Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting on Monday, 12/08/2025. If you will, stand with me, and we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic, which stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, everyone. Start off with a roll call. Commissioner Stuggenbroker.

Here.

Here. Commissioner Tiernan. Here. Commissioner Havel. Here. And Commissioner Derby's here. Approval of the final agenda. Do I hear a motion?

So moved.

Second. Quick roll call. Stuckenberger?

Aye.

Okay. Sorry. Am I saying it wrong again? No. Oh, Okay, sorry. No. Okay, Commissioner Tiernan. Aye. Commissioner Havel. Aye. And Commissioner Derby's an aye as well. Okay, I'm going to open the public comment for anyone who wants to speak on something that is not on tonight's agenda. Opening that now. Seeing no one approach the podium, I'm going to close it. Is that all right? Okay. Wonderful. Okay. There's no consent items tonight. No unfinished or other business. Just one public hearing, it looks like. So I'm going to kick it off with Steve or Brett.

The public hearing here we go and consideration of directing staff to prepare the final environmental impact report for the Costco fuel facility project proposed adjacent to the existing Costco store located at 300 Vintage Way. So the city and its consultant have prepared a draft EIR for the project. The purpose of CEQA and the preparation of an EIR is to inform decision makers and the public of potential environmental impacts of a project, the identification of ways to reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts, and to disclose the reason a public agency decides to approve a project, even if the impacts are significant and unavoidable, if applicable. So the project is a gas station, the Costco fuel facility. And that would include an approximately 10,000 square foot fuel area canopy, 14 fuel dispensers that can accommodate 28 fueling positions and pumps, three forty thousand gallon underground storage tanks, one fifteen hundred gallon underground storage tank, vehicle queuing area and pavement striping, and landscaping and storm water control facilities.

Here's a site plan. You can see the Costco store towards the top of the site plan, with Roland Boulevard above that, and Vintage Way curving around the bottom of the gas station area. So the purpose of this public hearing is that CEQA statutes and guidelines include procedures for the preparation of an EIR. Additionally, the city has a locally adopted environmental review guidelines, which includes additional steps beyond state requirements. One of those additional requirements is a public hearing with the review body in this case, the Planning Commission as to the comments received about the preparation of the final EIR.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine if the draft EIR conforms to CEQA statutes, guidelines, and the city's guidelines. If the Planning Commission makes this determination, then they would direct staff to prepare the final So this hearing is really to determine if the draft EIR includes all the components of what should be included in the draft. And the purpose of the hearing is not to discuss the merits of the project or to discuss the conclusions of the draft EIR. Down the road, when the final EIR is prepared, there will be a subsequent public hearing to discuss the merits of the project, the use permit and design review entitlements, and also to consider adopting the final EIR for the project. So there are certain items that are supposed to be included in a draft EIR.

That includes project description, environmental setting, baseline conditions, thresholds of significance, project impact analysis, cumulative impact analysis, project alternatives, and mitigation measures. There's 21 impact analysis topics. Those are up on the screen in front of you. And so the next steps, if the commission directs staff tonight to move on to the final EIR, would be staff will prepare the final EIR. That includes the draft EIR that's before you, including any revisions made subsequent to the publication of that draft EIR.

Copies of all written responses and a summary of verbal responses, that would be public comments here tonight. Minutes of the draft EIR hearing, a response to comments received during the public comment period, and any modifications or additional data necessary to provide an adequate environmental review of the project. And so like I said, there would be a future hearing. And at that hearing, that's when the planning commission would consider certification of the final EIR and approval of the project entitlements. So with that, staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt a resolution accepting the draft EIR and directing the Community Development Department to proceed with the preparation of the final EIR.

That's the presentation I had prepared for the night. So you can certainly ask us any questions if you have any right now for us. We also have staff from Rincon Consultants attending the meeting remotely. So they're here to assist us with answering any questions you may have. And also we have Zach Matley from WTrans. He was a sub consultant to RingCon on the project regarding the transportation section of the EIR. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Is that me? Woah. Okay. All good. All right. I'm going to bring it over to the commission. Let's do some questions of staff, if you have any. And then we'll bring it over to public comment. And then we'll come back for our final comments. I'll start on the other side this time. Commissioner Havel.

Thanks. Tonight, question for you. Comments that staff has been receiving, and that the commission has been receiving and reviewing, the questions raised, or the points raised in those letters would be something that is addressed in the final EIR.

Yes? Correct. Okay.

I'm curious to know, I noticed that one of the commenters was an engineer in training. Not a licensed engineer, but an engineer in training. Can you talk a little bit about substantial evidence, what that means and how it's presented, and what constitutes that? In the context of the SQL guidelines. And what I'm getting at here is, I might say, I feel like there's going to be an impact versus a licensed professional who examines the data, goes out, does site testing or whatever the case may be, and arrives at their conclusion?

I'd like some clarity on that, if you could.

Yeah, yeah. So first off, the comment letter was submitted and received by the city within that forty five day window. So it will be part of the response to comments. As far as substantial evidence and the qualifications of a person, I don't know if I have a direct answer to your question about an engineer in training as being a qualified person to discuss the topics that this individual brought up in the comment letter. It's probably a discussion with our city attorney and our CEQA consultants.

Steve, I don't know if you have.

So I think for Commissioner Havel, I think what you're asking about is a fair argument versus a substantial evidence argument. I don't necessarily believe that substantial evidence turns on expert. You may recall in CEQA, if you have disagreement among experts, that may be an indication that you have to move from a lower level of CEQA to a higher level or EIR. Certainly throughout this process, have many different experts from different fields doing analysis. And we will probably hear from folks in the community who are experts in certain respects.

I think at the end of the day, substantial evidence is substantial evidence regardless of who provides it. With that said, I would invite Assistant City Attorney Conor Harkins to provide maybe some more guidance on the specifics of what constitutes substantial evidence. And Conor, if you can hear us and you want to jump in, feel free to, please.

Sure. Steve, can you hear me?

We can. Thank you.

Thank you. So, to respond to the Commissioner's question, the Commission would not be reviewing the report that's currently on the agenda for substantial evidence. As Brett introduced the item, the question before the Commission right now is whether the draft EIR has all the pieces it needs to constitute an EIR. And that's laid out in the CEQA guidelines and in the different sections of the EIR itself. Substantial evidence comes up when someone challenges an EIR, so it's more of a question for a reviewing body rather than the body that's making an initial determination.

So it's irrelevant to the Commission's decision tonight for two reasons. First, you're not reviewing the sufficiency of the factual findings of the document, and second, you're not reviewing body, so you wouldn't be applying the substantial evidence standard even if you were reviewing for factual findings. Is that enough information? Substantial evidence is generally enough evidence that a reasonable person could reach a conclusion, is a short summary of the standard itself. But as I said, it's not something that the Commission needs to worry about tonight.

Yes, that's very helpful, thank you.

Of course. Then

comments that have been received, even though it might not have been prepared by a professional in that particular field, will still be considered and responded to in the response to comments.

That is correct. Comments will be reviewed for relevance and then response will be given as appropriate.

That's it for my questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Tiernan. Within the draft EIR, there were a number of agencies identified, particularly the one in Marin that I had never heard of before, CUPA, the Marin County Certified Unified Program Agency. So have those agencies all weighed in at this point? Or would they be presumably if the project was to go forward, then be triggered to be participants?

Yes. So a couple of things happened. So when we issued the documents, posted the notices for the forty five day public review, that also goes to the state clearinghouse. And so the state clearinghouse distributes a copy of the document or notifies the various state agencies, trusting and responsible agencies, of the availability of this document for them to make comment. I checked towards the end of the day today on the State Clearinghouse website, and that did not indicate that any of those state trustee or responsibility agencies have written comments.

And we haven't received any from them. CUPA is a localized agency. It's run out of, I believe, the Marin County Public Works Department. And they do a lot of the local permitting and inspections, I believe including things for gas stations and other hazardous material type uses. So they may not have commented on the draft EIR at this point.

We didn't receive any comments from them. But they would have a review and inspection as part of the permitting process should the project be approved and it move forward through construction.

That's kind of what I assumed. But I just wasn't sure if they had already weighed in yet on the project. I guess it's the ATMs, excuse me, the VTMs. Quite a bit of calculations and stuff there. I don't know, is the consultant with us that they can elaborate on that a little bit? So in this case,

Costco has a consultant, Kittleson. And Kittleson works with Costco a lot. So they do a lot of the traffic analysis for Costco projects. In the case of this project, Kittleson did a VMT study for the project. And then that was submitted to the city.

And then what we did, we had WTrans as a sub consultant to Rincon. They did a peer review of the VMT analysis that Kittleson prepared. And so through that process, there was at least one or two comments and responses to comments, questions. WTrans had questions about certain things in the analysis. So Kittleson did the VMT analysis, submitted it to the city, and the city had a qualified transportation and traffic engineering firm peer review that document.

Okay. So the answer is no. If I was to ask how It seems to me that they're using numbers of membership, Costco membership. But I'd imagine that's proprietary, how they actually arrive at things. For example, one of the calculations is that current and I'm assuming that they would have a Novato address but are currently getting their gasoline elsewhere.

Belayo, they didn't list Richmond, but to the north. And that those people would not. And I'm assuming that they have point of purchase evidence that somebody who's a Novato resident is buying gas in Rohnert Park. And that's how they arrived at that. But I just wanted to be sure because it seems like the numbers are pretty extraordinary.

It says daily numbers about 1,200 people Novatoans purchasing gas elsewhere. So on a weekly basis, does that mean there's 8,000 people from Nevada who are currently buying gasoline at other Costcos? I would hope not. I can't imagine those kind of numbers.

So what I can say is that when this comes back to the Planning Commission, we will certainly have the applicant invite Kittleson representatives that prepared the document to be able to respond directly to some of questions, I believe.

Because there's quite a few. I think that sort of one rests on the rest.

So Commissioner Jun, I would encourage all the commissioners to actually submit your questions verbally tonight. And we will write those down. And then we will take those back to the consultants and have them addressed in the response to comments. So definitely don't feel constrained that we don't have everybody here to answer every question. And more than likely, we weren't going to have a lot of answers to some of these items because our consultants will want to go back, understand the comments, review them against the record, and then formulate a response to it. So again, the commission is encouraged to provide their comments and questions tonight. Okay.

Within the forty five day framework, when would I need to submit what issues I still have?

We'd be asking you to do that this evening. So the forty five day comment period has already expired. And this is sort of the capstone event of that review period where we host a hearing with the planning commission to gather verbal comments and testimony.

Well, okay. So that sort of gives me a dilemma. I mean, if on one hand the comment period's ended, why would I be submitting more questions?

Well, this evening is the point where we would take those comments and potentially move them onto the final yard. So this evening, you can raise the questions and comments that you have.

Okay. So I'm very curious how some of these factors were arrived at. Were they membership numbers? Was there speculation that because we're now going to offer petroleum, we're now going to get x new members?

So I will take a shot at answering this question. And I will look to Costco's representatives who are here this evening if they'd like to elaborate. And then I could potentially invite Zach Matley of WTrans to elaborate. Essentially, what Costco has done here is they've taken their membership data, and they've looked at membership that would come to the Marin or the Novato store. And they assume that those folks are driving somewhere to get gas.

And that gas trip has a vehicle mile travel distance from the different locations. Once that's calculated, the consideration now becomes if that member now combines a trip to the warehouse with a trip to the gas station, does that trip length shorten? Is there an actual reduction of vehicle miles traveled? And the short answer is yes, based on these calculations. If the Costco membership in this area were coming to the Costco facility, you would have a reduction in vehicle miles traveled compared to them spreading out to other gas stations in the community.

Is it done on the basis of evidence? Do they keep track of when a Novato resident goes to Roaner Park?

I believe they have that data, but it is proprietary. So it wasn't shared with the city. And Conor, Assistant City Attorney Harkins, if you want to comment on the use of proprietary data, that might be helpful for the commission.

Is the question whether we make proprietary information available as part of the record?

Yeah.

I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. The record needs to have sufficient data in it to support all of its findings, so to the extent that the draft EIR makes a finding about the impact of the fuel station on the amount of vehicle miles traveled to the fuel station, there should be data in there to back it up. It won't necessarily be to the level of detail that would disclose proprietary information. It could be something more in the form of a summary, but there should be facts in the record, the EIR, to back up any factual statement. There should be a point of reference in the document.

And if that's not there, that's something we can take into consideration as we prepare the final EIR.

Okay. Because I don't believe it is here, where these numbers are arrived at. And I'm just looking at table 4.8 dash two, where it talks about shared warehouse gas trips. And I'm presuming, again, that they have some information that says that 658 Nevadoans are currently buying gas in Roanert Park on a daily basis, as well as 603 people buying gas in Muleo on a daily basis. So that's over 1,200 people on a daily basis buying gas elsewhere.

I hope my math is pretty accurate, but that's about 6,000 people on a weekly basis are currently Nevada residents buying Costco gas elsewhere. And I just have a hard time believing that.

That's certainly something we can follow-up on as we prepare the final EIR. And this will come back to the council again for approval, and we'll have an answer for you at that time.

Okay. And so the second thing, as long as I guess, while I'm on this subject, there was a determination, and I believe it'd be folks that currently are not COSCO members, but now would be attracted to Costco in order to get the petroleum. And there's a number in here where they believe that that would that currently people drive up to eight tenths of a mile currently to get gas in their car at a Shell station or or something other than Costco. Whereas it's three miles to Costco. It's only about two tenths of a mile from my home to a gas station.

I'm not sure how they arrived at eight tenths of a mile is the average for people in Nevada to go get gas right now. And and it sort of makes a difference because this is rolls out to where ultimately they claim that they're gonna be saving vehicle miles by having 24 gas pumps. And so I think it is kind of important information to make sure we have the criteria accurate and that it reflects in this EIR. That's the extent of my questions for now.

Thank you, Commissioner Tiernan. Commissioner Stockenbroker.

No questions right now.

And bringing it back to me, no questions for me either. So what I'm going to do now is I'm going to open up the public comment. I am going to give everyone two minutes and ask you to stay within that. I hate being rude and cutting people off so I'm going to just do this. One person thought I was cheering them on. This is wrap it up. I'll do that when you have about five seconds left. Please don't make me do the thank you. I always feel rude. I hate it. Anyhow so with that said I do have a couple yellow cards here. If anyone would like to speak they're welcome to come up after I read through these yellow cards. Please fill out a yellow card when you're done. I'll open the public hearing now. And Jim Burrows.

Come on down. Okay. Thank

you, mister chairman and members of the commission. I'm Jim Burrows. I'm here on behalf of the Marine Conservation League, MCL, on which I sit as a board member. I'll get right to it. It's all about the VMT.

And in the analysis, as we read the DER and the traffic impact analysis, it has a glaring omission as far as we can tell, which does not include the calculations for projected new Costco members into their VMT vehicle miles traveled calculation. They go into considerable depth and make all kinds of projections and assumptions on what existing members are going to do and where they're going to go to get their gas and so on. But there's nothing in there about what the new members are going to do that are induced to join for the well known lower gas prices that Costco has to offer. And if that were done, if the new members were added into the calculation, I can't tell you what the result would be. But it should be done.

And it's very possible that the very nominal net decrease in VMT that is reported in the draft EIR would then become a positive increase in VMT. And the legal significance of that is that that would make a significant unavoidable impact for which there isn't any significant unavoidable impacts that are currently identified in the draft EIR. So if that were to happen, then it would be our position that the DIR should be recirculated for further public review so that we could then further comment on the revised traffic analysis in the draft document. Now we have other points that, given the two minutes that I have here that I won't get into, we did submit a letter last Wednesday. So I'll commend that letter to you for your further consideration.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. That was perfectly two minutes. Amazing. All right. All right. We got Pablo

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Pablo Downer Pastor. Pastor. I'm the chair of Novato's Sustainability Commission, but I'm here tonight on my own behalf and on behalf of my four children. This project is fundamentally inconsistent with Novato's adopted climate policies, and the draft EIR fails to analyze that conflict, which is a requirement of CEQA.

Novato declared a climate emergency in 2020. In 2022, Nevada banned new gas stations. That policy was not symbolic. It was a recognition that building long lived fossil fuel infrastructure now undermines our own climate goals. This project is still alive because it slipped in under that that ban.

But just because it's grandfathered doesn't mean that it is climate consistent. Yet the draft draft EIR claims that climate impacts are less than significant and that the project is consistent with local policy. That is simply not credible. A station designed to pump millions of gallons of gasoline year after year will produce tens of thousands of tons of CO2. That directly conflicts with the climate action plan that I helped write and with state mandates.

Under CEQA, a project conflicts with a policy adopted to reduce environmental harm that is a significant impact. The EIR must acknowledge it, not ignore it. So I'm asking you to require revision and recirculation of the EIR to correct this climate analysis and to evaluate serious alternatives that do not expand fossil fuel infrastructure at all. Our children will inherit the fossil fuel infrastructure or the infrastructure that we build. A massive new gas station sends one message. We're planning for a future where we're still addicted to oil. And that future is not acceptable for my children, and frankly, not for anyone else's.

Thank you. Again, another perfect two minutes. Okay. We got Silk Valentine. Silk sorry. Sylvie Valentine. Forgive me. Butchered that. Ms. Valentine.

Good evening, planning commissioner, staff, and the public. So my name is Zako Valentine. I'm a resident of Navato. I became a climate activist with three fifty Marin in 2013 after listening to the warnings of another scientist, Doctor. James Hansen from 1988, the warning was that our atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and already changing the climate due to human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels.

We would need to stay below three fifty parts per million as it is a safe upper limit for CO2 in the atmosphere. Before the Industrial Revolution, CO2 was two eighty parts per million. Burning fossil fuels for transportation is the largest source of CO2 emissions and air pollution worldwide. In Nevada, transportation accounts for 64% of greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from passengers' cars. What sense does it make to build a large gas station in Nevada and Marin?

The COSCO gas station will encourage the continued use of gasoline powered vehicles, therefore prolong our reliance of burning fossil fuels. That will lock in further emissions over the lifetime of vehicle and the mega gas station, which mean to last twenty years. Approving the gas station is a very bad, shortsighted decision, putting short term financial interests first and ignoring long term catastrophic consequences for us, our children and grandchildren, and all life on earth. He's smiling. Costco expects station to increase daily trips to the site by 4,620 to a total amount of 6,500.

This Costco gas station will significantly increase traffic, air pollution, and greenhouse emissions, our city and the Thank

you, Ms. Valentine. Appreciate it. Okay. Would there anyone else like to speak tonight? There we go. Wonderful. Mr. Thomas, John Thomas.

Hello. I'm John. I'm an intern at three fifty Marin. And you know I have a problem with this gas station. First, benzene from these gas stations has been linked to cancer, asthma, and other health issues.

If we're building this large gas station with all the employees and customers that are going to be coming to this gas station and being exposed to this benzene, it's going to pose a public health risk. Furthermore, this large gas station is going to be built on a sensitive wetland and gas stations leak. So if this gas station leaks, it is going to pollute the sensitive wetland. And this is a big problem for all the animals and the birds and the water, just everything with this gas station. And I'm 17.

And as a young person, I think that the consequences of this decision is going to affect me and other young people and our future because of this pollution that is being caused by this gas station. To finish off, I just don't really understand the logic of why we would build a gas station when California is trying to move away from fossil fuels and trying to support alternative forms of energy. So I think that building this gas station is just not a good idea. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. A few more. You just gave me one before, right? Yeah. Okay. Susan Stump, come on down. Stump. Stump. Stump. Yeah. Getting through there.

Hello. I'm Susan Stomp, a fifty five year citizen of the city of Novato. And I would like to emphasize some issues that are very important to me and very important for the future of our community. My interests have to do with the wetlands that go from the smart rail tracks all the way to the bay. And there's a lot of work being done in that area to improve the wetlands and improve their function.

And the function is very important to all of us because it has to do with air quality, water quality, and the future of the flora and fauna in that marshland. I feel that the EIR that was distributed to the draft did not adequately address the potential for gas, gasoline and oils getting into the wetland. They mentioned that there will be bioswales. And bioswales are important. But they didn't say where they were going to be.

They weren't saying how they were going to be constructed. And they didn't say how they were going to be maintained. Maintaining bioswales is important, or they don't do any good. So that was a big concern of mine. Another has to do with the rising sea level.

And the rising sea level with high water table with 340,000 gallon tanks buried, I think, is problematic. And it needs to be better addressed as to what would happen to any seepage that happens with this high level of potential earthquake activity. So I would like to see more specific information about those issues. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Stump. All right. We got Julia Janeway. Come on down.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Julia Janeway. I'm a public high school teacher here in Novato and a mother of two young children. I'm speaking tonight because I know exactly who will pay the price for this project. It won't be the developers. It will be the youth I teach every day. My own children have been patients at the pediatric clinic directly adjacent to this site. The plan provides for no setbacks to mitigate public health impacts. The idea of exposing sick children and families to a constant stream of toxic fumes is reckless. We're also facing a massive contradiction of policy.

This project is in direct conflict with the city's climate action plan and climate emergency resolution. The new technology leak proof argument is a delusion. All underground storage tanks leak eventually. But even if the underground tanks never leaked, this station creates a constant stream of fugitive emissions and spills above ground. Studies show that gas stations contribute to elevated risk of cancer, asthma, child and health impacts, vapor leaks, groundwater contamination, and high benzene emissions.

The EIR glosses over these substantial harms. Costco's plans for would only be 95% effective, resulting in a meaningful probability of an undetected leak. Additionally, economically, this is a poor planning. In exchange for a couple decades of cheap gasoline for Costco members, moderate tax revenues, and large profits for Costco shareholders, future members of the Nato community will have to deal with the financial and health burdens of air pollution, traffic, climate pollution, and damage to a sensitive wetland. Gasoline demand in Marin is declining.

This project will drain volume from existing local mom and pop stations, businesses that keep their earnings in our community, and funnel that revenue to a corporate giant. As California transitions away from fossil fuels, this type of infrastructure will increasingly become a stranded asset and remediation site. And the original corporate owners rarely stick around for the cleanup phase. We have a responsibility to protect the health and well-being of those who would be adversely affected. Approving this project is essentially stealing from the future. Please stand by your own climate emergency declaration. Redirect the draft EIR and recommend the cancellation of the proposed mega gas station project. Thank you for your public service to the Navado community.

Thank you, Ms. Jamie. All right. Jen Roy.

Hi. I'm Jen, and I live in the Slade Park neighborhood here. And I'm still reeling from the decision you all made to approve the storage facility right next to our neighborhood. And we are the neighborhood that's also closest to Costco and the wetlands that are there. So I'm feeling like this our neighborhood that people seem to forget about and are getting piled on for the industrial use things.

It's just continuing to get worse and worse. So I love what everyone has said. Thank you so much for all the points you've made. But no one has talked about the neighborhood that's living right there and the impact of any environmental contamination in that area and the impact of our neighborhood, the impact of the quality of the air in our neighborhood. So you've said, yes, this one thing that our neighborhood really didn't want, And I hope that you can reconsider the second major impact that's going to be in our neighborhood if this gets approved. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And then we have Nan Farley.

Great pronunciation. Thank you.

All

right. Yeah, so my name's Nan Farley. I'm a citizen of Marin County. I've lived in the Bay Area for thirteen years and worked in sustainability for the last ten years. And two years ago, I moved to Marin County for our access to clean air, water, and amazing nature.

And I'm here because I'm very concerned about this decision. Gas stations, I mean, people have talked about the specific, you know, elements that they're emitting. But they're classified as toxic hotspots. So they negatively impact health, our air, our water, and our soil quality. The planned gas station people have talked about is next to a pristine watershed in a vast wildlife area in addition to a pediatric clinic.

So I know you wanted questions about where the EIR falls short tonight. And I'm wondering, how can you calculate what is an acceptable amount to poison our plants, animals, and children? I mean, people have talked about how shortsighted this is. I completely agree with all of those points. I think Julia Janeway really drove it home with some of the points about how this will become a stranded asset and who's going to clean it up.

Kind of to that point, four out of every 10 new vehicles, 40% sold or registered in Marin County are electric. That's wild. That's so many electric vehicles. And at a statewide level, it's 25%. So if you're thinking about who's, like, coming in, yes, maybe there will be cars coming in now. But, eventually, we need to go in a different direction. And building this antiquated infrastructure does not support it. So if you want a question about the EIR, how do you calculate what's an appropriate amount to invest in something that will become useless later? I had a few more points about the climate action plan and how that's incompatible, but I think people got that. So thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Farley. Anyone else? Seeing anybody, I'm going to close the public hearing. All right, bringing it back to the commission.

And again, staff, we're not opining on the merits correct. This is more making a decision about moving forward. A lot of the things that were discussed tonight would be I just want to reaffirm that a lot of things that we've discussed tonight would be weighed in on, such as the merits of the project finally in our answers, whether we like them or not. That'll all be determined at the final hearing, right?

That's correct. So see again the purpose this evening is to collect comments and including comments from the commission and questions and we return those to our consultants and prepare final EIR and come back for a project decision when that EIR is ready for review. Great.

Okay. I'm sorry, I'll circle back around. Commissioner Havel, any questions or comments you'd like to make?

Yeah, thank you everybody for showing up tonight and providing us with your feedback. Think that the environmental review process I'd like thank thank you staff for presenting it the way you did. CEQA is a disclosure law fundamentally. And it provides a structure and a framework so that people can be heard and their points of view and their concerns can be taken into consideration. When we look at Sequa and how it's been abused over the years, being used to delay, obstruct, drive up the cost of projects, people who oppose development projects have used it very effectively, to the point where our state legislatures discussing how to defame CEQA.

And I really fundamentally disagree with that at the state level. But the reason I bring it up is it's a heated issue and I want everybody to understand that this is a process. This project was taken to court and the judge said, go do an EIR. And that was, what, a couple years back? So a lot of time and money was spent trying to respond to these issues, trying to address these issues, trying to take a deeper look at these issues.

I realize to those of you who are fundamentally opposed to a gas station, doesn't One of the comments that we got from Tina McMillan I thought raised a really good point, which is questioning to object the project even in light of the project applicant going through further process. Granted, they were taken to court to force them to do that. So again, I think that in terms of the comment letters that were received, Conservation League, Marine three fifty, Sustainable Mill Valley, there's a whole bunch of folks that raised excellent points, excellent questions that I think can be responded to in the comments, can be responded to in the process. And that sequel process, when it culminates with either whatever happens with the final EIR, that's separate from the merits of the project. So these are two different things.

And again, that's kind of hard to tweeze apart because it does get emotional and people kind of get vested in their point of view. Right now we're talking about the environmental review portion of it as data driven as it can be. So when we get to the merits part of it, these questions of what's being left over for our children, how is this going be cleaned up in the future, all valid issues, all valid points. But I think those fall more into the merits as opposed to environmental analysis. That said, those comments will be taken into consideration during the preparation of the final ERR.

So with that all said, I I do think that the draft EIR does contain all the necessary components that that's required to move forward. And when I say that, I'm not saying I'm approving the project. I'm not saying I like the project. I'm not saying I dislike the project. All I'm saying is that, you know, if you're gonna sit down and make some pancakes and it says you need to have flour, eggs, milk, and you've got flour, eggs, milk, now you can make some pancakes. That's, you know, I think we're at a point now where I I would feel comfortable recommending that we we move forward to the the final EIR and response to comments.

Thank you. Thank you, mister Hevel.

Commissioner Tiernan. So question to staff. When this would come back as a final, we would also be looking at the project itself, or would that be separated out? You know, because the public's asked questions about landscaping and, berms and numbers of things that are unclear, at least so far from what I've seen.

Yeah, so typically we bring the decision on the environmental document and the project itself to the planning commission at the same time concurrently. Oftentimes, we have two different separate resolutions and have the planning commission vote first on the environmental review document and then on the project. So if that answers your question, they'll likely come back together at the same public hearing. But there can be two different votes. One for the environmental document and one for the project.

Yeah, and that's been my experience. I just want to make sure the public also heard that. They're not being bifurcated. At some point, this comes together. One of the letters that I read today, and it was from, I believe, Mill Valley Sustainable, suggested that by rejecting the draft, that then the project disappears. Can you comment on that?

Well, I think rejecting the draft I don't think is a valid response, because we would not be completing the EIR process. So I don't think at this point rejection is on the table as a option because you have to get to the final EIR and make a decision on that document. So I think that comment is premature and not really

valid to what we're doing here tonight. And so I think the city attorney is on as well. Perhaps they can opine as well.

Yes, of course. Brett's answer was accurate. At this point, the Planning Commission is considering a draft EIR. The options before the Planning Commission are to continue the hearing or accept the draft EIR.

I see.

Those are the two decisions available under the city's CEQA guidelines, and Mr. Walker's quite correct that the city does have a legal obligation to see the environmental review process to the end. So it would not be appropriate now for the Planning Commission to reject the EAR, so to speak.

Okay. And then, will say that I share Commissioner Havel's comments about process versus project, and where we are. With that, I'll end my comments.

Okay. Should I circle? Anyhow I'll circle back around at the end since we need to all make a comment whether or not we believe it should move on. Okay. Or it's adequate I should say. Commissioner Stuckenbroker.

Still no questions. Everything's being said on both sides so I'm just taking it all in.

Sure. And again all the comments that came out tonight I just want to confirm all the comments came out from folks tonight everything that's been mailed in to date and everything that will be mailed in We're closing the forty five days as of today, right? Okay. So after that, no more comments will be accepted? No more questions, etcetera, challenges of the methodology, etcetera?

Well, I don't think that we would wholeheartedly reject any comments that come in. So I would anticipate through the process from today getting to the final EIR hearing along with the entitlement hearing, we will be receiving additional comment letters. And that will become part of the public record. So we wouldn't reject any.

GREGORY That's good to know.

GREGORY I would just note that there is a hard cutoff, though, to have those comments addressed in the final EIR. So we'll accept comments. We'll pass those on to decision makers. But we need to move at some point with the comments into the final

Yeah I would guess I would just encourage those in the audience that if you do have more comments and want some of them addressed make sure those are in writing and there are two staff so we can weigh on the merits of those when the final EIR comes right. I was going to ask though it seemed like there were some challenges on the VMTs and some of that discussion. Tonight isn't the night for us to weigh in on the methodology. Isn't the time. These are things that will be addressed with the final EIR.

If there are questions or concerns about the methodology, would certainly pose those this evening. And then that way our consultant staff can consider those and respond to them in the final EIR.

Understood. So we did hear what

Yeah I hope I was clear.

Great.

Stuff I'm looking for.

Okay otherwise yeah I've reviewed everything and I'm comfortable with what's in there for making these draft EIR adequate and putting it through to the final EIR so we can see answers to those comments. And then again eventually weigh in on the merits of the project and we'd encourage you to come out and say a lot of things you said tonight at that hearing. What was the timing on that? What are we thinking that looks like?

I think it's a little too soon.

I'm holding you to it.

Yeah. I would say the absolute earliest would be the second meeting in January, which I believe is around the twenty sixth. But that would probably be the earliest. Okay.

Next couple of things, so people should stay close. Great. Okay. And so I did want to bring it back. Commissioner Tiernan, did you have a thought on I guess they've heard your comments.

I'm willing to move the draft forward so we can get to the final and keep the process rolling.

Commissioner Stockenberger?

I'm in agreement.

Okay. Wonderful. So you have all of our thoughts I believe.

Yes. You don't

need to vote on anything. We do need to make a motion. Forgive me I thought this was just you were recording all of our My bad. My bad. You very chair

would indulge me. I will move that Please. The Planning Commission hereby accepts the draft EIR and directs the Community Development Department to prepare a response to comments and final EIR for the project. Seconded.

Or do we yeah. We don't vote on it.

You'll do a roll call for me.

We do

vote. Okay. Take a roll call.

Throwing off because we're not voting like usual. Alright. Okay. Roll call. Commissioner Havel. Aye. Commissioner Tiernan. Aye. Commissioner Stuckenbroker.

Aye.

And Commissioner Derby's an aye. Wonderful. Okay. That agenda item is closed. Is there anything else for us tonight?

Nothing else reported. I believe this is the last commission hearing for this year. And then we'll be looking into probably mid to late January for any items that come up. And at this point, the only perspective item that's on the radar is perhaps hearing for the merits and the certification of the IR. Other than that, nothing else at this time.

Wonderful. Look forward to that item returning. Thank you, everyone. Closing out the hearing. Well,

when we get to the

final