mayor Thomas — no; Mayor Rovasio — yes. The motion carried and staff will post the adopted resolution and related public comments on the town website.

Town staff noted public comments submitted since the Aug. 5 hearing were included in the record for the resolution. The resolution denies the design‑review and variance application for the second driveway and reflects the council’s finding that the necessary findings could not be made.