City Council meeting for Tuesday, June 9th, 2026.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

For which it stands, one nation.

I'm not going to have a liberty and justice for all.

Laura, can you take the role?

Councilmember Ecklands?

Present.

Councilmember Carpal.

Here.

Councilmember O'Connor?

Here.

Mayor Purchin Jacobs?

Here.

And Mayor Crack.

And I am here.

There was no closed session, so we'll move on to item C for ceremonial matters and presentations.

So if the council will join me up the front, I appreciate it.

All right.

And the first one we're gonna ask Jade Stanton and Peyton Shore to come accept the proclamation.

And Mayor Protem Jacobs is gonna cover this one.

Recognizing June 19th, 2026 as Juneteenth in the City of Nevada, whereas on January 1st, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation declaring the end of slavery and advancing freedom and equity in the United States.

And whereas more than two years later, on June 19th, 1865, Union General Gordon Granger and federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas with news that the Civil War had ended and that enslaved African Americans are free, making a significant milestone in the nation's journey toward justice and liberation.

And whereas June 19th became known as Juneteenth, and has since been celebrated as a day of joy, remembrance, resilience, and reflection by generations of black Americans, while also serving as a reminder that the promise of freedom was not immediately realized for all, and that pursuit of equality continues.

And whereas on June 17th, 2021, President Joseph R.

Biden signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, officially recognizing Juneteenth as a federal holiday and affirming its importance in the nation's history and ongoing story of the United States.

And whereas Juneteenth serves as a time of reflection, education, and celebration, recognizing the ongoing pursuit of human rights and equality for black Americans, and is commemorating through family and community cookouts, faith services, music, storytelling, and community gatherings that honor the rich history, culture, resilience, and contributions of African Americans.

And whereas the City of Nevada recognizes and celebrates the enduring contributions of Black Americans whose leadership, innovation, artistry, culture, and service have helped shape our nation and communities, and remains committed to fostering and welcoming an inclusive community where these contributions are honored, valued, and uplifted.

And whereas the City of Nevada was proud to host its inaugural June 9th, Juneteenth celebration in 2026, bringing community members together to enjoy live music and celebrate the significance of Juneteenth while fostering connection, inclusion, and understanding among all residents.

And whereas recognizing Juneteenth encourages us to celebrate the progress that has been made as a country while acknowledging the work that remains and affirming our collective responsibility to advance equity, belonging, and opportunity for future generations.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Novato on behalf of its citizens proudly proclaims June 19th, 2026 as Juneteenth in the City of Nevada, and encourages all residents and families to attend the city's inaugural Juneteenth celebration on Tuesday, June 16th, from 6 p.m.

to 8 p.m.

as we commemorate this important chapter in our nation's history and celebrate the enduring contributions, resilience, and achievements of black Americans.

So we are both in our schools, BSU or Black Student Union.

And I guess I wanted to highlight that to have something like the Black Student Union at our school, it isn't just something or how we all come together as a part of our only connection being race.

We have other things that we all are passionate about, and I don't know, are that our interests?

Like the main thing that we focus on right now is movies, because all of us love movies.

We all love the creation of movies, the writing behind movies, all of that stuff.

And we are actually working on our own movie right now.

Yeah, starting it.

Yes.

And I'm very excited about it.

And we are also partly through working on a documentary with Nevado High.

And I'm very excited to be doing all that and to know the community more.

So that's good.

Um I want to thank everybody for being here and like supporting people and supporting us and just kind of going off of what Jade said is like we all unite not just with race, but with similar interests that bring us all together as a community.

So thank you.

Alright, so the next one, the proclamation is Pride Month.

And we had actually an amazing Pride kickoff month just out here.

Um and it was absolutely fabulous.

So I'd like to call up Elin Zapella to accept the proclamation.

Whereas the City of Novato recognizes and proclaims the month of June 2026 as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer plus, pride month throughout the entire city.

And whereas in 1970, organizations around the world in the month of June have recognized and honored LGBTQ plus communities and the anniversary of the Stone Wall riots in 1969.

And where's the city of Nevada recognized and condemns the discrimination of LGBTQ people have faced and continued to face as a result of gender identity and sexual orientation?

And whereas the city of Nevado is committed to preventing and opposing anti-LGBTQ crimes.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Novato expresses support for the rights of equality contributions of the LGBTQ plus community and hereby proclaims the month of June 2026 as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer plus pride month.

Congratulations.

And also my community at my school, Nevada High for also encouraging me, like my creative writing class and creative writing teacher, Ms.

Pollock for being the one to share this contest with us to for us to submit our work.

So thank you so much for that.

And yeah.

All right, and last.

I'd like to invite Tara Caprice Broadwell water up to accept this one with whoever else wants to come up.

So where is the city?

Whereas the Novato Chamber of Commerce proudly recognizes Kara Caprice Broadwater and the love to dance for their exotic commitment to service beyond their own community.

Whereas Tara Caprice Broadwather founded Love to Dance in 2002 to create a dance studio rooted in confidence, creativity, and community.

Whereas her dedication to inclusion and empowerment has made love to dance a pioneer in welcoming individuals with Down syndrome, autism, therebob palsy, and other neurodivergent abilities.

And where she has earned recognition not only for her choreography, but for her commitment to cultivate an environment where every dancer can thrive, including the renowned love to dance all-stars.

And now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Nevada on behalf of the citizens of Novato does hereby sincerely appreciate the gratitude to Tara Caprice Broadwater for her unwavering dedication and meaningful contribution to the community.

Congratulations.

Okay.

So first I just want to say my name's Ms.

Tara.

But it's okay, I can go by Tara too.

But yes, no problem.

I'm used to it.

What a good day to be here with the first two proclamations.

I appreciate those for Juneteenth and our community.

So I want to thank all of you, all the city council, Denise for calling me, the Chamber of Commerce.

I had to write this down because I am a crier.

Any families here for love to dance notice.

I cry so because I have a big heart.

I'm deeply honored and honestly a bit overwhelmed to receive this recognition because I like to do things for other people and not get praise myself.

This means more than I can say because I grew up in this town and had to overcome more adversity than most.

But even as a young girl surviving many challenging times, I believe that I've been given a gift and that I was special.

So standing here today, honored by my hometown is proof that where you start does not determine where you finish.

If you have a passion and you're willing to put in more effort than others, any dream is possible.

Yeah, so people always ask me how do I do so much?

And I just go, I don't make excuses.

I honestly don't sleep much.

When I see a problem or a place where I can help, I go and do it.

I try to see the best in everyone, and I always leave with my heart.

I know what it feels like to be empty and broken, and I never want that for anyone else.

I really started from the bottom and worked every single day and sacrificed my own needs and time with my family and my husband and my friends to make love to dance what I dreamt it could be.

And so I want to thank my husband because he's been here with me and he has to put up with a lot everywhere we go.

People are always talking to me and saying nice things.

They don't, they call him Mr.

Tara.

Or Mr.

Love to Dance.

And my kids, they they share me with so many of my wonderful students.

So I appreciate them for letting me be so involved in the community.

I want to thank my mom for introducing me to dance at a young age.

And whenever I was dancing, I always felt happy and carefree.

And as you all know, that's the magic of dance, right?

Yes.

Okay.

There's more.

I would like to thank my grandmother Kathy, who's here.

She's 96 years old.

She's always been one of my biggest supporters.

She comes to all of my performances and is always a number one supporter of love to dance.

So she deserves a lot of recognition and credit.

I also want to thank my Aunt Janet for being here.

And I want to recognize my late grandfather Stan and my late uncle Dan, who showed me what hard work looks like.

Everything I built started with the values they taught me about love and helping your neighbors.

Thank you to Jeannie Tidwell and Larry, another friend that we lost for helping me in the beginning at the very first love to dance location.

And all the teachers that love to dance.

They pour their hearts into our dancers every day, and this recognition belongs to all of them too.

Our students are simply the best, and I love them all like my own children.

When I opened in 2002, I wanted to build confidence, shape character, and create community.

I think I've done that, so yay.

Helping people, especially kids, and making a difference in the lives of thousands of young people has been the greatest gift of my life besides my own children, Russell and Coffin.

My heart is so full of gratitude, and I'm proud to be an advocate for inclusive dance.

I'm happy to have Emery here in the audience and Ruby and Zachary, members of our shooting stars.

Because dance belongs to everybody and every ability.

I'm so proud of all of you, and I appreciate your families for being here and always uh writing with me at Love to Dance.

If you can't tell, I really love Novato.

I'm so proud to be here.

And I love everywhere I go, I see a friendly face and a child running up to hug me, or now I get people who said they danced to me 30 years ago.

Which doesn't make me feel old at all.

And a lot of people will tell me they, but their friends dance to me, their family, they remember me from being at their school, and it just means so much to me, and I'm just grateful to share space with all of you in this town.

And uh I have one more page.

I promise I'm almost done.

So thank you for letting me share my heart and my joy and my passion.

I truly love to dance, and I'm grateful for this proclamation because it just proves that I might be doing something right.

So comers, it's my favorite spot to be at.

And I also worked hard on many things.

Working on my poetry, my dance, everything I work for.

And this is rare.

It's important to know everyone has their own abilities and know what they do.

And as you end this off, please be happy, that's sad.

And sorry, I'm looking at you.

Be happy, that's sad.

Don't cry.

Okay.

I'm here to help you no matter what.

And for all the dancers I sing here today, give them a big hand applause.

I just have to say a few words.

Everybody knows I'm Pat Aquin.

I have the honor of serving on the city council.

I've known this woman since she was about that high.

And her dream was always to teach dance.

And she's such a creative person, such a strong woman.

She not only did that, but she has ignited Novato to all dance.

So you're fantastic, Tara, and I'm so proud of you so very, very much.

Thank you.

And thank you.

Alright.

And thank you for being my dance teacher for 20 years.

I have been dancing that love to dance.

I love you.

I love it to you.

Love to dance.

It's a home.

Love to dance.

It's a family is home to me, because I love to dance.

Okay.

It means that my friends have been.

And we want to invite all of you to come to our very first All Abilities Talent Show, which is going to be held next Wednesday at Nevada High School in the Center for the Arts.

And Ruby and Zachary will be performing along with Emory, who's over here in the corner, and lots of our other friends from our shooting stars.

So complimentary show.

Please come out and show your support.

Thank you, Nobody!

Love you!

You're okay.

Just another reminder: if you do want to talk during public comment, fill out a yellow card.

All right.

So we'll move on to item D, approval of the final agenda.

Do I have a motion?

I make a motion.

We approve the final agenda submitted.

And I'll second the motion.

Can I make a change?

Can we um move our um city council updates to the end of the meeting?

Is that the room?

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Okay.

Can you take work?

Councilmember Eckland?

Present.

Uh no, voting for the motion to approve.

Oh, voting for the motion, of course.

Yes.

Okay.

Councilmember Carpal?

Yes.

Councilmember O'Connor?

Hi.

Mayor for Tim Jacobs.

Yes.

And Mayor Ferrar.

Hi.

All right, that passes.

Gonna do half of the report from City Council and City Manager.

Um, so I'm going to ask um City Council.

Member O'Connor to discuss his proposed agenda item with uh Mayor Pro Tem Jacobs.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um so the motion or the proposal I'm making is to discuss and consider naming renaming rather Hamilton Amphitheater Park in honor of former mayor and council member Mark Milberg.

So former mayor and council member Mark Milberg dedicated many years of service to the city of Nevada.

He was widely respected for his thoughtful leadership, civility, and commitment to the community.

Representing District 5, including the Hamilton neighborhood.

Mark was known for his deep care for residents throughout the city, while maintaining a special connection to the Hamilton area that he called home.

Mark passed away unexpectedly in 2025, leaving a lasting impact on Nevada residents, civic leaders, and community organizations.

Public tributes following his passing reflected the widespread admiration and appreciation for his leadership, integrity, and kindness.

Community members consistently described him as a collaborative, compassionate, and deeply committed to improving the quality of life here in Nevada.

Hamilton Amphitheater Park sits within the district, Mark represented and championed during his service on the City Council.

Prior to his passing, he frequently expressed expressed support for continued investment and improvements to the park, recognizing its importance as a gathering place for families, neighborhood events, concerts, and community life.

The city is currently exploring playground renovations and other park enhancements, making this an especially meaningful moment to recognize Mark's legacy and connection to the site.

Our community facilities namings policy states that a request to name a facility after a person or organization who has made a significant contribution to the community, but not necessarily directly directly connected to the facility can be considered.

Naming the park in honor of Mark Milberg, but to create a lasting tribute to a public servant whose work and values help to shape the Hamilton community and the broader city of Nevada.

So with that said, I'd like to request that we create an agenda item in either July or August to discuss, discuss, and consider renaming Hamilton Amphitheater Park in his honor.

And Kevin, was there anything you wanted to add?

No, you've covered it very well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions from my fellow council members?

No.

Any public comments?

All right.

Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve this for the upcoming meeting.

Do you have a second?

I'll second.

Laura, can you take Councilmember Eklund?

Aye.

Councilmember Carpal?

Aye.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Aye.

Mayor Kurt Tim Jacobs.

Alright.

And Mayor Farack.

Hi.

Alright, that passes.

Um moving on to public comment.

Um, so I'm gonna remind everyone that this is general public comment for items that are not on the agenda.

Um, or listed on the consent calendar.

There's a two-minute limit, and we have a two-minute clock here now, so you can keep track of your time.

Um, so I'll invite the first person up, Lacey Barnes.

Welcome.

And just go up to the podium here.

Welcome.

Hi, thank you.

Um, yes, I'm here tonight on behalf of the neighborhood on Vineyard Road and Trumbull and surrounding areas.

Um, and I would just like to say that um there is, it's been brought to our attention that there is a uh facility going in on Vineyard Road that is going to be a um sober living facility.

Um I've lived here all my life, and I frequently walk this uh road with my children, soon to be child, and um I'm concerned about the how this will change our neighborhood dynamics.

Um this is just a single family um uh environment, and bringing in a sober living facility is going to change the neighborhood drastically.

I'm concerned about um you know what it's gonna look like, what's the turnover rate, um, and I've also had um personal experience with uh addiction before in my family, and um how that's gonna look in our neighborhood.

Um, so I'm deeply concerned about this, as I know um a few of our neighbors are as well, and um would like to see what we can do if there's anything we can do about this facility going in.

So thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, the next is Fred Reese.

My name's Fred Reese, I love 1541 Hill Road.

Good evening, everybody.

Sorry about that.

Um, I'd like to tell you about the disrepairs on the Hill Recreation Field.

Pickleball port, pickleball courts walks that were just installed not too long ago or broken because somebody kicked the doors open from inside.

They cut the screens, I reported that three years ago, almost three years ago, and that's never been repaired.

There's we just uh we have the bossy courts, those locks were never repaired, replaced.

So people are going in at night, turning the lights on, running the dogs, running the little kids around.

We have a family of three of four, they have electric scooters that go on there, and then they go out into the soccer field and run around.

Last Friday, we had the soccer crowd out there, and the music that they blared away was so loud, I could hear it in my backyard.

I went over trying to find it.

I got to the drinking fountain, and the dispatcher said, could you step away from the music?

I was 200 feet away from it.

This and then the police officer called me later and explained to him.

He said, Well, there's a noise ordinance.

I said, No, it's it's posted, no loud noises, it's on the signs.

And they didn't seem to know the hours of when the park is open.

So things really need to be changed and corrected here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um next Bianca Level Parker.

Welcome.

Hi.

Uh my name is Bianca, and I live near uh 2109 Vignia Road, uh, the facility that is being converted, the house that is being covered into a um a sober living or drug addiction uh home.

Uh, while I support recovery, I am concerned about uh converting this into a drug facility uh without adequate transparency and community input.

Um we did have conversations with the owner, and he's still saying that his family's moving into the house.

Uh I'm especially concerned about its proximity to Sinaloa Middle School and the lack of information regarding oversight management and accountability.

I ask the city to provide more information and ensure a clear process for addressing neighborhood concerns before moving forward with permitting.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, now moving on to I excuse me.

Excuse me, could we ask the city manager to please address the vineyard road issue and when the public will have an opportunity to uh provide comments on that?

That's something that staff is looking at right now.

Um there aren't currently any proposals that have been submitted, at least as of Friday.

There weren't any proposals that were submitted that it was a sober living facility.

We have heard a lot of rumors and we're keeping an eye on it and um are looking into various options.

But as we all know, um, if they meet certain requirements, it's something that only the state regulates and the city doesn't have any local control over it.

Well, then I would suggest those individuals who are interested in that facility to make sure that our city manager has your contact information so that they can um uh notice you directly if anything comes about through the city.

Thank you.

Thank you for everybody's public comment.

All right, so moving on to the um consent calendar.

Do I have a motion?

I'll second.

Laura, Councilmember Eklund?

Aye, Councilmember Carpal, Councilmember O'Connor, Mayor Pertem Jacobs.

I have to recuse myself from item 16, but aye on the rest.

And I'd like to pull some items from the consent calendar.

Okay.

Which items?

Okay, so um let's see.

Uh I'd like to pull number G8.

I'd like to pull item number, let's see.

And I want to vote no on two of those items as well.

So I'd like to vote no on G6, G8.

G8, I'm pooling, and G9.

Okay.

So you're gonna pull G8 and you're voting no on G6 and G9.

Yes, ma'am.

And uh Mayor Perton Jacobs, you're recusing on G16.

Yes, I live in that neighborhood.

Okay, um.

Sorry, did I call you in council member of Connor?

I'll vote I again.

Okay, Mayor Perton Jacobs is yes, you can center back.

And then Mayor said, and I'm I.

Okay.

All right.

So we're gonna start um a public hearing uh for I-1, and this is to consider an appeal of the Planning commission's certification of the final EIR for the approval of the Costco fuel facility, and then possible action to adopt resolutions regarding certifying the final EIR and adopting and mitigation, monitoring and reporting program and approving the design review and use permit for the Costco fuel facility proposed adjacent to the existing Costco wholesale store of integers.

So for this appeal appeal hearing, we're gonna start with a presentation from staff.

Then the city council will be able to ask questions.

After the council asks questions of staff, the appealing party will have 20 minutes to present, then the applicant will have 10 minutes to give a presentation, and then the appealing party will have 10 minutes to give a rebuttal.

After this, the city council will ask questions of staff, the healing party, or the applicant, and then we'll go to public comment.

Public comment is only two minutes, and I'm gonna be extremely strict with it.

Um, and then after public comment, we will return to the city council for a motion, deliberation, and a vote.

So now I'd like to invite Brett Walker up to do the city's presentation.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name's Brett Walker, senior planner in the community development department.

Uh so this item is a public hearing regarding an appeal of the planning commission's decision to certify the CEQA final environmental impact report or EIR and approve the use permit and design review entitlements for Costco to construct and operate a gas station adjacent to the existing Costco Wholesale Store in Vintage Oaks.

One to certify the final EIR and two to approve the use permit and design review entitlements.

So the project site is located in the Vintage Oaks shopping center adjacent to the Costco store located at 300 vintage way.

Up there on the screen, you'll see the general vicinity where the gas station would be constructed and ancillary improvements in the yellow area with vintage way to the west and south, and incorrectly labeled.

Um roll and boulevard to the east of the site.

Project improvements include an approximately 10,000 square foot canopy that would cover 14 fuel dispensers, which would accommodate up to 28 fueling positions.

Other infrastructure associated with the project would be three 40,000 gallon underground storage tanks, and one 1500 gallon additive underground storage tank, vehicle queuing areas, and ancillary site improvements such as drainage and landscaping.

The project site is approximately one acre in size.

Now we're at step one, which is presentation of the staff report, and then the process will move through the 10 steps listed there.

So as far as CEQA, so the project was subject to a CEQA environmental impact report.

The notice of preparation for the EIR was posted on August 10th, 2023, and a scoping meeting was held on August 28, 2023.

The draft EIR was posted for public comment from October 20th through December 4th, 2025, and the Planning Commission held a hearing on December 8th, 2025 regarding the draft EIR.

At that hearing, uh the planning commission directed staff to prepare the final EIR.

The final EIR includes a response to comments, proposed revisions to the draft EIR, the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and supplemental memos.

So the response to comments included all written comments that were submitted to the city between October 8th and up to that December 8th Planning Commission meeting, responses to verbal comments that were made during that December 8th meeting.

And then additionally, included in the final EIR were supplement supplemental memos specific to some topics that were brought up in the public comment letters, and that would be regarding proprietary information, Costco membership information, geotechnical information, travel and trip information regarding vehicle miles traveled and trip modeling information, and then the climate action plan consistency, air quality, and greenhouse gas information.

So all of the potentially significant impacts were determined that they could be reduced to a less than significant level, and those impacts are to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soil, energy and greenhouse gas emissions, and tribal cultural resources.

The second part of the hearing tonight is regarding the resolution to consider approving the use permit and design review entitlements.

Design review is required for all new commercial land use and improvements, land uses and improvements, and the DRC did make a recommendation to approve the design aspects.

So based on the design review commission recommendation, staff's review of the project, the findings can be made to approve the project.

Findings for the city council's consideration are included in staff report attachment two.

So just to go over what was included on the agenda packet for this item.

First, there was the staff report.

Attachment two is the draft resolution approving the use permit and design review entitlements.

Attachment three is the appellants appeal letter, attachment four was the city's responses to that appeal letter.

Attachment five was public comment letters that were submitted since the December 8th public hearing through, I believe, June 3rd, the cutoff date to get those into the city council packet.

And attachment six, Costco's one of Costco's consultant representatives provided a write-up for the council's review on a summary of climate regulations in California and California's transition to electric vehicles.

And I'll note for the public that all those comments that were submitted via email or other means that were submitted after the agenda cutoff date were forwarded on to the city clerk who then forwarded on to the city council members.

So staff is recommending that the city council deny the appeal, adopt a resolution to certify the final EIR, make CEQA findings, and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, and adopt a resolution to approve the design review and use permit entitlements.

And so we haven't had a lot of time to review that letter.

But we did the review of the letter and noticed that it does raise issues pertinent to the appeal letter.

And given that late submittal, staff would like to invite Costco's technical experts to speak to some of those issues.

And those issues are related to transportation analysis, air quality, and geotechnical issues.

So with us tonight as part of Costco's team, we do have a representative from Kittelson, Amy Lopez, who uh helped write the VMT analysis, and we have uh Andrea Traum, a geotechnical engineer with Kleinfelder, and then we have um Sarah Manzano with Ramble, who is a uh air quality specialist.

Um that concludes my presentation, but we would like to invite them as part of staff's presentation, because they'll be able to provide some input on the uh appellants attorney letter from Mark Wolf that we just received a couple of hours ago.

Okay.

Okay, would you like to come up and present?

Good evening, Council.

Good evening, Count.

Is this there we go?

Good evening, counsel.

I'm Amy Lopez with Kittleson and Associates as Brett said.

I led the team that prepared the transportation analysis for this project.

Um, a few key points I'll um share with you this evening are just to go quickly through them, and then if you have any follow-up questions for me, I'm happy to respond in greater detail.

Um the letter that Brett referred to, it asserted that the work that my team led and documented and that's um supports the EIR can't be independently reviewed or replicated.

That was one of the points made in the letter.

Um it actually was independently reviewed.

The city's own third-party transportation engineering consultant directly reviewed the work, including proprietary data that was used as the basis for some of the VM, well, as the basis for the BMT analysis.

Um that independent review occurred as a part of the process, so that did happen.

Um the notion that the work itself would be replicated is first of all not even an expectation under the CEQA process.

It is not expected that any person would be able to take the technical information that's provided in a technical report supporting an EIR or information in the EIR itself, and then do the math at home.

The people my company hires out of with an undergraduate or a graduate degree or even a PhD, they don't even know how to do it when they first show up in my company.

It's technical work that is performed by experienced trained professionals, so that's who is able to do that work.

Um the idea that it could just be replicated at home is is beyond the kind of the purview of sequent and is and beyond a reasonable expectation.

There's a comment in there asking for a sensitivity analysis under this assertion that the in that the that the analysis already has not been independently reviewed, even though it was independently reviewed, which is why there's not a sensitivity analysis because it doesn't really, it's not really necessary in this case.

Um but to further the point, a sensitivity analysis is something that's done when it's not knowable when there's some piece of the data that's not really knowable, and so then you it's like if you have a math equation with a bunch of you know ABC and D in there, and you're like, Well, what happens if we make A B2, and what happens if A is five, and what happens if A is 12, and then you see what comes out at the end.

You're testing how sensitive variable A is, and that's done when you can't have a good bearing or good understanding of what A is.

That was not the case with the analysis done, which brings us back to the fact that it was independently reviewed and verified.

Um there's a comment about proprietary data and trade secrets and questioning uh whether that is indeed the case.

The data used in the analysis that is proprietary, is data about where Costco members live, and how many transactions are being made on a daily basis by those members from within those locations.

So there's a privacy consideration that leads to that feeds into the proprietary nature of the data about where people live, and then there is a business services component to it.

The amount of transactions being made and where people are and how many of them live there is all information that a competitor would find really appealing because it starts to give a pretty clear picture picture as to the scale of membership in a membership-based business.

And there are competitors that are direct competitors, and so that starts to reveal trade secrets and industry secrets that are about the services they provide.

That is what is not provided in the public record and was directly reviewed by the city's own independent third-party consultant.

The final piece I'll speak to asks questions or or calls into question whether the assertion in the in the analysis that there are people from the Novato area who are buying gas and shopping in Rohner Park and Vallejo.

And so that same proprietary transaction data I just described.

Is the data we use that make that leads to those conclusions?

We see there are members who live here and are shopping there and buying gas there today and have been for years, and that is the piece.

It's those people who, when it's time to make a Costco run, and they want to fuel up too and get the value at the pump, they can't do that here.

So they go do it somewhere else, and the transaction data bear that out.

And so those are the folks who, when this fuel facility is constructed here, will be able to just do it right here in town.

And that's the shift that is computed and reflected in the VMT analysis that ultimately is the largest component that leads to that, like, yeah, overall, fewer miles being traveled in the region when this fuel facility is in place.

That's what I want to say here.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um, so moving on just to the process, um, for this first round of questioning, let's just ask the city and Brett, and then we will um have the appealing party do a presentation, then the applicant will talk for 10 minutes, then the appealing party will have 10 minutes to give their rebuttal, and then we can ask questions.

I do, if I can interrupt.

Um, so Miss Lopez just addressed some of the transportation and BMT issues.

Um we also have Andrea Trom with Kleinfelder regarding the geotechnical issues, and um Sarah Manzano with Ramble regarding some of the air quality items that were brought up.

So I'd also like to invite those two up, and then I can conclude my presentation.

Okay.

Hello, uh I'm Dan Dockendorf.

I'm actually with Kleinfelder serving for uh Andrea Trump in her stead.

She was unable to be here, unfortunately.

So, yes, sorry.

Um, so basically the letters that we received um kind of had some of the same uh information that we saw in previous uh the the newest letter had the same sort of concerns and the the same three uh the first concern that we're saying is basically that the information that we provided in our um response letters dated February and May, addressing these concerns are not new information that wasn't provided in our original geotech report.

So their concern is that the information we provided in these response letters is new analysis that was run by Kleinfelder to redesign this Costco in a certain way based on items they brought up.

This is not the case.

We're mainly just clarifying uh our initial um recommendations that were provided in appendix I of the draft EIR back in 2021.

So basically in those response letters, we're reiterating and just shining a light in a more uh simple way to show that the concerns that they raise are no concern.

And those concerns are mainly liquefaction on the site.

So this whole entire Bay Area is subject to liquefaction, but it only occurs when three things happen when there's high groundwater, there's loose sands below your site, and an earthquake happens that causes the liquefaction.

So in this particular site, there is no known loose sands.

We have drilled many times on the site underneath where this fuel facility will be.

Any loose um poorly graded sands that would cause the settlement due to an earthquake-induced liquefaction.

So the hazard on this site is very low due to that, because it's sitting on top of bedrock, and this the soil in between the bedrock is a clay soil that would not be induced.

And then finally, um, questions were brought up for um the level of sea rise over time and how that would affect um again liquefaction or the design of the um fuel facility and mainly the tanks.

So the tanks are designed and mined to literally be submerged underwater in wet set.

So even if the water is all the way at the top, you dig it one foot below.

These tanks are wet set anchored to the ground, and they're designed to allow the water to fluctuate over time, because they're surrounded by gravel, and they allow the water to move through.

So the analysis that we provided in our initial report takes all that into account, and no new analysis was created in these responses.

Again, they were just reiterating what we had said before.

And during our presentation, uh we'll talk a little bit more about that.

Hello, council members.

My name's Sarah Manzano.

I'm an air and climate consultant with Ramble, and we reviewed the city's good, the city and their consultants' good work on the air quality analysis in the EIR and in the final EIR.

There were two comments in the letter that were just submitted related to air quality, which I wanted to address here today.

The first comment was related to the pediatrics facility in the neighborhood.

Um, and it claimed that the analysis that was done was not sufficient, did not sufficiently address health impacts to sick children, which is not which is not the case.

First, the analysis is technically not needed as part of Sequo.

The medical facility is not considered a sensitive receptor based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District definition of a sensitive receptor.

However, the city did the analysis to be informative.

And they made very conservative assumptions as part of the analysis and still found that the impacts were well below significance thresholds.

For example, they assumed three that a person, a child, a person would visit the facility for three hours a week every single week for 21 years.

Which is probably unrealistic for someone visiting a medical facility.

The other pieces that go into the analysis are things like breathing rate, how much you breathe in of the air, like how much you're actually being exposed to, toxicity, how that how those chemicals actually affect your body, and age sensitivity factors.

And each of those, the city, each of those included conservative assumptions.

The city used a model called HARP 2, which is based on, which is created by the Office of Environmental Health Risk Assessment from the state of California, which is based on or which uses years of um years of health risk assessment data.

The breathing rates used are the 95th percentile, meaning only 5% of the of the general population would have would have a higher breathing rate than what was used in the analysis.

The toxicity values that are used are also recommended by the state, which are designed or which are chosen and calculated based on being health protective to the population.

And then on top of that, the um uh age sensitivity factor is applied to the analysis, which multiplies the health risk from um up to two years old by a factor of 10, and then up to a child of six years old by a factor of three.

So there's conservatism on top of conservativism based in that analysis, and the result is still much less than threshold.

The other point that was brought up was um about calendiro screen and a percentile related to traffic impacts.

Um, and I think the piece that was left out of there is that the overall burden in this area is very low.

Um, the the calin viro screen burden rating compiles impacts of traffic, um, ozone, lead from housing, hazardous waste, as as well as many other contributions, and the overall impact in this area is 11.

It's very common for areas near freeways to have elevated traffic impacts as mentioned in the report, but the overall burden in this area um is eleven, which means that 89% of California experiences worse environmental burden than this area.

Um, and in relation, there were comments about the cumulative analysis that was conducted, which was conducted in line with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District tools and recommendations that factored in things like the health risk of Highway 101, which was directly provided by the air district in their specific tools, and actually is overestimates the impact at this facility because it is based on residential exposure, assuming you're living there for 30 years at the at the medical center for 30 years, which overestimates the impact at that area.

So thank you for your time in listening to these points.

Thank you.

And just to uh conclude the staff report, I want to mention that uh via Zoom, we have with us tonight our uh CQA consultants that wrote the EIR.

So I've got Eileen Mahoney, who is a senior environmental planner, and she was the project planner for the EIR, and also Heather Dubois, and Heather is a senior air quality and greenhouse gas specialist.

And then also with WTRs, we've got Zach Matley, and he's the staff person with WANs that peer reviewed Costco's VMT analysis and other transportation related issues for the city as that subconsultant.

And I think that concludes my staff presentation now.

Thank you.

Thanks, Brent.

All right.

Bringing it back to um council for staff questions.

Uh council member O'Connor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um thank you, Britt.

My first question is, is there anything in the AIR that is non-compliant with any of our codes or other standards?

I don't believe so.

Thanks.

And then it's my understanding that the city zoning ordinance provisions precluding approval of new gas stations were plainly and deliberately drafted so as not to apply to any fuel facility project for which an application had already been submitted.

Is that correct?

Correct.

My understanding is when that ordinance was passed, there was two applications currently in process.

And one of those two applications was this Costco fuel facility.

And my understanding is that ordinance specifically allowed those submitted applications to continue through that review process.

Thank you.

I didn't have any of the staff questions at this time.

Alright, Mayor Putum Jacobs.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so my first question is the pediatric center across the street.

What year do you know when that went into effect?

When they moved in there?

I don't know the exact year, but it was not there when the Costco project was first submitted, and when we wrote the mitigated negative declaration the first time we did environmental review, it showed up sometime between after we wrote the MND for the project, but before we started the EIR for the project.

So them moving in there would have been they would have been aware this project was proposed.

I believe with some due diligence they would have been aware of that.

Have you heard from them at all in regards to this project?

I'm not aware of any public comments submitted or any other contact.

Okay, my other question is how many EV chargers are proposed with this project.

So subsequent to the original approval, as part of that approval, Costco agreed, Costco and VintageOaks together agreed to install a certain number of EV chargers, which they move forward with installing, and I'm forgetting that exact number.

Costco will be able to uh answer that question when they make their presentation.

Okay.

I know it's at least 10.

And with the um mitigation measure regarding air quality and greenhouse gas to meet the tier two requirements for um there will be a review at the building permit stage of the number of EV chargers that have been installed and the number of additional EV chargers that may need to be installed.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Eklund.

Can you hear me now?

Great.

Okay, first of all, I want to disclose that I have a membership to Costco.

And I wanted to ask our city attorney, did that in any way affect my ability to be able to participate in this hearing?

Microphone's not on.

How's that?

Better.

Your membership in Costco does not create a conflict that prevents you from participating.

Thank you.

The second disclosure I wanted to make is that I happen to have had the opportunity to work for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency for 35 years in San Francisco, some in DC, but primarily in San Francisco.

And I had the honor of about eight years being in charge of the underground storage tanks program.

Basically, that's gasoline stations, diesel petroleum, whatever in the states of California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, the Outer Islands, and Native American tribes in the Western part of the United States.

So I also have a technical background on the requirements, but the EPA as well as the state of California, because we uh sometimes did joint uh permits on facilities.

And so I wanted to ask a question, several questions, which are technical in nature.

Hopefully, you're gonna be able to answer some of these.

If not, I'm sure that the Costco team will be able to.

Um, so first of all, um, what is depth to groundwater where the tanks are going to be located?

What is the current depth to groundwater?

Off the top of my head, I don't recall, so that might be a question better answered by Costco.

So can we have a Costco representative?

Do you want to save that question for the next round of questioning?

No, I would like an answer now.

That's okay.

I don't want to have to answer these, ask these questions twice.

The depth of the groundwater during our investigation in 2021 was five feet below surface grade.

So that is the below where the asphalt were we dropped from.

So one of my concerns is the um corrosion of the tanks.

I know they have to be double walled.

I know that that's part of the state requirement.

It's not the feds, but it's the state.

So even with double walls, you're gonna have corrosion because it's sitting in water.

And so what material are you gonna use that's going to change or uh reduce or slower the corrosion process?

Would you like to speak to this one?

I mean, she I believe that uh councilwoman's speaking about the corrosivity of the groundwater, not just the soil, because the soil itself will not affect the tank because it's surrounded by rock, so it will not be in contact with the tank itself, but the groundwater indeed does have corrosive properties.

However, the during our investigation, the corrosivity is like the mildly corrosive sort of levels.

It is not a highly corrosive um groundwater substance, however.

I can't speak to the to the tank uh material.

You're still gonna have the corrosion, um, because even with the soil around the tanks, you're gonna have some absorption of that water through the soil and through the tanks.

So I this is this is a mildly corrosive soil, it is not a highly corrosive soil that we would see in certain areas.

But you said depth of ground or is five feet.

Correct.

Huh.

That's disconcerting.

Hello, um, yeah, I'm Chris Ferko, and I'm with Core States Group.

And the underground storage tank system is as I'm sure you probably know, is you know, it's double-walled uh fiberglass.

Right.

And so, and then the the and then the testing requirements that are required for the tank system is is basically intended to to track that essentially.

Um, and so uh if any deficiency is identified through the annual testing tightness testing process, you know, and also the regular other testing that occurs monthly.

You know, that's that's what that is for is to to track that's that very topic.

Okay.

Um I wanted to talk to you also about the lights.

Um the lights um would stay on night and day, or uh through the night, but when you close at 10 o'clock, it doesn't say that you can turn off the lights.

Is that a possibility to um have less light pollution?

Yeah, Costco turns turns the lights mostly off, but they do keep some security lighting on.

Uh the lighting that is is installed in the canopy is fully flushed with the ceiling, and uh, and so there isn't any sort of glare from the side, and then also the lights are very focused only on the fueling area where you know it needs to be safe for people to fuel.

Um so anyway, yeah, there's some security lighting, but they do turn down the lights.

Yeah, I'm talking about when the gas station closes at 10 p.m.

Um, and rather than having the lights stay on all night long, I'd like to have a condition of approval that would um require the lights to be turned off.

And council member, so this is time for staff, and then we're gonna have a longer questioning time.

The process that we're doing tonight is not what we've done in the past on hearings, and so um with that a um a roadmap um on how we're conducting this hearing, it's very difficult for council members to ask their questions.

So, can you put up the roadmap that you presented earlier?

And then that has a re all the steps that we're taking.

Right.

Okay, so what is it?

So this is just questions to staff, and then they're all gonna give their presentation, so we're gonna get a lot more information, and then we can ask everybody questions.

I apologize.

That's a more organized approach.

I apologize to Costco then because it's unclear about how we're doing this procedure.

So thank you for putting that back up on the screen.

Councilmember Kirkwell, do you have questions for stuff?

Yeah, yes, uh, I do.

Thank you.

Um, so um, I just wanted to clarify that I heard actually that your tank material is uh fiberglass, it's double-walled fiberglass tanks.

Uh I just wanted to confirm that.

That's my understanding based on the applicant.

Okay, thank you.

Um and then uh recognizing you know that the project side is contemplated as what's typically disturbed uh referred to as a disturbed site.

Um can you talk about uh just a very briefly as to what kind of geotechnical assessments are performed as part of the EIR work?

Or maybe I can defer that question later to the technical folks from that might be best because my a lot of my questions are similar uh in nature.

Uh and just by way of uh introducing myself to the staff, I do the Costco folks.

I do I'm a civil engineer, I'm not a geotechnical engineer, so my questions might be slanted in that direction as well.

So um actually um in that case I don't have any more questions.

Thank you.

Um, and then I just have one question.

Um, what legal exposure does the city face if environmental or traffic impacts exceed projections?

That sounds like a question for me.

You're still the city.

Yes.

Um so there's a potentially a challenge.

I mean, are you talking about far into the future or are you talking about the analyses that underlie what's in front of you this afternoon or this evening?

I think all of them, I mean, the immediate risk is a challenge under CEQA or a writ to challenge the approval this evening, assuming that you all approve it this evening.

You've seen the comment letter that raise those issues, so um there is some risk of a lawsuit.

Certainly there was already a lawsuit regarding this project, as you're aware and the public's aware too.

So there is some risk of that.

Um we have reviewed those studies, staff has reviewed those studies, we're confident that they're accurate, and they support this and provide the evidence necessary for the decision this evening.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, and that concludes council questions to staff.

Um, so next I'd like to invite the fielding party up to present.

So Susan Stopp, Soka Valentine, Kevin Morrison, Al Grummet, and Marilyn Price.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Um, I'm Susan Snuff, a longtime resident of Novato, and a part of the no-nu guess Novato group that appealed.

And um uh there is a uh a question that I would like to put on the floor that our attorney uh sent to the city relative to uh a question uh for the city attorney uh on whether this project is um uh uh covered excluded from the ordinance that was adopted uh early on uh in your your process because the the um uh when the ordinance was adopted in 2022, Costco's prior approval had already been thrown out by the court.

So um the question is, you know, is it uh uh a valid um project, or uh it doesn't start a whole new process.

Um so that that was my my first thing that I wanted to bring up, and I hope we can hear a response tonight.

Um but my concerns about the project.

This is a weird microphone.

Uh my concerns about the project um come from the fact that I'm a 20th century person.

That was a century that that provided cars for most every household and um created plastics that have come to be a major worldright environmental problem.

And I'm wondering if we knew what was going to come out of these great inventions that were commonly used, that we might have done things a little differently.

And I'm putting that to you now because you are in a quarter of the way through the 21st century, and you're making decisions now that are going to be affecting the next couple of centuries.

And are we going to be able to protect our wetlands and waterways and the Beverath Pond as sea level rises and the salinity creeps up higher and higher the the uh tanks will be diminished.

So I would urge you to uh not approve this project tonight, and so good evening, City Council members and staff and the public and Costco.

Um I first um and thank you for the opportunity to uh um speak here now.

First, I want to um state the fact that this appeal is a de novo, that's very important.

It restarts the whole issue, so the cost council does not need to consider really what the original application fell within the time period when the gas station were okay.

So this is just what I learned.

And then I want to uh talk about my um concerns about air quality and health, the health analysis.

The entire environmental review exists because the costs court said it's the city needs to prepare a proper environmental impact report that specifically analyze air quality and health impact of the mega gas station.

So you expect the health analysis to be thorough, it isn't.

The EIA concluded that children visiting the clinic only occasionally would not be exposed to health risks above established thresholds, and therefore not setbacks, no setbacks are needed.

In other words, we are being asked to conclude that building the project right next to the clinic is perfectly safe.

But the pediatric facility sits at the southwest corner of the gas station, cars acquiring for fuel lineup heading east towards the Costco Tire Store, tail pipes facing west towards the clinic.

The clinic will be literally cornered in by the gas station.

Idling vehicles in a fuel queue are among the highest point source admitters of toxic exhaust at street level.

Costco's own traffic analysis project that 4,620 of the 6,870 daily trips are new trips that would not exist without the project.

4,620 additional vehicles per day quiet and idling within close distance of very six children receiving medical care.

The clinic treats children with asthma and other breathing problems, exactly the kids who are most harmed by gasoline fume.

Yet the city never classified the clinic as a sensitive location requiring special analysis.

Instead, they produced a health calculation for children only after the public common period has already closed, meaning no parents, no doctors, no independent experts ever had a chance to look at it before the project was approved.

The neighborhood across the freeway from the project is already one of the most traffic polluted areas in California.

The census tracks ranks in the top 14% statewide for vehicle emissions.

The track right next door ranks in the top 2%.

These families are already breathing some of the dirtiest air in the state, air in the state.

Adding a mega gas station makes this worse.

This council to do what our court asked for the first in the first place, a real honest health analysis, one that the public can actually review that hasn't happened yet.

And then here about climate and greenhouse gas.

Secondly, I want to address the final environmental impact reports conclusion that the project greenhouse gas impacts are less than significant, which is simply not supported by the evidence.

The environmental review of the project underestimated the project's true greenhouse gas admissions impact.

The final ER considered only about 1% of the emissions during the station's operation.

I start with the most basic problem: the emission from the gas being burned while visiting the gas station, idling and after fueling were never counted.

About 4,620 cars a day are projected to use this fuel center.

Zeus cars burning gasoline and admit CO2.

CIR dismissed this emissions as spectacular, claiming the fuel burned here would simply shift from other stations.

But the city's own traffic analysis tells a different story.

New trip means new fuel burned.

The EII cannot simultaneously claim the project generates thousands of new vehicle trips and reduce new no new emissions.

No attempts is ever made to estimate what Zeus emissions add up to over 20 or 30 years.

This new gas station is built to prolong our dependence on fossil fuel for decades, especially through discount gas prices.

Discounted gas prices creates illusion that burning fossil fuel for transportations remain affordable and therefore that transitioning to EVs cannot be delayed.

Additionally, the EIR completely ignores emission from downstream tailpipe use, which accounts for 75 to 85 of gas stations' total emission impacts.

How does a gas station of this scale selling an estimated 30 to 35,000 gallons daily, 8 to 12 million gallons of gasoline annually, exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions?

And how would at this effect greenhouse gas emission from transportation in Navarro, which are currently at as high as 64%?

How would it affect the greenhouse gas emissions our city?

Conducting a climate greenhouse gas analysis that excludes all this emission is incomplete.

And the appeal needs to be upheld.

And now I want to talk about the traffic and vehicle mites analysis.

Third, I need to address the traffic analysis because every favorable finding in the EIR on both topics rests entirely on a simple claim, and the claim does not hold up.

The claim is that the project will reduce vehicle mines traveling by 702 miles per day, because existing Costco members will consolidate their errands.

That one assumption is used to justify less than significant finding on traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions.

And there are two serious reasons to believe it does not hold up and is wrong.

First, the data behind this conclusion was never available for public review.

The traffic study relies on Costco's own confidential membership and transaction records.

Reviewed only by the EIR consultant, not by the public, independent experts or the community members whose neighborhood is affected.

No one outside the process can verify the most important number in this entire analysis.

It depends on the large number of Costco residents currently driving 40 or more miles around trip to Costco, Ronald Park, and Vallejo just to buy gas.

And on the facts that this new full center eliminates all those trips.

Even if the initial analysis is accurate, how can Costco claim that members travel solely for discounted gas?

That does not make sense.

The extra time and money spent, I get my gas when I'm on the road mostly on my way to or from work.

If these mandates do the same, the whole argument falls apart.

That alone should give the council pause.

So if the VMT assumption is wrong and there's good reason to think this, the favorable finding on traffic, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions all collapse, will collapse.

Additionally, the analysis ignores entirely the new members who would join Costco specifically because of discounted uh local fuel.

Also, not accounting for it is this CASCO gas station will severely exacerbate existing traffic congestion due to the expected 4,620 additional vehicles per day, a total of 6,840 visiting trips, causing inevitable severe congestion, quill spillover, and parking problems, the limited access to the freeway on the opposite side of the gas station onto Roland Broadway will make things even worse.

This needs to be accounted for in a proper EAR.

Given this deficiency, we urge you, the council, to uphold the appeal and reject the project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Can we put up the agenda, please?

Can you put that up again?

Can we keep it up?

Sorry, we have a presentation for Costco ready to go next.

So we don't have that slide out.

It's in the staff report though.

It's in page two of the staff report.

All right.

So now I'm gonna invite the applicant up, and you'll have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Okay.

Can everybody hear me all right?

Um good evening, council members.

My name is Sean Anderson, uh Costco Real Estate Development Director for this project.

Uh, first I want to acknowledge uh the hard work that staff and their consultant team put into preparing the analysis that went into the staff report, the EIR document, and then of course the responses to the appeal.

Um we concur with the findings and the responses prepared by staff and want to also state that we accept the conditions of approval and the mitigations in the EIR.

Um with me tonight are the project development team uh who will assist with the presentation, also answer questions from the council and address comments from the community as requested.

Um, as uh we've already addressed, we're aware that a letter uh was prepared to cancel uh late notice and um we can provide additional information as necessary regarding that.

Uh Costco has been a tenant in Novato for 34 years, as many people are aware.

We opened the store in 1992, and since that time a lot has changed.

The warehouses are larger as a result of the goods and services that we carry for the members and their demand.

Additionally, we carry services like fuel, which are part of our standard program for all new warehouses moving forward, and where it does not exist, we uh intend to add it.

The project represents Costco's commitment to this location by bringing a service that the members expect at every warehouse.

Um, and really this project began uh back as far as uh 2018 with our due diligence and culminated in a joint project with the city to deliver both the fuel facility alongside Roland Boulevard improvements in 2021.

At that time, the project was approved by both the planning commission and the city council.

Uh in addition, there were uh condition of approval to uh require the installation of 10 EVs.

As we know, following um there was a lawsuit that ordered the preparation of an EIR for the fuel facility to proceed.

However, the Roland Boulevard improvements did proceed, as did the installation of the 10 EV chargers at the uh Vinage Oaks shopping center.

So the hearing tonight really brings in our minds uh the conclusion of this project that we set out on years ago by requesting the city council approve the design review use permit and certify the EIR.

Costco's commitment to the location uh also extends beyond operating a warehouse as many know.

Uh we are a major tax generator for the city, uh, but we also provide well-paying jobs with strong benefits.

We're generous in our fundraising and donate time and goods to the local community in various ways.

The purpose of this project is really to bring the most demanded member service to the site so that it can provide the same offerings as locations uh such as our neighboring cities, Roanur Park and Vallejo.

And uh evidence of this was provided at the Planning Commission by way of uh 4,500 signatures, of which 1,500, a bit over 1,500 were Nevada residents and uh continues to be uh echoed by our members by way of an additional 157 personalized uh signed cards in support of the project, of which 65 are uh Novato residents, which I would like to also add to the record.

Um, while the Costco uh continues navigating the EV transition, it's clear that member demand for quality affordable gasoline is going to continue now and into the future.

Uh Costco is aware of the responsibilities of running a fuel facility, which is why we operate a state-of-the-art facility, which our team can talk to the uh details of as we go on.

So, with that said, I'd like to now invite Chris Furco, who will talk a bit more about the project and uh specifics.

Good evening, Chris Furco again.

I'm just going to quickly run through some slides that you've already seen and just point out some things.

This is the overall aerial photo, and you can see the fueling facility in that location in front of the warehouse.

The overview again is 14 dispensers, 28 fueling positions, the controller enclosure, a 10,000 square foot canopy, three 40,000 gallon underground storage tanks, and one 1500 gallon additive tank.

Some of the features of the project include, you know, the is an optimal location.

It's away from the primary pedestrian areas.

It's set back from natural areas.

It has efficient circulation and access.

It's, you know, has easy access from uh vintage way.

Um the flow through the facility is one way, and it includes bypass lanes for people to get through if they don't want to purchase fuel.

Um, and then the fuel deliveries take place in a location that's protected on the side.

Um there's also operational safeguards, including trained employees at the site during all operating hours, they're on foot and they're there to help employees.

I mean, help uh members fuel, and then there's uh a matter of just very strict regulations, uh continuous monitoring, and redundant protections that are built into the facility.

I'm now gonna pass it to Amy.

Good evening again.

I'm Amy Lopez with Kittleson and Associates.

A few things I'll highlight here.

Um, as already pointed out, we did work with the city's transportation consultant in the preparation of both a level of service analysis or traffic analysis with that outside of the purview of Sequo, it was found that uh inner the key intersections that were studied are expected to continue to operate acceptably within the city standard.

Additionally, as described earlier, the project may be required to install um or would be required to install a left turn lane on vintage oaks, um, providing for the left turns that are expected to go in that driveway that's right there near the fuel facility entrance.

So there'd be through lanes as well as a left turn lane to let people get in.

BMT is a hot topic, but a little bit more here.

Just a reminder that this you know is ultimately looking at what's expected to change.

This is this is the CEQA side of things.

LOS is no longer part of CEQA.

Um, it ultimately is what I was speaking about before.

The analysis showed that it really is expected that these long-range trips that are demonstrated through member transactions that are occurring would know would be expected to shift to Novato.

Folks who are choosing today to go make a long trip because they want to do that double shopping trip, they'll be able to do it locally finally.

Um something I'll add to that, you know, the the warehouse managers of this location, we were talking earlier today, and they said to me, they even have members come up to them and and talk about how they wish they could buy gas here, but they can't, so they go somewhere else.

So even the local folks here are hearing from Costco members about people doing this.

I'll share with you.

I've heard that before because I've worked on this same matter in other locations in California and have other and have had other warehouse managers tell me the same kind of story.

So people do make that choice.

Everybody doesn't make that choice.

Some people do.

And so that's what's brought forth and borne out in the VMT analysis.

Um this is just illustrating that striping change on vintage oaks that would provide for a left turn into the site.

And finally, um, information about parking.

Um, yes, this fuel facility will indeed displace parking that's on the site today, but to what's been described before, the roll and boulevard improvements that actually have already been constructed.

Um the site will displace roughly about 119, 120 parking stalls.

There's more than 150 that have been provided behind the uh behind the shopping center.

And Costco is committed, the warehouse managers are committed to having their own employees shift to parking back there once the fuel facility exists.

So really, when you have, you know, and they're at least 150 member or pardon me, employees present at any given time.

So when you've got 150 employees parking behind, and you've lost 120 stalls, you've got a net gain of 30 open stalls after all things are said and done.

So that's a piece to keep in mind too as we're thinking about parking.

We also understand that the shopping center owners themselves are are considering or looking into whether they might convert the former men's warehouse property or piece of the shopping center into additional parking for the shopping center.

So that's you know another thing that may be out there in the future.

And with that, I'll hand it to Dan.

Go quickly in the interest of time, but we talked about this a little bit.

I'm Dan Dockner with Kleinfelder, but uh basically this is the construction and uh design operations of the underground storage tank, which will be founded on bedrock, found about five um seven, eight feet down.

So it'll be excavated firmly on the cell stone bedrock.

The tanks will be anchored into that bedrock using these large concrete um sections here with straps, which will hold it down from the uh buoyant forces from the groundwater.

Um the tank will be then filled with pea gravel and locked into place with an eight-inch thick slab.

Uh so the design of the tank as discussed here is gonna be double-walled fiberglass, which will be resistant to the corrosive forces, which is mainly for buried ferrous metals, more like like rebar and stuff like that.

So this is a fiberglass, which not be subject to that corrosion, and it'll be continuously monitored by the very trained, highly um trained staff of Costco who run these projects all across the nation very successfully.

So, now finishes off with Sean, I believe.

Yeah, so to wrap it up, um, this project again is an investment in the Nevada warehouse.

It adds a high demand service similar to neighboring communities.

It will uh help with the increase in tax revenue from the project or from the warehouse.

Uh, provides uh quality competitively priced fuel state-of-the-art facility, as well as traffic improvements along Benijoke's way.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, now I would like to invite the appealing party.

Do you have a rebuttal?

Thank you.

Um, we members of 350 Marin, um, and no NUCAS Navato Club local group are not alone in appealing uh to the final environmental impact report and the Costco gas station project.

We are back of we are uh we have the back of many environmental climate sustainable groups in Marin, and beyond Sierra Club Marine Group, MCL Sustainable Marine, sustainable Navar to sustainable Mid Valley, Cool the Earth, Marine Autobahn Society, Clean Change, Watershed Alliance, and more.

Costco claims that's Amiga gas station would serve the Navatu community by offering discounted gas price.

We strong strongly disagree.

Toxic emissions to the air, potentially toxic contamination of the soil and waterways, and endangering wildlife and wetlands is not a service to the community.

We have enough gas stations, our community and create discount gasoline is already available just down the road at Costco, and our local Met and Jeff's gas station.

That's where I get my gas.

I never visited the Costco gas station because of their policy of building more and more mega gas station, and now the first standalone super mega gas station in Southern California, nearly doubling it to 40 fueling positions.

I never signed up for their Citibank Credit card alliance.

Since I know Citibank is the second largest funder of fossil fuel in the world, so far, Costco is not responding to requests to change its business policy and become part of the solution, not the problem.

So I want you also to remind again.

That you drafted a climate emergency resolution in 2020.

And announcing that you will be elevating climate issue in its goal setting process, give precedent to climate mitigation and adaptation, when elevating policy and purchases and plans for project accordingly.

Despite the climate emergency, the city approved the gas station.

But the last um, but this was five years ago, and a lot has changed.

The last three years were the hottest ever recorded.

In September 2023, Navarro reached now 2022, Navarato reached 113 Fahrenheit.

This year, a powerful in YNU is set to reshape global weather, driven by rapidly rising sea surface temperatures in the Pacific.

This shows that the heating planet is real and accelerating, leading to increasingly costly and destructive climate disaster in sea level rise.

We are very concerned about the continuous increase in cleanhouse gas, greenhouse gas emissions.

Global heating is an existential threat to humanity and the number one issue that required immediately aggressive actions.

Unfortunately, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels reached a new record of 427 to 430 parts per million in early 2026, driven by fossil fuel burning.

Currently, CO levels are in territory not seen for 14 to 60 million years, ending the 10,000 years of relatively stable global climate that enabled human civilization to thrive.

Burning fossil fuels for transportation is a major cause of global heating and climate chaos.

Therefore, electrifying transportation is key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our town in the county.

So then in 2022, the Navado Council passed an ordinance 1693 to prove the construction of new gas station.

Here we are.

This is a new thing.

So I ask you to obey to the ordinance.

So we have enough gas station in Navato, as I already see, and EVs are the future of transportation due to their superior environment performance, lower long-term operation costs, rapid technology advancement and local energy independence.

In contrast to combustion vehicles, which are costly, pollutant and often face unstable gasoline prices tied to foreign market conflicts and war, as we painfully experience right now.

Approving the Costco gas station would, which would become the largest, the biggest in Marine County, sends the wrong message to both businesses and consumers, prolonging our lines on gasoline powered engine and building a future on them.

This policy is not sustainable, it's wrong.

So yeah, that's my thank you.

Thank you very much.

With that, I'm gonna take a 10 minute break, so we'll come back and resume at 7.

All I know exactly.

I was like, you can have mine.

I have it in my mayor's notes.

All right, we're gonna start.

Thank you all so far.

Um so now we're going to ask City Council for questions of staff, the appealing party and the applicant.

All right, so council member.

Okay, great.

Um I wanted to continue my discussions with Costco on the tanks.

If I can.

Obviously leading to potential leaks.

And so can you help us to understand what the composition of the fuel is going to be?

Will there be will it be ethanol free?

Um, um is there going to be interior sealing of the fiberglass to help minimize any type of leaks?

Yeah.

Just I I'd like to have a really good presentation on this because once a tank leaks, then you're gonna have to do some major work, and it's gonna not be pretty at all.

Yeah, so the the tanks and you know um oh Chris.

So we can speak right into the microphone, or if the clerk can raise the volume on the microphone, that would be helpful.

Sorry, can you hear me better now?

No, that's a lot better.

Okay.

Yeah, apologies.

Yeah, the Christopher goes states.

In the big picture, you know, the tanks are made out of uh fiberglass, as you mentioned, and um they're very rigid, they're uh uh earthquake resistant, um, and they are also non-corrosive.

Only uh they only become really brittle when they're exposed to the sun.

And so uh, and then the system is also designed to be double-walled, meaning that there's one tank inside of another, such that if there was a compromise with the inner wall, the uh there it would still not leak out into the environment, and that interstitial space between the tanks is monitored 24-7.

So if there's any sort of change that occurs in that interstitial space, it'll be an alarm condition, the facility will shut down.

Um as it relates to corrosion, they're highly corrosion resistant, and if corrosion is identified by you know Dan or Kleinfelder, there are corrosion experts that you can consult to use best practices to protect those tanks from that, and then as I mentioned earlier, um the regulations, especially in California, are really the strongest in the nation in our experience, and so the the amount of testing, the amount of monitoring, the amount of reporting, the amount of just watching the system and tracking it all the time is is intended to be on the lookout for those things, and that's what these regulations are written for.

That's why these regulations are in place, and so I don't know if that answered every one of your questions, but that's sort of the big picture.

Yeah, it's just that um it's also known too that uh fiberglass tanks have had problems, and so um even with double tanks, you're your possibility of cracking of the fiberglass is a possibility, and so but I I know that the regulatory restrictions of California are a lot greater than federal and other states, so by far.

Yeah, um, so I also wanted to talk with you about the um flow of traffic, and so if staff could put up the map showing where the gas station is gonna be, so that um we can get some answers, yeah.

So let staff put this up because my one of my concerns is first of all, how are you going to enforce the employees to park on Roland Boulevard in the back?

Um, how are you gonna make that happen?

Yeah, great question.

That's a common practice at Costco warehouses.

Um so it's being practiced in other places here in California, other parts of the country already.

It's really just about management talking to employees and letting them know this is an expectation.

Um, and if there's a reason that the management team has any reason to believe anybody isn't participating in that, you just go talk to them directly and make sure that they do.

Because I'm concerned about the loss of parking.

Sure.

Um obviously being an avid uh shopper at Costco, um, for both my mom and myself, uh it already is a problem trying to find a parking spot um because there's so many people that are shopping at Costco, which is great, um, really support that.

But with that, sh that whole area that's closest, and you can't can you show it to in comparison to where the Costco store is now?

I guess that's so is the red box.

Let's see.

Okay, there it is.

So um, so you're still gonna have that street that's in front of Costco.

And so why are you keeping that um exit and entrance right next to the Costco um store?

Are you, when you say there's a street in front of Costco, are you referring to what I'll call a drive aisle, but just a place for cars to drive along the front of the building?

Yeah.

Okay.

So I understand that.

And now can you say your question again to me, please?

Yeah.

My concern is is that you're losing a lot of parking where it's located now.

And so my thinking was before I saw this, okay, maybe they're gonna put the gas station closer to the warehouse itself so that that way you can minimize the loss of parking by taking up some of that street there, which a lot of people don't necessarily use because they go on the round on the outside.

So I'm kind of curious.

Um, because even with the additional parking at the back, there's still going to be a parking loss.

And uh right now it's hard to find parking.

And so, um, have you thought about trying to take up some of that road instead of the parking spots?

Got it.

Thank you for restating the question.

Two things I'll say.

The first is with the fuel facility and when employees park behind, which we have a high, you know, compliance rate with that at other warehouses.

So it's very reasonable to expect these employees to do the same.

We'll see a net gain of roughly 30 stalls.

Because the fuel facility is expected to displace approximately 120, and we shipped 150 employees behind the warehouse, that means there's 30 vacant stalls.

When you take 150 vacated, remove 120 from the site, you still have 30 vacant.

So there's a net gain in empty stalls with what's proposed.

Additionally, to your question about why not close that drive aisle and use that area for parking.

It's actually an important place for members who are coming to the site today to leave.

Part of our work, Kittleson's work in analyzing things to understand what's going on here at the very beginning, included includes collecting data and looking to see.

So we do know that that driveway off to the right on the screen is used regularly all day long by people.

If we take that away, it starts to consolidate traffic in other places.

That's not to people's benefit.

Additionally, because the fuel facility is there, there'll be a lot of members for whom buying gas is the last thing they do when they're at the Costco site.

And so having that driveway right there is a good way to just let them get on out and go on their merry way.

Council Member Uckland, can we go back to you since the five minutes?

Sure.

Mayor Potem Jacobs.

Thank you.

Um, so question: do you sell top-tier fuel at all your gas locations?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and out of the 10 EV chargers, how many will be fast chargers?

Do you know that?

Uh you mean the 10 that were installed behind the Yeah.

Yeah, those are all fast chargers.

They're all fast chargers.

Okay, very good.

Um, ready asked about light impact on the birds.

Um, you had stated what I found was that the double wall tanks underground are inspected at six months after install and then every three years, but I thought you mentioned that's what I in information I dug up.

Yeah, but I thought you I heard you say they're they're tested more often than they are.

How often?

Yeah, yeah, so annually there's a full inspection that's done by the Coupa, which is uh the Marin County Health Department.

Um, and then there are additional testing as well, um monthly uh monitoring, um annual testing of certain components of the facility.

Um, and then there's um designated uh testing every 30 days of other components of the facility, you know, daily logs, you know, multiple inspections uh throughout the year.

So they're monitored pretty heavily.

Oh, yeah.

Oh yeah.

Um one other question, and this is for Costco, and I don't know if they can answer it or not, but Roanard Park, what is there a number of Novato members who shop at Roonard Park?

And if you can release that information, uh yeah, we can uh share that, at least from the transaction data that was collected for our analysis that there are about 200 uh purchases or uh trips to Roanur Park by Novato residents um who also happen to be members on a daily basis.

Okay, so 200 a day, per day per day, yes.

Okay, so that's well, I came up with 46 miles round trip.

I came up with more than you guys did.

So that's quite a bit of miles of keeping people off the road.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Thank you.

I just a couple of follow-up questions in relation to the gas storage system, if you don't mind.

So does Costco use this gas storage system elsewhere in the country?

Yeah, uh you mean double the double walled uh yeah throughout the United States.

Okay.

Do you have a bulb idea of how many locations use this?

It's like 650, I believe.

And then can you speak a little bit about why you use this throughout the country?

Oh, well, partially because it's uh regulatory requirements uh mandate it, and it's also um just a uh the the state of the art technology uh basically that uh provides the highest level of protection uh as well as um uh durability uh lasts a long time, etc.

Okay.

And then my final question, uh as you can obviously pick up this concern around what happens if something goes wrong.

You have 600 or so of these locations across the country already.

How many of them have suffered from a serious failure?

You have significant problems at the regulatory fines, you've had to take them off and replace them.

How many times has that happened?

Um I'm not I don't have an exact number of I am actually not aware of any.

Um, yeah, I don't I'm not really aware of any that have had any significant issues.

Um, you know, and uh in terms of uh uh, you know, there there are inspections that occur all the time, and I know that like gas station operators in general can get fined and the fines can be substantial, but Costco has an incredible um environmental compliance program that uh really just keeps that from happening.

Okay, so would you say it's fair to say that while this is it's new technology to Novato, it's very well established, well tested, proven technology is throughout the United States.

Absolutely, and like I said before, California has the most strict regulations in the United States by far.

We work throughout the country.

Thank you.

I didn't have any other questions.

Council Member Kerkle.

Uh yes, thank you.

And uh I always say going last or near the last.

A lot of the questions, the good questions have already been asked, but I still have a couple questions uh uh for the Costco team and maybe for uh staff as well.

Um so some of these uh have already been uh answered, but I'm gonna run through them real quick uh in my time slot and cut me off if you if you need to.

So uh this is this is basically a disturbed site, um, and I was asked wondered uh wondered about the technical assessments on this um site as part of the II work, and actually you answered most of the questions I had already, so I'm gonna pass them.

I wanted to talk about like the faction potential, you've already addressed that.

So uh the other part I had was uh about the pediatric facility close by, but somebody identified that that was not a sensitive receptor as far as B area air district uh assessment standards are concerned, so I'm good with that.

I wanted to ask about the parking spots because I could tell from your project plans that there was actually on that increase.

You've cleared that question for me.

So you talked about the project uh the EV charging stations.

Um, one thing I wanted to ask about was did the project require um nesting bird avoidance and does it maintain mandate nesting bird uh surveys?

So I don't think that one's been asked, so can someone talk to that?

Because especially during the construction phase, I would imagine that you'd have to have some kind of.

Yeah, so I can um start to answer that, and then I might actually request um Eileen with Rincon if she's can hear us.

If she can um address the question about uh nesting bird surveys and any mitigation measures.

Yeah, with Raycon.

Um the biological section of the EIR did identify nesting bird surveys for before construction as one of the mitigation measures required for the EIR compliance.

Okay, great, thank you.

Uh was there any kind of uh light study or a uh photometry study or similar uh especially you know in terms of impacts to burbs or marshland wildlife?

So there was a photometric study done, and uh so that looks at what the new lights that are proposed at the facility would cast onto the ground, and uh when you look at that, the numbers were really low when you get into that vintage way area.

Um, you know, I think the one thing that staff would want to point out also along vintage way and roll and boulevard where it dead ends to the Hannah Ranch project.

Um there's existing street light poles that are an existing um light source out there along vintage way and at the end of Roland Boulevard, and so um there's really a lot of existing light sources out there.

And um, I think uh one of the Costco representatives mentioned that the lights in the uh canopy are going to be underneath the canopy, so they'll be down shielded.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does, thank you.

Um and then I wanted to talk a little bit about uh maybe the uh leakage monitoring on the on the fuel tanks.

So you talked about the double wall space, you've talked about the interstitial monitoring.

Um how about outside the tanks?

Uh will there be any provisions for groundwater monitoring around the site?

And I I don't know.

I just don't know the answer to it.

I is uh are these even typically required for fuel tanks in a typical gas station?

Uh groundwater monitoring is is typically not required in terms of monitoring wells for new new facilities.

Okay, great, thank you.

And then my last question is uh it's kind of a general and a liability-related question.

I'm sure you guys carry fairly high levels of uh environmental pollution liability coverage.

Um is this coverage by individual site or on a sort of a regional or even national level?

And could you just give me an idea of what your levels of coverage are both on a perocurrence basis and in the aggregate?

Um I don't have the exact details on like the instance, but every facility is required to have insurance and Costco is is self-insured, and uh there's certain uh regulatory requirements for what level that needs to be, and that insurance needs to be submitted to the uh the DEQs um uh in each state annually.

Um so it needs to be uh kind of updated and reported to to the government that Costco is fully insured.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay, um I turned a question.

Um so when you are building Costco, why didn't you build the gas station at the same time?

At the time that the facility or the warehouse was built, um, and I was not working for Costco at that time, so I can only speak kind of from uh history here.

The um it just was not a part of a standard service that was offered at the time.

It was also um you know, slightly smaller site, but again the whole business model at that time was different than it is today, and uh as mentioned before, we've just grown in our um services and our capacity to our members.

Okay, and then in your presentation, you said Costco can modify its business model.

Should member demand for fuel services decrease.

Can you go into more detail about how so as uh an owner and operator of the gas station at the time that we decide to stop using that facility, discontinue the service will be required uh under regulations when we want to remove it to undergo stringent testing, uh stringent uh reporting um processes to uh verify that the remaining site is left in a uh satisfactory condition, and uh we will be responsible also for the uh removal and disposal of all the equipment.

Um that is a business decision that's uh we are able to make.

We have the capacity to remove the uh facilities and we also have the uh willingness and understanding of how to do that safely.

And upon removal, so let's say you removed it.

Um, is there a time limit on when like if I wanted to build a restaurant there that I have to wait because it was a gas station?

Um, if once all of the uh soil testing is completes and um the site is uh certified not to have any contamination or any other issues that um would prevent uh commercial use from occupying the land, I would be ready to use after that.

Okay, so they'd say all right, go.

Okay.

Um getting into uh parking, um, how many new cars are projected to come into the area?

Talking uh trip question, yeah.

I will invite so it was shared earlier when others were speaking that there are 460 new trips expected here on a daily basis, and that correlates with 2,310 vehicles in traffic engineering.

We talk about start somewhere and then you end somewhere and that's a trip.

So when you go there and then you go home, that's a round trip and that's two trips.

Okay, so roughly 2,000 cars.

2,000 cars over the course of a day.

Thank you so much.

Um have we talked to the fire and police departments and evaluated whether an increase in congestion would slow down emergency response times?

I'm not aware of us, I don't know if staff spoke to fire.

So, as part of our development review process, all projects do get sent out to the fire department as a commenting agency, and we frequently also do uh uh distribute projects to the Nevada Police Department also.

Um neither of them commented on safety issues regarding additional vehicles.

Um fire department, I think their focus was mainly on the safety of the site and the um the structures and how it's going to be developed to comply with the California fire code and other regulations, but no comments on a life safety issue regarding traffic.

Okay, and then um I know you did a uh thorough analysis, but um how are we gonna ensure the gas station lines will not spill into the public streets, especially during like weekend hours?

Yep, that's a good question.

And it's an important one on sites like this because it happens in some of the other Costco's older facilities.

Um, so this site we did document and staff asked us this question a long time ago.

What could be expected?

So we've demonstrated through the process that the queue storage area behind the pumps is already expected to um accommodate the kind of largest anticipated queues and under typical conditions.

If we think about what the Friday before Memorial Day or some weekend when everyone's gonna fuel up and go out of town, Costco themselves, Kittleson works with them and with the operators there at the local um warehouse to put together what's called a queue management plan, and so that's a plan for how they're gonna manage the queue within kind of the adjacent parking aisles and make sure the queue stays on the site.

We've done that in other places too.

We've gone through that process with them here as well.

And then um, we have an agreement with KIA, and they currently have the parking spots where the employees you say are gonna park.

Um, what's gonna happen with that?

Because currently, aren't we getting revenue from that or we have some type of agreement?

So that might not be the best course because they are Kia's a business partner as well, like Costco.

They're all valued.

I'm not aware of the exact details of that agreement.

I do know at the Planning Commission meeting, Kathy DeAchoa, who manages um the vintage oak Shopping center, she did say that there are um triggers within the lease agreement that gives vintage oaks the ability to kick Kia out on a fairly short notice.

I don't know the exact parameters of that, but interesting.

Okay.

Councilmember Eklin, we're back to you now for questioning.

Okay, great.

Um so I guess my question is on the lights.

Um I understand that the gas station is going to close at 10 o'clock at night, is that correct?

Yes.

And then um it says in the report that the lights are going to stay on all night.

And my concern is because obviously the lights are detracted, especially if the gas station is closed.

Um to animals, and that's a pretty heavily used area.

Yeah.

Um, and so is there a possibility that um you could reduce the amount of light at night and actually have a condition of approval that ensures that that is done.

That is already what Costco does.

Um they turn the lights down at night and they keep them uh just enough security lighting so that the security cameras and security system can see.

Um the lights are turned down after closing.

And I didn't see that as a condition of approval.

Um, or I didn't see it in your description of the project.

It so can you help me to understand where that is?

So that um, and maybe we could put it as a condition of approval.

Well, um, one thing the city already has in its zoning ordinance and our s uh section on lighting and glare is a provision that all unnecessary lighting be turned off after a certain hour.

I believe it's 11 p.m.

It might be 10 p.m.

Um so from a city staff's perspective, all unnecessary lighting should be turned off once the gas stations closed.

And we typically do allow security type lighting to stay on overnight for its intended purpose, but not be um over go beyond the the minimum necessary.

Can we put that as a condition of approval in the documents just to make sure?

Because I did not see it.

Um and so I didn't see it in any of the documents.

My concern is is that that's uh right now a pretty dark area at night, which allows the animals free range, which we want to, especially out in that area near a marsh.

Um, so you know, my concern is that um it won't happen, and then we'd have to start you know getting on the phone and and that I'd like to make sure that it's just in the documents that the lights are turned down where the gas station is to, you know, after it's closed to minimal lighting so as not to affect the um wildlife in that area at night.

Yeah, if it's the uh request of the council.

Okay, I I will do that.

Thank and Costco has no problem with that, correct?

It's already part of their standard practice.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Mayor Putin Jacobs.

I didn't just sorry.

Uh just one thing.

I just did some calculations, and let's say 75% of the people that go to Roanoke stop going to Runner Park.

You're looking at two and a half million miles a year of not traveling to Roanart Park, so that's quite substantial.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Um, just looking, um, I have a couple more questions.

Um, travel, what I want to do.

Sorry, I'm just looking at where my question is.

So looking at just business deplacement within just our local businesses right now the existing.

If local gas stations close due to price competition, do we know the net revenue impact to the city after accounting for lost of sales tax from those businesses?

That was not studied with this project.

Are you referring to gas tax revenue or non-gas tax sales tax revenue?

Well, I think both, right?

Because if we're losing businesses, for example, like Matt and Jeff's car wash, that will have the similar price, but people choose to go to Costco and then they go out of business.

What would be the ramifications?

Yeah, the city, the city did not do an economic analysis, that type of analysis is not part of the CEQA process, and we did not do that analysis outside of the CEQA process.

But economic development is within our strategic plan as well as our general plan.

So that's why I asked the question.

So I'm finished asking questions.

So we're gonna move on to public comment.

And so after public comment, we can ask for more questions of the applicant.

Um yeah, I'll give you another pass through.

Thank you.

Um, so just a reminder.

Um everyone has two minutes.

There's a clock right there.

Um I do the two minutes and cut you off at two minutes because I want an equitable process so everyone gets a fair two minutes.

Um so please be respectful.

Um, and I'm gonna call a name up and then another name up, and that's gonna be who's in the queue to talk next.

Um open public comment, and we have Karen Burke, and then Jeremy Hogan.

I didn't expect a comment, so I'll hopefully keep within two minutes.

Into the microphone, please.

Thank you.

Down.

Oh, thank you.

Oh, yeah, okay.

Um, I've been a resident since 1985, and unlike many other people in Marina, Navado, I was a commuter.

Um, luckily, most of the time, reverse commute to UC Davis.

So I put in um a hundred and thirty miles a day commuting, twenty-five thousand miles a year on my car.

And I would never buy gas in Novato.

I would go through Vallejo.

Minute you get across 37, it's 20 to 30 cents cheaper.

And I discovered Costco.

I had been a Costco member for a while before it was built here, you know, in Green Valley, and they had gas stations.

And I was always wondering why this one didn't, and I would continue to ask when are you gonna get it?

So I'm very pleased, even though I'm retired, um, that it's finally coming here because there's a lot of people that depend on their cars, and they're not very many electric cars out on the roads, and it's gonna be that way for a long time, and especially working class people and lower income people, they're gonna have gas cars for a long time, and I feel they need a break.

Um, but anyways, I'm retired and I volunteer in near Roanart Park twice a week, so I go up there and get my gas, and I'm happy to do that.

Um, um I was gonna say also with electric cars, we don't even have a grid that's dependable for electricity now.

And electric cars for most people, Marin is kind of in a different income bracket, so you'll see more, but most people can't afford the electric cars, and so that something's got to happen in order to make that more available.

And so I'm very hopeful that this will project will go through.

Thank you.

And I think a lot of um people are gonna enjoy being able to not drive to get their gas 20 miles away.

Thank you.

Um Jeremy Hogan and Kate Powers.

Kate, if you want to come up here and just wait.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you, Council.

Uh, my name is Jeremy Hogan.

I'm a local Novado resident, and um I have colleagues from um the Novato Chamber of Commerce here who will be speaking more eloquently, so I'll be brief and just echo their sentiments and um just ask that the council support this um measure as as someone who believes um in moving towards a green economy.

The reality is right now um gas cars for me uh my gas car for me is is more affordable and is gonna be realistic uh for the next several years for what I use and I could I'd appreciate cheaper gas um closer.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Kate Powers and Curtis Havill.

Good evening, uh, council members.

Uh my name is Kay Powers, and I live in San Rafael.

I am asking the council not to approve the supersized gas station and deny the use permit.

Um the perpetual collective uh reliance on gas-powered cars at the time when electric vehicles and other forms of clean energy of transportation are available to help fight climate emissions.

Significant GHG emissions are um associated at every link of the value chain when you're um selling gas at resource extraction, production and the refineries, the transport, and the use and the waste disposal.

So um the consumption of GHGs cannot be ignored.

Cities are 70 to 80 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and they have the power to make significant contributions to stopping climate change.

The city of Novato in 2009 was the first city in Marin County to adopt climate action plan in October of 2020.

It adopted a general plan with goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and actively implement local strategies to reduce the effects of climate change.

In 2020, the council adopted the resolution declaring a climate emergency and went on record in support of taking emergency action to reduce to reverse global warming.

In 2022, it approved the ordinance um banning new gas stations and expansions of existing ones to combat climate change.

The project was killed, and then it came back.

Um the last thing I just want to say is it takes bold leadership.

This is what is in your cap.

Bold leadership and aggressive gold city uh gold setting are essential, and success will depend on the collective commitment of the city, its partners, and the broader community to implement measures and to adapt to the opportunities and that as challenges arise.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Curtis Havill and Kim Kim Sale.

Hi, my name's Curtis Havill.

I'm a Nevado resident, been here since 2011.

Uh in my previous profession, I was a land use planner with the county of Marin.

Uh this project has complied with all the findings for what it needs to comply with with respect to zoning, general plan compliance.

It's complied with C core requirements, it's gone through an extensive process, as you know.

Something that I think is really important to point out is this project was the catalyst for the ordinance that outlawed any new gas stations in Nevada.

That's a huge success.

So for all the folks who are concerned about green greenhouse gases, of which I'm one, I rode my bike here tonight.

I drive a Tesla, I commute unfortunately 40 miles a day to and from work.

Um, you know, this project was the watershed project that helped push that legislation through.

So to at this point to deny the project, I think would incur incredible liability for the city from a legal standpoint, procedurally.

Um, and frankly, it would just be poor faith.

I mean, these the Costco folks have gone through this process for years now, repeatedly going back and forth with staff with the community.

So it's it's a good project, and it's a great location, and I I think uh, you know, I support it and I hope you do too.

Thanks.

Thanks, Prince.

Um, Kim and then David Miller.

And if you guys can, if you're next in line, stand up here, it saves a significant amount of time.

Hi, my name is Kim Staley.

I'm a longtime resident of Novato.

I moved here in 1984.

And I remember when Vintage Oaks was just a big empty field where they sold concrete slabs of the Golden Gate Bridge.

I also work for the Novato Chamber of Commerce, and Costco has been a member of the Novato Chamber since they opened in 1992.

I'm speaking out in favor of the Costco gas station.

As you know, people love to complain about Novato.

Why does everything have to close so early?

Why can't we have restaurants like they do in Petaluma?

Why isn't there anything to do for teens?

I will tell you, we have got one thing right.

We've got vintage oaks.

It's a thriving shopping center with no vacancy.

This is not normal, and it's going against retail trends.

The target Costco combo makes vintage oaks plus their 55 other stores, a true shopping destination for Marin, San Francisco, Petaluma.

I've even run into friends from San Francisco in Novato at Costco.

What are you doing here?

Costco is the anchor store at Vintage Oaks.

If Costco were to leave, and they will, for another town nearby that will welcome their business, that is going to be the beginning of the end for vintage oaks.

Other businesses will leave one after the other until Vintage Oaks is another empty shopping mall, like everywhere else in the city, county, and state.

The loss of sales income tax and jobs will be financially devastating for Novato.

For all the things that we need to change in Novato, we've got vintage oaks figured out.

Are you ready for Costco to leave Novato?

I'm not.

Don't let your legacy be the killing of vintage oaks.

Please vote yes on Costco gas.

We want business expansion and growth in Novato.

We want to be a business-friendly city, and this is an opportunity to do that.

We're grateful for Costco's partnership and support of our local economy and of the Novato Chamber.

Thank you.

Thank you.

David Miller and Seth.

Hi, I'm David Miller.

I've talked to Pat Eklin a lot because she comes to the door.

Oh, here.

Okay, is that better?

Yeah, perfect.

We've had a lot of good conversations when she's running for election, especially.

So we I and I trust you also know how the EPA is doing these days.

Yeah.

So I just want to ask a few questions because I have a very technical background that I left as a chemical engineer and for good reasons, because I don't trust technology the way I did.

I had a professor at Ohio State, who was the number one source for metallurgy, and I took that course and he went around the country telling people that you have certain conditions that are going to cause corrosions and you don't know about it.

And you don't find out about when you put it in the ground today.

You'd find out about 10 years down the line, and what are you gonna do then?

So that's just some of my background and skepticism.

But I also would like to ask people here or people, especially the representing, I think I believe Costco's a very good company.

You know, I I've been there since it was price Costco.

So I it's a it's very been a long time.

So I don't think that I don't think the consideration is about Costco and their and their presentations, but I'd like to ask anybody in the room, how many parts per million of carbon monoxide is harmful for your health.

Anybody anybody know?

Does this gentleman know?

He seems to know a lot.

The reality is it's only nine parts per million.

So let me read you what a car take does.

A vehicle, we said there's a 10 seconds, sir.

Pardon?

You have 10 seconds.

Okay, 10.

There's there's 28 stations uh of cars, right, going through Costco.

So the exhaust system in the car puts out 30,000 to 100,000 parts per million of carbon dioxide.

When it goes through the car, the the catalytic converter, it comes down to a thousand or five thousand.

Thank you.

So the last thank you, sir.

What about the kids?

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, sir.

That's my question.

Uh Seth, and then Julia.

Good evening to the council and staff.

I'm an 18-year resident of Novato, and I strongly support the Costco gas station.

I'm not a Costco member myself and will not directly benefit from this project.

However, it represents an opportunity to strengthen our local economy and increase tax revenue, which will benefit all Novado residents and businesses.

Costco's own research shows that locations with fueling stations increase patronage.

Higher patronage benefits not only Costco but the other retailers and vintage oaks, other retailers elsewhere in Novato, employment opportunities, and our city's coffers.

Costco's a highly respected national retailer, and supporting a large business that has chosen to make Novato home is important.

They are the number one generator of sales tax in our city.

This station is important to them, and we need to remember that they don't have to be here.

If we're too difficult to work with, they can move to a city that will accommodate their growth.

And if that happens, we all lose.

This project was grandfathered in when the city put in a moratorium on additional gas stations in 2022.

Costco has probably spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars just to get to this point.

The city has already approved this gas station twice.

Flip-flopping on that decision now would seriously damage the city's reputation.

We uh what we decide here tonight will not have any effect on global climate.

A new gas station will not increase the use of fossil fuels.

People are going to use gas regardless.

Denying Costco this opportunity will only force those fuel purchases out of our city where we can't benefit from them.

As much as we'd like to have a carbon neutral economy, we're just not there yet.

This is not a centrally planned economy.

We need to let the free market work.

Most consumers have determined the gas-powered vehicles make the most financial sense for them.

When that changes, I'm sure Costco will rip out the pumps and put in charging station.

But again, we're just not there yet.

Lastly, it's not an environmental hazard.

Modern gas stations are incredibly sophisticated and safe and among the most monitored pieces of real estate in the whole state.

We cannot deny this project under any rationale that's not strictly and solidly based on facts.

Longing for an all-electric future or arguing that one new gas station will affect global climate, or simply not liking the idea of another gas station.

Thank you based arguments on which to deny the project.

I ask that you approve this project tonight.

Thank you.

Julia and Christina.

Good evening, council members.

I am an NUSD high school science teacher, Nevada resident, and parent of two young children.

Every day in my classroom, I teach my students to look at the data and the long-term impacts of our decisions.

Tonight I'm asking you to do the same.

True sustainability rests on three pillars social, environmental, and economic sustainability.

This gas station fails all three.

Firstly, the social and public health costs.

In California, gas stations are classified as toxic hot spots due to benzene emissions and vapor leaks.

The increase in vehicle traffic and exhaust while cars idle waiting to fill up dramatically increases toxic gases and particular matter in our community's air, causes increase in disease and health care costs.

I am a Costco member and frequent shopper, but I know this is not equitable.

This station is a pricing membership only fuel hub.

Contrast that with the nearby locally owned business, Matt and Jess, who sell equally discounted gas to everyone.

Now let's look at the environmental reality.

Placing massive underground storage tanks next to a pristine wildlife area is a disaster waiting to happen.

Even if it doesn't leak for years, daily pollution from thousands of cars, toxic surface spills, tire heavy metals, and microplastics go directly into the wetlands with every rain and gust of wind.

The project amplifies the climate crisis and its disasters and is extremely vulnerable to rapid sea level rise.

Finally, that's the economic pillar.

California is actively phasing out fossil fuel vehicles.

The station will become an obsolete stranded asset, leading Novato's furniture agents, two months to clean up the immense financial cost.

Uh now imagine a few years from now, your children or grandchildren look back and ask about this vote.

Will your answer be I knew it violated Novato's climate emergency resolution and climate action plan?

I knew it contracted this contradicted this gas station ban.

I knew it threatened our wetlands and local businesses.

I knew your generation would be paying for the real cost of this toxic stranded asset.

But for short-term tax revenues, I approved it anyway.

Or you'd be able to say, I thought of you, your health and economic future, so I voted no.

Thank you.

Christina.

And then Mendez.

And oh she left.

Okay.

Pablo and Denise.

Good evening.

I'm Pablo Downer Pastor.

I'm the chairman of the Sustainability Commission of the Novato City Council, and one of the authors of your climate action plan that you have adopted.

But I'm here today as a 25-year veteran of greenhouse gas accounting and sustainability engineering, and as a father of four.

I feel that I need to add my voice in opposition to this project.

You're being asked to approve an infrastructure project that will become obsolete before the end of its initial lease.

So as EVs expand and uh internal combustion vehicles are retired, those numbers are going to continue to change.

You've already been reminded of the climate emergency declaration that the city council made and the ban on new gas stations.

Um if this proposal were to arrive on your desk today, you'd legally be required uh to deny it.

So the only thing protecting this project is the filing date.

That's not a basis, a good basis for a 20-year decision.

So I urge you, on behalf of myself and my children, uh, to oppose this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Denise and then Kathleen.

Mayor and Council members, on behalf of the Novato Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, and we have several here tonight.

Um, we want to express our continued support for the proposed Costco gas station project.

This was an endorsement originally made in 2020.

The chamber recognizes the economic and community benefits this project will bring, including added convenience for residents, increased local tax revenue, and the continued success of one of Novato's key retail anchors.

Costco has been a valued member of the Novato business community for many years, providing jobs, supporting local nonprofits, and driving consistent economic activity in our city.

The proposed gas station represents a thoughtful, well-planned enhancement to an existing business, aligning with the chamber's mission to foster a strong, sustainable local economy.

For these reasons, the Novato Chamber reaffirms its endorsement of the Costco Gas Station project and urge council to move this project forward and deny the appeal.

This project has been blocked long enough.

We thank you for your service in all you do for Novato.

Thank you.

Kathleen and then Jim.

Good evening.

I'm Kathleen Brighi Sandel, and I'm the asset manager at Vintage Oaks, representing the ownership of the James Campbell Company.

I oversee all aspects of operations of the shopping center.

We're here to voice our full support for the Costco Gas Station Project as a landlord.

We've worked closely with Costco and have made improvements to help ensure this project integrates well with the rest of the center.

In anticipation of this project, we proactively addressed three key issues.

First, the EV chargers infrastructure.

Initially, we were asked to add 10 at uh and 20 uh Tesla chargers have been added to the south end of the property, and another 13 fast chargers were added to the north end of the property for a total of 37.

Um the uh second item is the Roland Boulevard improvements that were added, as mentioned earlier, both at the city Costco and the land our landlord uh completed these uh improvements, streamlining traffic flow, increasing parking capacity for 150 stalls.

It was mentioned earlier about the Kia parking.

That's a 30 uh day uh cancellation provision that we're able to cancel that if we need to do so.

Lastly, is the men's warehouse space that uh has been held by the landlord to keep as vacant and maintaining a flexibility.

If we do need to add parking to that area for the par for the gas station, we're in full support of this project, and we respectfully uh request your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Jim and Robert.

Yes.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

I'm Jim Burroughs here on behalf of the uh Marine Conservation League.

We are in opposition to this project, and you have our various letters, including our uh letter of a week ago.

Um I wanted to address uh a memo that I saw in the council's package for tonight, uh memo by Ramble.

If I I might be mispronouncing that, I dated June 3rd a little while ago, attachment six to your package.

In that memo, they make the case that the gas cars um are going to be with us for a while.

Um so implicitly and quietly, I should say, uh, we need the uh Costco gas station to continue to service that uh ongoing need.

That doesn't exactly square with the rationale for the project as presented uh in the FUIR and and by the project applicant.

Uh per that analysis, the um the FER analysis, the need for the new gas station is not to uh service uh uh needed new uh gas demand, but instead the need is to provide cheap gas for existing members or new Costco members as a service to those members, and in fact, a key a key point of that analysis as the mayor pointed out uh just a little while ago is that by providing that cheap gas uh it's gonna uh take away uh the uh from the existing gas stations in Novato that are servicing existing customers, that these customers are instead we're gonna drive an extra 10 minutes according to their analysis, uh just just for the cheap gas that is roughly maybe 30 cents a gallon cheaper.

So that's hardly a rationale.

We think that is in service of the uh uh of the project, and for all the reasons we previously stated, we hope that you do oppose and deny this project.

Thank you.

Uh Robert, and then Michael.

Good evening.

My name is Robert Atkinson.

I'm not from San Rafael, Fairfax, or any other town like New Valley.

I'm a local Navado resident.

Um I support the Costco Gas Station application.

Um, I coach soccer, youth sports, involved in Cub Scouts, Scouting for a decade, um, HOA president, very involved in the community, know a lot of you, and I rely on my SUV to pick those kids up, deliver them, get them places, and that requires gasoline that we can all afford.

Um, the majority of the citizens of Novato, I believe, support this project.

Unfortunately, there's some apathy.

A lot of them are home on the couch, typically meetings like this.

The opponents show up in greater numbers than the supporters.

I think you guys recognize that.

I'm also um a real estate professional um construction and development.

I've read the EIR, I review ERS for a living, and I think that the um impacts have been properly addressed per sequa.

Um I also have to confess I shop at Costco and Roanert Park.

Because I can go to some of the other retailers in that neighborhood with my family, and it's natural to fill up with gas.

I would love to fill up with gas locally.

Our community is socially diverse from other parts of Southern Marin.

There are people in this community that rely on their SUV, their minivan to support their lawn businesses.

Um I think this would be a huge benefit economically to the city.

It would help support some of the much-needed services.

I know you're facing a budget challenge.

I think preserving the retail tax dollars and increasing it at this location is a great idea.

Thank you.

I support a second approval by the council.

Thank you.

Um Michael and JP.

Uh good evening council members and the mayor.

Uh I'm speaking against the permit for the gas station, uh, long-time Novato resident.

Uh I think Costco is one of the greatest assets of living in Novato.

We have access to it, but I think the this goes against the philosophy of the council and when they made their uh agreement about climate change several years ago.

And my biggest concern about this gas station is that it will impact the local uh fuel retailers and may drive some of them out of business.

I do think people in Novato have access to discount gas already.

Uh I don't uh deny that it would be uh useful for many people, but I do think it isn't needed in Novato, and I do think it threatens uh some of the local retailers already, and so I would uh ask that you uh uh deny this permit.

Thank you for your time.

And JP and Patty.

Hi, good evening.

My name is JP Perino.

I've been a resident of Novato since 1991 and a Costco member as long and a registered voter.

I urge the city council to support the community appeal, deny the deny the current EIR and design review permit.

Why is because it will increase traffic congestion with limited roll in boulevard access.

I don't know if any of you travel into Costco on the weekends or during high frequency times, but it's terrible.

The congestion is terrible already.

And it uh the air quality uh decrease as CO2 emissions increase will be unreasonable.

Third, I think that we've got a problematic environmental issue with the design area with uh the um uh increase in water to the bay, the sailing water to the bay due to climate change.

There's no doubt that we're going to have water creeping up.

The effect of the wetlands and the wildlife is known, and also the city council's own 2020 environmental goal commitment to assist in the reduction and the increase to uh our environmental health and safety.

So I urge you to deny the uh EIR and the uh design review permit and to support the community appeal.

Thank you, thank you.

Um, and last we have Patty.

Welcome.

I don't have anything prepared to say, but I do want to say that your calculations of 200 people per day and two million miles per year are all wrong because I get my gas when I go somewhere to work back or whatever.

So those 200 people a day, I'm sure 190 of them work up in that area, and they're gonna go there anyway.

So it's not realistic to think that we're gonna save 200 million or two million miles a year or whatever on gasoline.

Um I also think you should deny this and not put it in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, and if you think it's too expensive to own an AD, it's because you don't have one.

They're really really nice.

I have one of each, so I know the difference.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that concludes public comment.

I'm gonna have it come back to council um for any questions.

I have a couple questions.

Um, as far as the bedrock and the soil type, have you um done a similar project with that similar sort of soil?

Yes, hi.

Uh yes.

Um a lot of times these uh these tanks sit on very dense soil or bedrock.

So this bedrock is uh a weekly, kind of a weaker bedrock, so it it reacts kind of more like a very stiff clay.

So it's it's very very strong, it's not gonna settle anywhere, and then it is also excavatable, so the excavation uh would be able to be created with uh normal uh uh construction equipment, nothing out of the ordinary, and these soil conditions are very common for any um uh fuel facility that we have done in the past, it's nothing out of the ordinary.

And then um, has Costco um applied to have a gas station and the city council deny it and then they move in the last four years?

Has that ever happened?

Uh that unique circumstance has not happened in the last four years.

Okay, so the risk of losing Costco is not there.

Okay, um, and then as far as um, gonna talk about just given California's rapid shift to EV.

How many years of stable fuel sales are assumed in your revenue model?

Uh to answer the question probably a little more broadly, the projection or our outlook on fuel sales in California and just in general still has a very um far out time frame.

Talking about 30 years, um, and uh again it's a service that's um if we were to see a decline in use or demand um we would start to treat it as such as we have with other services and begin the rollback, that's just not what's happening right now, continues to be um the most demanded service where it does not exist, and uh we project it to be a very healthy part of our business now into the future.

And then approximately how much are you investing to get this fuel station up?

Um this project uh will you know be in about the 10 million dollar range?

Okay, um and then just going back to the lights.

Um the birds were brought up, but the bats weren't.

Um is the study that you did helpful to see like the bat trends as well in that area?

I'll defer that one to Steph.

Um, so I guess one thing I'll say is that the EIR did not identify a lighting impact on that biological study.

Um, and then I if I lean's still available and can hear me, if she can maybe speak to that, um, lighting with respect to biological resources, specifically bats, yeah.

Um so we did look in the EIR at the potential impacts to special status species, including both migratory birds, nesting birds, and bat species.

Um, and we considered lighting, we considered noise, we considered the changes to the project site, and the fact that there are sensitive areas nearby and did not find that there would be an impact.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from council?

No.

No.

I'd like to make a motion that we approve the project with the restriction that the lighting at the canopy is lowered after 11 o'clock.

That would give them time to clean up and whatever else they have to do.

Um I'd like to see where that's gonna be and the documents before.

Is something to the effect of bringing in that the lighting requirements in line with our current set of existing requirements?

That way it's tied up in right.

Okay.

No, I'd like to actually have the language written out on the board so that I can see it.

I can add um I drafted a condition of approval that might satisfy.

Did you read that then?

All non-essential exterior lighting shall be turned off after 11 p.m.

pursuant to Nevado Municipal Code section 19.22.060 period.

Necessary security lighting may remain on after eleven p.m.

Sounds wonderful.

Thank you.

My concern about the way it's written is who makes the decision whether it's necessary or not.

And um for the lighting at the gas station to be on all night long, that's not acceptable to me.

So I think it's a safety issue.

That there be some light up.

So this is excuse me.

I have the floor.

I don't believe you do, actually, I believe you interrupted Mr.

Jacobs.

No, I have the floor because I I'm gonna go to um city attorney bell.

Yeah, my comment was to address uh what one of what the appellants said, one of the speakers on behalf of the appellant regarding whether or not the initial ordinance prohibits you from considering this.

I can address that issue now or after you finish this discussion, but I wanted to do that before you voted since it was raised.

All right, we'll do it now.

Um so the ordinance is 1693, it was adopted in November 15th, 2022.

It states that any gas station for which a complete application for a zoning or planning action has been submitted to the city prior to September thirty, 2022 shall be exempt from the prohibition on new gas stations set forth in the ordinance.

A complete application for this was submitted in advance, and there's not a new one, so that prohibition doesn't apply.

Thank you.

So about the lighting though.

Um can we on a condition of where would this condition of approval be placed, first of all?

I would suggest it the condition of approval number sixty-nine, which would be part of the resolution approving the use permit and design review entitlements.

Okay, great.

Yeah, and so can we say that um the lights shall be lowered to a level that would allow for um security, you know, safety, um, but it would not exceed um the area surrounding it for the environmental impacts, um, something like that.

I'm not exactly sure how to word it, but I think you're close on what you propose, Brett.

But if we can just be a little bit more specific, to lower the lighting, and does cost.

I think with the the safety concerns, I I don't think they're gonna abuse this safety of concerns, and then if they do, I think we can give them a warning and take a proactive approach, right?

If it's like really bright at midnight, you can go and say, hey, this wasn't in the conditional approvals, and maybe they'll be like, oh, there's a safety issue or something.

Yeah, I do believe we can have a recourse under our municipal code.

So I think I think we have a a second right now.

Yes.

Gary, come on.

Yeah, I would just add the section here is 1922 060.

It's a general standard that applies to uses in all the zones, including this one.

Um it requires that um, among other things, the light not extend beyond the boundaries, and there's some other requirements, but the last sentence there mirrors the language that's been proposed here for a condition.

It states that all non-essential internal and exterior lighting, including light and signs, shall be turned off after 11 p.m., except for uses with extended hours that have been approved.

So mirroring that non essential language, I think brings it in line with the code from an enforcement perspective for future code enforcement officers.

If we were to create a different condition of approval, that would be treated differently than what's in the code, and then we'd have to distinguish between the two.

So I do think non-essential works, and if there is an issue, certainly code enforcement can take appropriate action under other sections of the code.

And I'm comfortable with that wordy.

That Gary has suggested.

I guess I'm unclear whether Gary suggested anything that was different than what I suggested.

I did not.

Okay.

Okay.

So you've got it.

Councilmember Eckland.

So what is the main motion again?

And who seconded it?

Oh, do you want to restate your motion?

I made a motion that we approve the project with the condition that was stated for the lighting.

And who seconded it?

I did.

We did.

Okay.

I'm I'm going to vote yes, because I remember I was here when we prohibited future gas stations, and there was a provision there because we wanted the Costco gas station back in 2022 or whatever it was, a long time ago.

And that was something that the community really wanted, and it's something that I think that uh the members in Morin County would really enjoy to have that ability.

So I'm gonna support the motion.

Thank you.

Councilmember Carkle?

Yes.

Councilmember O'Connor?

Yes, and I'd like to add a few words as well.

Uh, just I wanted to recap that based on the analysis presented.

I believe the project is consistent with the general plan policies, including our city's climate action plan.

I do believe the project does not create new demand for gasoline, and this is important.

Rather, it serves existing drivers who already own gasoline-powered vehicles today, and we'll continue to rely on them for many years to come.

In addition to reducing travel distances, the project would introduce meaningful fuel price competition.

Costco has a well-established history of offering fuel prices at below prices below competing stations, and the opening of a Costco fuel facility often encourages nearby competitors to lower their own prices.

That this benefits particularly relevant to Moran County, which consistently ranks among the most expensive counties, not just in the B area but in the entire country.

Lower fuel costs will provide direct economic relief to residents, help reduce transportation expenses, leaving more money available for everyday necessities such as commuting housing and household expenses, which at a time like this is critical.

And then finally, I do want to recognize that while I agree the transition to electric vehicles is a critical long-term goal.

The primary barrier to EV adoption remains the cost of replacing an existing vehicle.

Many households simply do not have the financial ability to purchase a new electric vehicle because gasoline prices arise.

Until that transition becomes more affordable and practical, residents will continue to depend on gasoline-powered vehicles.

Thank you.

Yes.

And Mayor Farak.

Our environment and our future.

So that's why I'm voting no.

So that motion does pass.

Now we have another hearing, item I2.

We're going to hold a budget hearing and receive public comment on the fiscal year 26-27.

Thank you all for coming.

And we'll take a quick three-minute break.

9 15.

Yes, yes, all right.

We're gonna go ahead and get started with I two.

Gonna welcome Amy Cunningham, our city manager to open the item and finance director Carla and our principal management analysis.

Jennifer, so they'll present.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um tonight we are holding our official budget hearing.

This follows several months of preparation uh conversations with the council, with the community, among staff.

Um so we're excited to be here tonight to hold the budget hearing, and in the interest of time, I will go ahead and hand it over to Carla and Jen to proceed with the hearing.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Farak, Mayor Pro Tem Jacobs, and Council members.

I'm pleased to be here with our principal analyst, Jen Maldonado, to present um at the fiscal year twenty-six-27 budget hearing.

Tonight's presentation provides an updated look at where we stand going into next fiscal year, including our operating capital, our operating and capital budgets as well as the Marin Valley Mobile Country Club.

After my opening overview, Jen will walk through the operating budget and related forecasts, and then I will return later in the presentation to review the CIP and MVMCC budgets.

Here's the roadmap uh for tonight's hearing.

We'll begin with the 2627 operating budget, including uh Measure M.

Then we'll move to the capital program, followed by uh the projected emergency and disaster recovery fund, and conclude with um MVMCC operating and capital budgets.

This provides the full view of how we are allocating resources and maintaining fiscal stability heading into 2627.

At a high level, the proposed 2627 budget maintains core services, continues our investment in critical infrastructure, and supports long-term fiscal stability.

This budget is the results of weeks of community engagement surveys, workshops, pop-ups, commission input, and council direction.

The general fund is balanced with sixty-two point five million in revenues and expenses.

The community has repeatedly prioritized transportation, streets, parks, and facility improvements.

Overall, fiscal year 26-27 reflects a disciplined financial approach that balances inflationary pressures with limited revenue growth.

Now, Jen will walk through the next set of slides.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

I'm going to kick off by reviewing revenue and expense projections for fiscal year 27, followed by a review of proposed personnel allocations, and then I will review the emergency reserve forecast before I turn the presentation back to Carla to review the capital improvement program and MVMC.

The overall general fund picture is balanced for fiscal year 27.

This slide summarizes revenue and expense first by identifying revenues and expense directly generated or spent from the general fund.

Followed below by revenue transferred into the general fund to offset certain eligible costs, and then transfers out of the general fund to pay for obligations that are paid out of other funds.

Revenue projections show an overall increase for fiscal year 27 of 4.28%.

The biggest year-over-year increase comes from transfers in of revenue from other funds to offset certain eligible costs.

As mentioned in previous budget development meetings, this budget cycle challenge is managing inflationary costs with limited revenue growth.

However, after months of refining numbers, balancing community priorities with available resources.

This is the second year in a row staff has been able to present a proposed balanced budget.

Overall general fund expenditures for fiscal year 27 are projected at 62.6 million, representing a 4.28% increase compared to the prior fiscal year.

The increase is driven primarily by higher personnel related costs, including an estimated 8% in health insurance premiums and 11.1% increase in the unfunded accrued pension liability cost.

Other notable changes include a 5.87 reduction in professional services as recruitment efforts to hire permanent staff have made progress.

This slide is a summary of transfers in and out of the general fund.

Total revenue from proposed general fund transfers in is 11.7 million for fiscal year 27, and total expense projected for transfers out of the general fund is 2.4 million.

For transfers in on the left, beginning with Measure M revenue.

This is transferred into the general fund to offset the systemic deficit and support service improvements by the city.

Next is the emergency and disaster reserve.

This transfer is proposed to fund certain one-time expenditures in this budget cycle.

Then we have gas tax.

This is transferred in to help cover the cost of road maintenance in the general fund.

And finally, we have the Hamilton Trust.

This transfer in is projected is for projected interest earnings transferred into the general fund.

For transfers out on the right, the first transfer out is for long-term maintenance.

It's a transfer out of approximately $600,000 for fiscal year 27 and is consistent with prior years.

And then we have $1.8 million to transfer out to cover the city's pension obligation bond payment.

Next, we will recap the proposed Measure M allocation for fiscal year 27.

Measure M revenue is currently projected at approximately 10 million for fiscal year 27 with no changes to the proposed allocation since the budget workshop on May 12th.

As a recap, the proposed allocation includes $8.03 million to support ongoing operating costs and maintain core city services, $100,000 to implement the economic development strategic plan, $370,000 allocated to the pension reserve to address long-term liabilities, $150,000 set aside for future enterprise resource planning system replacement, and then $100,000 for additional streets and park maintenance, followed by $1.25 million to support the capital improvement program and infrastructure investments.

These allocations balance the city's immediate operational needs with long-term investments in infrastructure, technology, economic development, and fiscal sustainability.

This slide is a recap of the city's personnel allocation history.

The proposed allocation for fiscal year 27 is 202.75 full-time equivalent employees.

The year over year change is a decrease of 0.75 FTEs.

And now we'll review the emergency reserve fund forecast.

The emergency reserve has a projected beginning balance of 18.7 million.

Since May 12th, the proposed one-time expenses have remained consistent, aside from the addition of approximately $36,000 dedicated to fund a comprehensive fee study.

And then last is an approximately $60,000 dedicated towards council chamber improvements.

Overall one-time expense along with the projected interest earnings, leave the emergency reserve forecasts at approximately 30% of expense or $17.9 million.

And I'll pass the presentation back to Carla, who are via the capital improvement program and MBMCC.

So moving on to the capital improvement program.

Just a recap, there are 10 new CIP projects in fiscal year 26-27, and there is a total of $25.9 million dollars in expenditures funded through various funding sources, primarily special revenue sources that are restricted for particular uses like streets or you know items like that.

Projects are related to streets, pedestrian safety facilities, and parks, and some of the project highlights are Novato Boulevard at 15.5 million, Olive Avenue at 2.1 million, Scott House renovation at 3.1 million, and our annual pavement program at 2.4 million.

Plus, there are targeted investments in parks and safety improvements.

Together, these projects represent the city's continued commitment to maintaining infrastructure and advancing community priorities.

Since the budget workshop on May 12th, there have been a few updates to the capital improvement program.

First, all of the funding for Novato Boulevard has been moved into fiscal year 2627.

It had been spread over 2627 and 2728.

The anticipation is that the construction contract will be issued in 2627.

So funds are needed in this fiscal year in fiscal year 2627 in order to encumber the funds.

Miwok Park Fence Phase 1 remains open.

It had been on the closing list for projects, but the work is not yet complete, so that's rolling forward.

And a hundred thousand was added to Mi Walk Fence Phase Two to support cultural monitoring on the site or at the site.

Moving on to the MVMCC, the Marin Valley Mobile Country Club budget.

This is the first time we've presented this budget in these budget presentation presentations.

The timeline for the budget submission in this area is slightly different based on the agreements with the Park Acquisition Corporation and Helsing Group, so it gets presented a little bit later in the overall process.

At a high level, the operating budget for fiscal year 27 operating revenues are 4.2 million with operating expenses of 3 million, resulting in 1.2 million net operating income.

After accounting for non-operating expenses, the loan principal and interest, there's approximately $400,000 in excess revenue available.

This excess revenue is directed to support capital projects, which total $2.5 million for fiscal year 27 under the staff recommended column in the capital plan requiring the use of reserves to bridge the gap, and that would be reserves within the Marin Valley Mobile Country Club Fund, Fund 651.

A few key points for the combined operating and capital view of Marin Valley Mobile Country Club.

The budget includes a three percent rent increase, which is necessary to maintain financial stability.

That of course is an estimate, will be capped at CPI, in accordance with the ordinance, but we won't know that until the CPI is issued in September.

The operating budget meets the required debt service coverage ratio under the Bank of Marin loan agreement, which will be fully paid off in December of 27.

The capital budget is 2.5 million dollars, which includes three accessibility projects, that total 2.0 million 28,000, and uh that is a recommendation in the staff recommended um column based on estimates obtained by public works.

There are a few key differences between the staff recommended budget and the park acquisition corporation's recommended budget.

Accordingly, both have been included in the attachments so the council can review and provide direction.

To close, the fiscal year 26-27 budget maintains service levels, invests in infrastructure, and strengthens the city's long-term fiscal health.

It reflects the months of community input, commission review, and council guidance, shaping a budget that balances current needs with future stability.

Measure M remains a critical tool that allows us to preserve the services our community expects.

And tonight's hearing is the final step before budget adoption on June 23rd, and we welcome your questions and feedback.

And with that, I'll turn it back over to the mayor.

Thank you very much.

All right, Councilmember Upland.

Yes, I wanted to go back to the Marin Valley Mobile Country Club operating budget.

Help me to understand why we need a 3% increase in the rent.

Um that seems like a lot for them.

And so, uh, help me to understand what operated expenses, you have three million here for operating expenses.

And so does that include does that include any capital projects, correct?

The on the operating budget, it that does not include capital expenses.

The um the operating budget is items like weed abatement, utilities, um, tree maintenance, uh, the property management expenses, um, things of that nature.

So, what were the operating expenses for the last two fiscal years for Rin Valley?

I don't know that I have that number off of the top of my head.

I certainly can get it, but it's been keeping pace, you know, with the revenue all and making a contribution to the um, you know, to the reserve or to retained earnings, as I would call it, and then being used for capital.

The the reason that the rent would increase, and I think this is an area that Helsing uh group, the property manager, the park acquisition corporation, and staff have all we're all in alignment in recommending, is because um expenses keep increasing with inflation, and if you don't uh increase the revenue, at some point your um expenses will exceed the revenue, and again, three percent is an estimate because it will be capped at CPI.

So if the CPI is lower, then that's what the increase would be.

So before I can improve anything with this, I need to see what has been the last two fiscal years.

Normally we have a comparison.

There's no comparison here of what it was last year or this year or even last year.

And so to me, this is not something that we have had in the past.

Normally we've had a comparison of the other fiscal years.

So I would really like to see it because frankly, with the revenue coming in, I guess that's assuming that the rent will increase three percent.

So it looks like the expenses are not going to be anywhere near where the revenue is expected to be.

Looking at the revenue that's coming in 4.2 million, operating expenses is 3 million.

And then there are below the line expenses, which are the debt service that comes out of the net operating income, leaving an amount that gets contributed to the reserve or to capital projects.

So that's uh a $400,000 of excess uh revenue that would go towards capital projects, and that's actually how it's set up to operate.

These schedules haven't changed from year to year.

This was the same schedule that we did in the prior year, so we certainly can get um a comparison for you, but I I don't have it off the top of my head.

I don't expect you to have it at the top of your head, but I would like to see what the um uh revenue was in previous fiscal years and what the expenses were um before I can approve this, and then I'm not sure I agree with the three percent increase.

Um, I'd have to see whether or not um because I don't even know if some of the capital projects that we are anticipating are being approved by Marin Valley and like to have input from them as to whether or not they agree with what we're projecting we're gonna be doing.

So do you know what those capital projects are?

Perhaps it would be helpful to explain the process of how we got to this budget.

Sure.

So the process of um getting to uh a draft budget is that the property manager, Helsing Group, submits a draft budget, and it comes to both the city staff and to the park acquisition corporation and to the PAC, and so um each uh group reviews the budget, and we have to notify uh the property manager that there are going to be changes because under the delegation agreement, if we do not notify them that we have um changes, they will put that in as the accepted budget.

So immediately I say, Well, council actually has to appropriate the budget, and we um need to go through the budget process and of course we have changes.

We then had uh two meetings with members of the PAC.

First one we talked about the operating budget, and the second one we um talked about the capital budget.

So the operating budget we were mostly in agreement on.

There are a few line items that you see there's a difference between what um the PAC has recommended and what the staff has recommended.

And then on the capital schedule, uh the PAC refined the um capital schedule that was submitted from the property manager, and uh the estimate for the accessibility projects was um just that.

It was just it was an estimate that wasn't based on an estimate from um a contractor, and I think it had been an estimate that I haven't carried forward uh for many years, and so uh public works had an estimate from one of their on-bench um contractors uh for the various accessibility projects, so we put in those realistic budget estimates for those three projects that I think um were the priority projects because they are accessibility projects, and so um the bank of Marin loan would be paid off in December of 2027.

That's correct.

Um, when are we gonna see the PAC budget?

There um in the schedules that you have for Marin Valley Mobile Country Club that were attached to the staff report.

There is um the uh budget for like on the capital one as an example.

There's the amended budget for 2526, there's the year one PAC draft 2627 budget, and then there's a staff recommended column.

So they are both within the schedule, and then there is a column that shows variances between the two budgets, and that's the same in the operating both budgets.

Um are in the operating schedule.

So I have more questions, but I know that you want to move on to somebody else, but I'd like to have it come back to me.

Okay, there's no other questions, so Laura, will you put another five minutes?

Okay, thanks, uh, oh yeah, no worries.

Um, so transfers out on slide number five.

You two point five million dollars.

Where is that going to?

I'm pulling the slide up right now, let's see.

Oh, the 2.4 at the bottom, the total um the $600,000 getting is getting transferred to a long-term maintenance fund, um, and 1.8 million dollars is getting transferred to our debt service uh fund to pay the pension obligation bond.

So why are our expenses greater than the revenues?

A 9.3 million dollar deficit.

Are you talking about this this slide?

Um, this is just showing it's I think.

Slide number five.

It shows that our revenue coming in is 50.8, and their expenses is 60.1.

You said that there's a subtotal of a negative of 9.3 billion.

Oh, that'll help me to understand that.

Of course.

So the first line of revenue is revenue generated directly from the general fund.

So not including any transfers in.

That's not including what transfers in from other funds to offset some costs, so like gas taxes not included.

Um, and then the second line expense is expenses um uh coming out of the general fund, not including transfers out to other funds.

So it's not including like the transfer out for our pension obligation one payment that's separate, those are true general fund expenses.

So, why where are we transferring to in 11.8 million?

Where's it coming from?

Um, if we look at the at slide eight, I can't, and there's some rounding right there, but it's coming in.

Um, so measure M is coming in to offset the systemic deficit and operating and ongoing operations, and then we have um it all listed out on the left hand side for transfers in.

So that's where that's allocated, and tonight we are just discussing and we're voting next meeting.

Yeah, the subsequent meeting, yeah.

Um, so are we gonna get a draft of the budget so that we can look at it before we approve this?

Because I'd like to know what those expenses are.

So um attachment one to your staff report is the draft budget document with uh that encompasses uh council direction thus far.

Uh attachment one.

Attachment one is the draft budget document that reflects where we're at at this point in time.

Um, and of course, based on your direction tonight, we will continue to refine that budget document.

And at the next budget hearing, when you consider adoption, um you will have that as part of your staff report again.

So we've actually gotten a paper version of this in the past.

Is that no longer the standard operating procedure?

That's correct.

After budget adoption, some council members have asked for a paper copy, and we have provided it at that point in time for them.

And that's been since I've been here, so for the last six years, we've done it that way.

If any council members would like a paper copy once the budget is adopted, we're happy to provide that to you.

I would actually like a paper copy, absolutely.

And I'll have to send in my comments under a uh via email on what's being presented tonight.

That sounds great.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, so no other questions.

So we're gonna move on to public comment.

So I'd like to invite uh Brad, you have two minutes.

Good evening.

My name is Brad Witherspoon.

I am a resident of MBMCC and the current president of the PAC board, as well as a member of the finance committee.

Uh I'm here to speak uh to address the issue of the $150,000 that is budgeted for wildfire mitigation for the uh TLP, the trust for public land that surrounds our property, but is owned by the city of Novato.

In 2013, when that property was purchased, a meeting was held with the meeting uh residents of the city uh MBMCC, and we were told at that meeting that $250,000 would be taken from MBMCC reserves and $250,000 from the general fund to purchase this land.

There was no mention at that time that the city had applied already applied for $500,000 grant to purchase this land.

When the residents at the meeting in which uh Pat Eklund, who was mayor at the time, um, were told about this, the question was asked who would own the land and who would be responsible for maintaining it.

The city manager uh who was uh actually Scott Ward, the director of Hamilton Reuse explained that the property would be owned by the city and maintained by the city.

Since that time, MVMC residents have paid $800,000 to maintain this property owned by the city in order to protect our land.

Uh we kindly ask that the city reconsider uh its uh statement to require us to pay for this, seeing as the uh surrounding community also benefits from this.

Uh, there are many uh other housing units in the area who are also protected.

When we question this, we were told that we are the primary beneficiaries.

Thank you.

So can I ask a question of the speaker?

Thank you.

Um, couldn't you um do you have documentation about the 250 and the 250?

Uh, you don't think you don't need to have it tonight?

I just want to know you do have documentation, and I would like to get a copy of that.

Right.

We have the uh the December 9th, 2013 minutes that were held at that time, and at the information is presented there are direct quotes from the city manager.

Okay, great.

Um, I'd like to get copies of that.

Um, and uh before you leave, I'll give you my phone number so we can make arrangements for me to come out.

Okay, great.

And then also the agreement that the city would maintain that.

I remember that discussion, um, but I think it's also in writing in some place as well.

Have you seen that?

Uh yes, it's it's mentioned in the uh meeting notes as well.

Okay, that was a promise that was made to the residents.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

And and so the so far you've been charged $800,000 to maintain that property.

Well, we have paid over $800,000 over the course of uh since 2015 in order to maintain this land that is owned by the city.

Okay, that does not include the $250,000 that were taken from our reserves to purchase the land, which means all total, we have contributed over $1 million to maintain land that we do not own.

Okay, gotcha.

There's something wrong with that picture.

We'll we'll figure that out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, John.

Welcome.

Good evening.

Thank you.

I'm John Hansen from Marin Valley.

Yeah, I will also like to speak to the uh wildfire mitigation uh issue.

That's line 35 on the budget.

And uh yeah, it's $150,000 there that is uh uh that is listed on that line.

Uh first of all, I want to say that I'm a third-generation fireman, so I have smoke in my blood, and I know a little bit about uh wildfire and wildfire mitigation, also on the the uh board of directors for uh Fire Safe Marin.

Um, it says there that uh Marin Valley is the beneficiary of the work that's done there.

Well, that's partially true, but it's not the whole truth in that wildfires, um about 85% of home ignitions in wildfires are due to ember spread, um, or embercast that's called too.

And that goes for about two miles around from a fire.

So we're not the only uh beneficiaries of the work that we do.

The work that we do is very uh, I mean, it's it's planned uh very highly planned.

We work with the fire district and and the uh MWPA to do that.

And uh it's um uh let's say that uh the residents within a two-mile radius have the same benefit of the work that we do as the Marin Valley uh mobile country club.

The other thing I want to address here is uh line 71 in lieu of tax fees.

We pay 80 over 83,000 a year for in law of taxes.

We get absolutely no benefit from the city for those taxes that we pay.

I also want to uh go to audit uh line 79 uh for audit, and that says that uh you know that's uh 10 percent of the I know it's but there's a lot of stuff.

Yeah, let me uh finish up here quickly.

Yeah, eight thousand dollars for audit, which is about ten percent of the city's audit fee.

Uh and uh actually our budget is about five percent of the cities at uh at three million.

Thank you and the owner uh one one more thing, quick owner owner expense on line 97, 75,000.

Okay, the end lieu of taxes 83,000.

The audit and the owner expense add up to 83,000.

We feel that those expenses should be taken out of the in-loo of taxes that we're paying rather than additional infrared uh uh costs.

Thank you.

Welcome, David.

Um I have no vocal cords.

Can you guys hear me?

I'm not sick, so I don't want anyone to think you're gonna get contagious.

Please close the microphone.

Stay closer to that better, okay.

My name's David King.

I am the uh chairperson of the PAC Financial Committee.

I want to talk to the PAC legal fund, which is a new account on line 65, page three.

The PAC believes access to legal counsel for park operations is crucial for effective cooperation with the city.

The city attorney attorney prioritizes, the city's interests in all legal matters concerning MV MCC, and their time is paid for from MVC, and the MCC funds.

But currently residents are required to pay out of pocket for legal advice for the same matters.

It seems a fair and reasonable request to budget the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars to cover any reasonable legal representation in legal matters concerning the operations only of the park between a pack and the city.

It would never be used for any matters concerning the acquisition of MVMCC.

This is a very important distinction.

With adoption of the PAC legal fund, the attorney representing the PAC would be able to communicate with the city attorney in the legal language.

They would both understand.

An example would be if the delegation agreement was to be renegotiated.

Appropriate documentation detailing all charges from the back legal fund would be presented to the city.

Again, for clarity.

Residents would remain responsible for all legal costs related to acquiring MVMCC.

The PAC has to the City Council to request the staff to incorporate the back legal fund account into the physical year 2626 budget for the sum of 25,000.

Thank you.

Alright, we don't need a motion on this.

This is just feedback.

So we will move on to item I 3, and this is to hold a public hearing and consider adopting a resolution finding and determining that the public interest, convenience, and necessity required the acquisition for public purchases by an eminent domain.

Thank you.

Council members, I'm Chris Benini, Public Works Director.

And I'm joined tonight by Elisa Sarlin, our senior engineer in Public Works.

We're here before you tonight to request council adopt a resolution of necessity regarding acquisition of property along the frontage of 1610 Novato Boulevard.

Next slide.

Okay, great.

For context, this is in relation to our capital project 01004, the Novato Boulevard Improvements.

It's a highly anticipated project.

The project involves many improvements to Nevada Boulevard, including adding a center turn lane throughout the entire uh right-of-way from Diablo Boulevard to 7th Avenue, new bike lanes, and new sidewalk facilities.

To accommodate this project, so far the city has negotiated five uh property acquisitions.

Uh, the final and sixth one uh that we have not been able to negotiate at this point is one six one zero Nevada Boulevard.

Uh, and looking on the map, uh, you can see two general depictions of what it's gonna look like in the future.

So on the left depiction, it's a little more zoomed out.

On the right hand side of that picture is the crosswalk at uh where Nevada Boulevard intersects with Diablo.

So this is if you were to leave City Hall Travel Westbound on Diablo, and then take a right onto Navalo Boulevard.

It would be the first house on the right, as as uh you can see in the picture.

Uh there is a merge line.

Uh, we're gonna get that in the future, but just want to give you a little bit of context.

Um, and then the right picture, it's not showing up great on the large screen, but if you look to the side screens, there is a blue shaded area.

Um this area is at the widest, 10.7 feet deep along the entire frontage down to about four or five feet on the left-hand side.

Um, it would expand the right-of-way to accommodate bike lane facilities and sidewalk facilities, uh, as has been determined.

We'll talk to you also here in a minute, but next slide.

So tonight, our request is to adopt the resolution of necessity, which is essentially the first formal step in commencing the eminent domain process.

That's the legal terms of bug.

We can go to the next slide.

And just for clarity, here are a few terms that as the presentation continues tonight.

We will uh be referring to uh Ron or resolution of necessity.

That's what's before us tonight.

Uh it's part of a larger process, the eminent domain process.

Eminent domain is the legal power of government to seize private property for public use.

And in California, this is regulated largely through government code section 7267.2.

So we're gonna refer to that multiple times tonight, but uh it's the California law that outlines the process that we must follow when going through an eminent domain action.

Uh, with that, I will turn it over to Elisa.

Thanks, Chris.

Um, one more thing about the government code section.

Um, typically when we talk about eminent domain and seizing private property, um that can be a little daunting.

Uh California government code, section 7267.2, outlines rights for the private owners under the law, and that guarantees that they have the right to just compensation.

It outlines the method of determining what that compensation value is, and um it outlines a process so that it's very clear for the private property owners what they're entitled to, what they can expect, and what steps the government agency needs to take to guarantee that the process is fair to everyone.

A little bit about the project.

You'll notice from the CIP number 01004.

This project was initiated in the fiscal year 2000-2001.

Um it's been on the books quite a while, and it's been active for most of that time.

Uh it started as a response to the 2000 countywide congestion management plan that was done by uh TAM, the Transportation Authority of Marin, and that identified Navado Boulevard as one of the major roadways in the county that was gonna fall below operational standards in the future.

As the city looked into the operations of Novato Boulevard, the needs of the corridor, the growth of the city, gosh, sorry.

Um, in 2018, they identified that the level of service provided the community uh by Novato Boulevard was at level of service D.

Those levels of service go A through F.

As you imagine, F is a failure to serve the community.

So in 2018, we identified Nevada was mostly operating at level of service D, but at times during peak flow when we had vehicles waiting to make left turn movements, it fell into the ENF categories.

Level Fiona violates our city general plan, and it violates TAMS congestion management policies.

So without the uh roadway improvements, it was determined that Novado Boulevard would be consistently at level of service F by 2043.

Um making your findings for resolution of necessity, the law requires that you uh make five findings.

One that the acquisition of the property is in the public interest.

Two, that the project as planned is located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.

Uh item three, the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.

Item four, that an offer complying with the government code has been made.

And five, that the city's complied with all the procedural prerequisites to exercise the use of eminent domain.

And that can be uh a lot to remember and a lengthy list.

So we're gonna go through each item one at a time, talk about what it means and why we feel that the project has satisfied that item.

Uh finding number one.

Is the project in the or is it in the public interest and necessity to require this project?

That's asking you: is the project needed to serve the best interest of the public.

The Nevada Boulevard project was designed to increase the roadway capacity and establish a level of service C and D, which would comply with both the general plan and the TAM congestion management plan.

The project will add bike lanes and sidewalks that are required to address the bicycle and pedestrian safety consistent with the Nevada bike and pedestrian plan.

And it creates the stormwater management facilities that are necessary to comply with the regional water quality board regulations.

Those regulations require that if we do maintenance on the pavement of any roadway beyond a slurry seal, which Novato is far beyond a slurry seal, we must construct the clean water facilities.

Finding number two, the project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.

Like everything we do, this is asking us to make that effort to find a balance between serving the public and improving things while not taking from convening priorities.

So when we look at the public good, this project resolves the traffic level of service deficiencies.

The upgraded design serves a multimodal transportation, it encourages bike pedestrian and public transit.

It provides the federal and state clean water compliance landscape will be water efficient, it will be fire wise.

We're going to remove and replace some of the older landscape that can contribute to wildfires.

And it will increase the vehicle bike and pedestrian safety along the entire project.

Private losses, of course, come along with the improvements.

We will be taking property from six parcels.

We have already completed acquiring property from five of those parcels.

This project does not demolish any structures.

The previous project designs required the demolishing of three homes.

And this project design has been done such that we're really trying to minimize property loss.

Just recently, we made a change based on a sewer and water utility plan change.

We were able to request that PGE move some of their boxes, and that enabled us to add a parking space in front of a business that we couldn't have before due to PGE having an above-ground structure there.

So we really are looking at every aspect of the project trying to minimize those losses to the private properties adjacent.

Finding number three, the properties sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.

So is acquiring portion of 1610 Nevado Boulevard necessary for the project design.

We have a large volume of vehicles turning right from Diablo and coming into Nevado Boulevard.

We've added a dedicated right lane, right turn lane on Diablo, and we have a dedicated receiving lane on Nevada Boulevard so those cars can safely make that turn without having to worry about oncoming through traffic.

The westbound traffic through the intersection will then merge with that right turn traffic that's coming from Diablo.

Now an ideal roadway design would utilize a gentle merge.

We would have through traffic lanes, bike lanes, parking, landscape buffers, and sidewalks.

When the design team looked at this portion of Nevado Boulevard, we simply did not have the available space to provide that ideal roadway section.

So the landscape and parking was eliminated on this portion of the roadway, and that gave back 12 feet on either side of Nevada Boulevard, and all 12 of those feet is space that we did not have to acquire from the adjacent properties.

So the initial project design that we worked on in 2018 had an 11-foot lane for the receiving cars coming from Diablo.

Those lanes had 100 feet in which to sort of establish their direction in traffic before going through a 225-foot lane drop.

This design required approximately 2,500 square feet from 1610 Nevado Boulevard.

When we got our consulting team at Mark Thomas on board, we had them review the design, take another look, try to minimize that take, and we came up with a second design, reducing that receiving lane width to 10 feet, reducing that sort of comfort zone to establish your travel to 50 feet, and then we reduced the lane drop section to 205 feet.

That enabled us to take only 1245 feet from the property at 1610.

We uh reviewed this design multiple times, engineers at the city and at several consultants looked at this design to determine it was safe, and we sort of wait and discussed the give and take between the property acquisition and the comfort of the roadway, uh ultimately deciding that we could manage with the smaller roadway taper and uh smaller take from 1610.

Finding number four has an offer complying with the government code section has been made.

Um is the city's offers code compliant?

Uh appraisals were done compliant with the government code in December 2022 and then updated in July 2025.

Both those uh appraisals established a fair market value for the portion of the property being taken.

The required informational literature regarding owner's right under eminent domain law were uh sent and provided to the owners of the properties.

Uh the letter for 1610 was sent on April 4th, 2023, and the offers made both on April 4th, 2023 and again on May 5th of 2026 were based on the fair market value update uh established in each appraisal finding number five.

The city has complied with all other procedural prerequisites to the exercise of eminent domain.

Did the city comply with all code requirements and procedures?

Starting in 2019, uh, when the city started moving forward with the final design, we hired a right-away consultant ARWS, and they have been uh working with the city through each step of the process.

The city attorney's office has also assisted the city and worked with ARWS through each step before we got the appraisals done.

Everyone reviewed the appraisals, reviewed the offer letters, the literature packages to make sure they were compliant, and the notice of determination that the property was going to be acquired.

Uh, were sent to each of the owners, and that is attached to the proposed resolution as exhibit C.

And so, with the mention of the city attorney assisting us, uh, like to ask Gary Bell to kind of fill us in on some procedural details.

Yeah, the only um correction I knew in the beginning slide, we talked about um section 7267.2.

Uh, the actual reference is code of civil procedure 1245.230 C.

The other procedures in here, though, and the steps that the findings are correct, and that resolution is in front of you making those findings.

Happy to answer any questions, though.

Uh going on to the next step.

If the council makes the required findings and adopts the resolution, uh the next step would be for the city to file a lawsuit to acquire the property.

Uh, the city can expect after doing that within approximately 140 days, the court will order a right of possession for the city to construct on the property, and then the jury of if this goes to court, the jury will decide a compensation value at which point the city will compensate the owner and then acquire the property in fee.

So staff is recommending that council uh adopt the resolution of necessity, allowing us to use the eminent domain to acquire the property at 1610 Naval Boulevard.

Just one more addition too before we move on.

Um, the project itself has already been already complied with CEQA.

Um we made that determination when the project proceeded for the overall project, and that notice of determination complied with all those noticing requirements as well, and it's also included as part of the resolution.

Happy to answer any questions.

Councilmember Eckland, do you have a?

Thank you.

Um, so there's only one property that has not responded to our request, correct?

Correct.

Correct.

Okay, great.

And um so this whole process could take one to two years.

Uh if it proceeds all the way through the court process, it could take one to two years.

So, so what is the first step then?

Is the first step for us to send them a letter?

Well, they're they might be here, so we're gonna hear from them if they want to talk.

Yeah, I should note the property owner is here, uh property owner does have a right to address the council, and so that will come next after these questions.

Okay, great.

Um, certainly there have been lots of communications between the city and the property owner, um, even as recently as this week, um, back and forth.

So this is the first formal step adopting this resolution.

Um, but that does not stop uh discussions between the city and the property owner for reaching a resolution of this.

Um, do you recommend that you proceed to keep the process going?

There's also an opportunity for the city um to get pre-condemnation possession of the property too.

And so, you know, thinking about the project timeline.

I know that the public work staff is thinking about going out to bid relatively soon.

So these two things can move in tandem.

The one to two year estimate is if this were challenged all the way through and potentially an appeal, could it take that long?

Yes, and so that's why it's in there, but um, like I said, it just does not prevent the conversations from continuing with the property owner, and this very well could be resolved before that.

So at any point we could stop this process if the property owner is now more inclined to work with us, correct?

That's correct.

We did have some recent communications from the property owner.

I don't want to get out in front of that, so we might invite the property owner to come up to speak if if she would like to.

Great.

So can we have the property owner come up?

Yeah, thank you.

Um, so Carolina Reyes or Carmen Gonzalez, would you like to address the council?

And you have um up to 20 minutes to speak.

Oh, I don't need that much.

Um, so good evening, it's Carolina.

Um, can you speak the microphone?

Thank you.

Repeat that again.

Just use the mic.

Speaking of the mic.

Um, cool.

Hey, yeah, my name's Caroline.

I'm the property owner.

Um, and I just would like to put on the record that I have already been communicating with them of the acceptance of their most recent offer contingent upon the inclusion of the shrubs associated with the property.

Um, so the preference has always been to resolve this matter voluntarily and without the need for eminent domain proceedings, but based on my communication with the city, as they mentioned as of like most recently yesterday and this afternoon.

Um, it appears that we're very close to reaching an agreement.

Um our biggest concern though is just the shrubs since they serve an important purpose by providing a buffer for traffic, privacy of our property, and added measures of safety for children and animals that use the front yard.

So with the project, there's an expected increase of traffic, which jeopardizes and creates a huge safety concern for us.

Um so for this reason is why we want um the shrubs is a meaningful part of the acceptance of the proposed agreement.

Um, so I'm not opposed to reaching a solution and just simply want to ensure that the terms discussed, including the shrubs are addressed so that this matter can be concluded fairly and without the need for this.

Um basically, yes, we're just we're willing to comply with everything.

Thank you very much.

Okay, can I ask a question?

Sure.

Thank you.

Um, ma'am.

Hi.

I had a question.

You said um about shrubs.

Correct.

So what what kind of shrubs were you thinking?

Existing.

So just replace what is existing right now.

In the microphone, I can't hear you too well.

Replace what is existing currently.

Oh, replace what's existing.

Yeah, just leave it as is with the new line or what our new line will be.

As you can see right there, thank you.

That's um that starts as our fence, and that is a huge buffer since the width of the shrubs is about three feet, so one yard.

Okay, um, staff, do do these shrubs need to be trimmed back a little bit in order to um well they'll be removed.

So we're asking for them to replace it.

Yeah, the shrubs do need to be entirely removed.

They're currently in the city right of way, which then when we expand the right-of-way.

So they're approximately where the new bike lane will be.

Okay, so then they just need to be moved further back on the property.

Uh they could be replanted further back on the property.

Okay, and that's something that the city could do.

Uh the city could do.

We did look into it when uh talking with Carolina back in 2024.

However, even if we plant the larger shrubs, it will take quite some time for them to establish into a fully contiguous hedge.

Okay, great.

Is there anything else that you wanted to explain to us about their offer and no?

No, again, we accept their most recent offer with the inclusion of the replacing the shrubs.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Mayor Proton Jacobs.

Um this question for staff, but you might want to answer it too.

Um, they look they appear to be about five feet tall.

Is that about right?

Correct.

Okay, don't they create a hazard at five feet on a street like that, and it doesn't meet code if I'm not correct, if I'm not mistaken?

But they currently don't comply with the city code for height of the vegetation within the first three feet of a property because of the unique shake shape of that parcel in the property.

The entire frontage isn't necessarily with the spirit of what we consider the front property line.

It sort of starts to become a side property, if you will, once it gets further beyond the house.

So staff has mentioned that we can look at the parcel.

There are some exceptions um and considerations allowed in the Muni Code where some vegetation could be permitted to be high uh higher than the three feet, and so we have offered to look at that and see where we could possibly allow it to be higher and do so in those locations.

But isn't isn't it a safety situation with backing out of a driveway like that?

Yes, it is because we've run into that before on center road.

Yes, and the project has actually the uh design team has gone through every single driveway along the project and establish that site safety triangle, so everyone uh as we go through and build the project, each owner will be required to bring that into compliance.

That would create a liability for you.

That's what I'm concerned about.

If it were too high and didn't meet code, you backed out of your driveway and hit a bicyclist or something, it would it would create a problem for you with your insurance and everything.

We understand that.

Also, we don't back away from our driveway.

Okay, I I I understand that, but you can't guarantee anybody coming with a delivery truck might do that.

It just it's it's a code issue and and that's my concern.

It creates a liability issue.

I understand.

I hear you.

All right, no other questions.

Um, gonna open it for public comment.

Not seeing any public comment.

Gonna close that.

Um I'm gonna make the motion to um pass what was presented.

Do you have a second?

May I ask a clarifying question just from Gary?

So, in light of the fact she's verbally accepted the offer.

What's the best path forward in your opinion?

Do we need to amend the motion or um no?

Um I we recommend that you still adopt the resolution.

Staff will continue to have these discussions, so it doesn't prevent those from happening, and if this is settled and resolved, we simply won't proceed with the next steps.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

In that case, I'll second it.

So could we put that in the form of a motion?

That you know, if if they're proceeding correctly that we will not pursue this necessity issue.

Oh, we'll still be back for more direction on the necessity issue if it doesn't occur.

If that addresses the concern.

This is just getting the ball rolling.

Laura, can you take the council member Eklund?

Aye.

Councilmember Cargill.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Mayor Pro Tem Jacobs.

All right, and Mayor Farak.

Hi, that passes.

Um moving on to item G8.

You pulled that.

Uh Councilmember Eklin.

Yes, I sure did.

Um so I was concerned about the fact that um the two bids that we received were um uh about 490,315, and the engineer's estimate was 344.

To me, that's a big spread.

So can you help me understand?

Why is it SMART paying for some of this?

It says the cost share will be realized as a reimbursement for the SMART agreement.

But what uh time frame and um I I just I am concerned about the extreme difference in the cost.

First of all, explanation of why why that huge spread, and then also this whole thing about SMART.

Sure.

There's two parts of that.

So the the first part regarding the large spread and cost.

Um our original engineers' estimate was done in-house over a year ago, uh, when we went out to bid, uh, we had interest from multiple uh contractors and performing the work.

We ended up only receiving two qualified bids that as you realize were uh much higher than our internal estimate.

We found out that or realized uh in the process that due to time passing, inflation costs uh rise rose over time.

Uh additionally, this specific portion of the project is entirely within the smart railroad right-of-way.

Um, that is very specialized work.

Uh we used our standard roadway engineering uh standards to come up with our cost estimates.

There should have been a cost escalation just based on the specialized nature of working within a railroad right-of-way.

And so between time, limited contractors able to do the work, able to you know charge a premium, uh, and also uh that specialized work, uh, that's what the increased costs uh you know was born from.

So is SMART gonna pay us back?

Yes, ma'am.

For every dollar that we spend.

So from the advent of this project, uh there has been a informal agreement for a 50-50 match.

Uh, there are many goals that this project achieves for both the city of Novato and for SMART.

Um so I'm sure you're well aware there's the SMART pathway that runs through the entirety of, or not the entirety, but many parts of Marin County.

Um, this helps them get towards completing gaps in the SMART pathway, having the crossing uh on the north side of Olive Avenue, it's the 10-foot wide multi-use pathway.

This fits within their future goals.

Um the road improvements and the road widening fits our needs and our goals and our purposes, so there's a lot of complexities to it, and uh this precedes a lot of my history working on the project, but the 5050 match uh was what was agreed upon, and that's the MOU that's before you tonight uh is an agreement to have uh SMART reimburse us, and the terms of the reimbursement uh would be as the project goes on, it's in the agreement in the agenda packet.

Um I don't have the exact timeline, you know, if it's it's net 30, net 90, whatever it might be uh when we invoice them for work.

But but we'll get the actual time that we have to be paid back um in writing eventually, will that be part of it?

Because my my concern is that if smart doesn't pay us back, so I'm gonna turn it over to our uh engineer Peter Scala, who is the project manager on the Endeavor, and he can answer the technical detail.

Okay, great, thank you.

Good evening, Councilmembers and Madame Egglet.

Um the agreement with SMART, it's based on the proposal and which was agreed on in principle just verbally.

Now we submitted a copy to you and it will be reviewed, and it's subject to be reviewed and approved by the city attorney.

And like we are bringing it to you, SMART needs to bring it before their board.

And so this is the first step.

If the terms are agreed upon here, that will go to the SMART board, and once they approve it, it will be in effect immediately.

So it's expected that the work might take about a month, 30 days, and as soon as we are able, we will start executing the contract or the agreement with SMART.

So it's possible that this agreement will be in place before the construction is over, but we will know the actual cost.

And invoice will be sent to SMART, and they will pay us back as a normal payment to reimburse the cost, actual cost of the construction.

But will we start the project before we get an agreement from SMART that they will reimburse us?

Because isn't that dangerous if they decide not to?

I don't deem this to be dangerous, but um if you are under the opinion, uh we can postpone the project and possibly delay by a year.

That's totally up to the council.

Any other questions?

All right, any public comment?

All right, do we have a motion?

I make a motion to move the item.

Thank you.

I'll second.

Lord, can you call vote?

Councilmember Eklund?

No.

Councilmember Carkel?

Yes.

Councilmember O'Connor?

Yes.

Mayor Pur Tim Jacobs?

Yes.

And Mayor Farak.

Hi.

All right, that passes.

Um all right.

So that is the end of our meeting.

I'm gonna go through our comments.

Okay, oh that's fine.

That's fine.

We whatever your decision is.

Okay.

I mean it's 10 30.

Um the next regular council meeting will be held June 23rd, 2026.

Um does anyone have someone they'd like I do, but anyone have anyone they'd like to adjourn in memory of?

All right, I do.

Um, so I'd love to close this meeting tonight in memory of Amy's father-in-law, Leeland Gustafson.

Um he passed away yesterday afternoon after several years of health struggles.

And although we did not have a direct connection to Novato, his son Amy's husband has been a vital source to our city manager's support and an amazing sounding board uh for her throughout her career, making it possible for her to do the great work she does.

So I'd like to adjourn the meeting in memory of Leland.

Very good.