Attachment 21 - Public Correspondence — Santa Rosa City Council, August 19, 2025

Outlook
[EXTERNAL] Elm Tree Station gas station -- File No. PRJ21-033 From Dee Swanhuyser <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/14/2024 10:01 AM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Dear Santa Rosa Council, Planning Commission and staff, There is no need any more gas stations in Sonoma County, including Santa Rosa. Here are my points in opposing the Elm Tree gas station:

There are already 10+ operating gas stations within a 5-mile radius.

Governor’s Executive Order - no new gas-powered cars to be sold in CA beyond 2035 so this project won’t be economically viable longterm.

Proposal runs counter to SR’s 2020 climate emergency declaration — don’t expand FF infrastructure in a climate crisis.

The public needs time to review the CEQA documents. The CEQA documents aren’t available to the public to review before your hearing or not enough time has been given to us to do a proper review. This hampers our ability to send you critical comments based on the CEQA document. The public needs time to review the CEQA documents.

The County and six cities Petaluma, Sebastopol, Cotati, Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Windsor stopped permitting and construction of new gas stations. You - Santa Rosa - have already stopped new gas stations. Why allow this project to go forward based on a timeline rather than a real need of our county to have another gas station?
Regards,
Dee Swanhuyser
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 10/15/2024, 2:43 PM
Attachment 21

Outlook
[EXTERNAL] Planning Commission, Oct. 24: 874 N. Wright Road gas station proposal From Jenny Blaker <[email protected]>
Date Tue 10/15/2024 3:41 PM
To Weeks, Karen <[email protected]>; Duggan, Vicki <[email protected]>; Carter, Charles <[email protected]>; Cisco, Patti <[email protected]>; Sanders, Terrence <[email protected]>; Peterson, Julian <[email protected]>; Pardo, Aaron <[email protected]>
Cc McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Woody Hastings <[email protected]> To: City of Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners
Re: Planning Commission, Oct. 24, 2024: 874 N. Wright Road gas station proposal Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners
As Co-coordinator of the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS), I’ve been following the proposal to build a new gas station at 874 North Wright Road since I first heard about it in December 2019. It turns out it has been in the works on and off since 2013, always rejected or delayed for one reason or another. Perhaps it is time to finally say NO to this project!
CONGAS has been instrumental since 2019 in bringing to public awareness the inappropriateness of building new gas stations. Three individual gas station proposals were withdrawn by the proponents in the face of public opposition. CONGAS then began working with the cities of Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Cotati, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol and Rohnert Park, and with the County of Sonoma, to encourage them to enact ordinances prohibiting the construction of new gas stations. This movement has spread to other counties and other states.

The City of Santa Rosa passed an ordinance prohibiting new gas stations in August, 2022.

The 874 N. Wright Road proposal was already in process, so it was not covered by the ordinance which applied only to new proposals. Those already in process were to be considered individually on their own merits or otherwise. However, this one is just as problematic as any other new gas station proposal, for many reasons including some specific to this site.

There are good reasons why these cities and the County passed these ordinances, and the reasons not only still apply but are more relevant than ever.

We have not yet been able to review any updated CEQA documents, as explained below, but in the meantime we can offer some general comments:

There are already about 10-14 existing gas stations within a 5-mile range. A new one is not needed.

It makes no sense to build a new gas station now in the face of the climate crisis, evidence of which is mounting daily.

In 2020 Santa Rosa passed a climate emergency resolution. Approving a new gas station now conflicts with this and with the City’s Climate Action Plan
It makes no sense to build a new gas station now given Governor Newsom’s Executive Order to cease registering new gasoline-powered cars beginning in 2035.

Gas stations, even the newest ones, inevitably create leaks and spills from underground storage tanks and pipes. These pollute surface and groundwater and are dangerous for human health. The county is riddled Firefox https://outlook.office.com/ma il/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 2 10/17/2024, 8:35 AM

with leaking underground storage tanks, which often end up becoming undevelopable toxic sites. They are an expensive liability.

Gas stations are a source of toxic air pollution.

Sales of gasoline are declining so this is not a good long-term economic proposition.

This site is inappropriate being on an undeveloped greenfield site with wetlands and vernal pools; on Highway 12 between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol which is a designated Scenic Highway. The site is adjacent to the Joe Rodota trail.

According to the FBI, 4.5% of all reported violent crime in 2022 took place at a gas station or convenience store.

This is an environmental justice issue because gasoline stations have a disproportionate impact on low- income communities, particularly indigenous and frontline communities, all over the world, from the point of extraction through the processing, refining, and transportation, and then the inequitable impacts of the climate crisis on already overburdened populations.

CONGAS has been hearing from staff for the past two years that they were reviewing the CEQA documents for this project, but we have so far not been able to get access to these to be able to comment on any specific new detail. In September 2021 CONGAS was informed by staff (Adam Ross) that this proposal had been withdrawn.

In August 2022 we were alerted to a notice of a public hearing. In November 2022 we were told by staff (Mike Wixon) both that there would be “no public hearing or any form of public input” and also in the same email that staff were assessing the project to ensure compliance with CEQA and that he would be happy to send us any documents when ready for public review. We’re still waiting! – and I’m wondering what is so problematic about this project that has taken so many twists and turns for over 10 years in the process and why it is now so difficult for the public to access the planning documents.

We encourage the Planning Commission to continue to build upon the City’s climate action planning efforts, urban planning that encourages active transportation, making it safer for people to walk, roll, and bicycle, reducing vehicle miles traveled. We support safe, clean, accessible, affordable public transit, and charging facilities for electric vehicles in locations where people already live, work, and spend time (not at gas stations!) We urge the Planning Commission to promote a clean, green, and just energy and transportation system, rather than permitting an outdated and hazardous liability. If it was inappropriate in 2013 and 2019 it is even more inappropriate now.

Please do the right thing and reject this proposal. There are many good reasons to oppose it and none to support it.

Sincerely
Jenny Blaker
Co-coordinator, Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS) Firefox https://outlook.office.com/ma il/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 2 of 2 10/17/2024, 8:35 AM
From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] NO NEW GAS STATIONS!
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:42:57 PM

Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here
, and more information will be coming
soon!

From: Marie Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 2:51 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO NEW GAS STATIONS!

Thank you.

Marie Anderson
[email protected]
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Fri 11/1/2024 8:17 AM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Jan Armenta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 10:04 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

In their normal operations, gas stations pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traffic, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much better how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas stations are part of the system that fuels the climate crisis.

Under city rules, the Commission must deny a CUP if it finds that granting the permit would be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts and you must use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/1/2024, 5:00 PM

From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] New gas station
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:46:39 PM

From: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:15 PM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] New gas station

FYI

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 12:05 PM
To: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] New gas station

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From: kate1120 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 10:10 PM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] New gas station

Dear Santa Rosa Council Members;
Please oppose the plan to build a new gas station at Wright and Sebastopol roads. It would add more pollution, more traffic and conflict with our climate goals.

Sincerely,
Katy Baumgras
Sebastopol

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

I am wriƟng to urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

In their normal operaƟons, gas staƟons pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traﬃc, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much beƩer how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas staƟons are part of the system that fuels the climate crisis.

Under city rules, the Commission must deny a CUP if it ﬁnds that granƟng the permit would be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negaƟve impacts and you must use your discreƟonary authority to make that ﬁnding and deny the CUP .

Please use your discreƟonary authority and deny the condiƟonal use permit.

Thank you.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/1/2024, 5:05 PM

[EXTERNAL] North Wright Road Gas Station Comment Ltr | SCTLC October 20, 2024
Permit Center
2550 Ventura Avenue
Santa Rosa,
CA 95403
RE: Planning Commission/Public Hearing, October 24, 2024, Agenda item 11.1: 874 North Wright Road Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners
The Sonoma County Transportation and Land-Use Coalition has worked with local and regional officials since 1991 to reduce the carbon footprint of our cities and encourage sound environmental planning. After reviewing the declining need for gasoline stations, as well as their hazards, we recommend denial of the proposed addendum to the Elm Tree Station Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with denial of the request to permit a new gas station.

The 2013 Planning Commission's decision to allow construction of a gas station at 874 North Wright Road was to be valid until 2015. By August, 2022, the project had not proceeded, and Santa Rosa then adopted a climate emergency resolution with a commitment to view all issues through a climate lens.

Santa Rosa must recognize that the production and use of gasoline is a primary contributor to the global climate crisis that must be phased out. California is working toward full decarbonization by 2045, and plans to stop registering new gasoline-powered cars beginning in 2035. Land use planning must shift its focus to support active transportation and public transit. New gas stations are contrary to that shift.

Gas stations also present some risks. Gasoline tanks near potential residential areas should be avoided due to the toxicity of the fuel. The storage tanks eventually leak, even with double walls and monitoring. Over the decades, the tanks become difficult to maintain and the cost of cleaning up leaks becomes a problem; the result can be a toxic site that is not developable. We need to reduce the number of gasoline stations, not increase them.

Another gas station is unnecessary. Santa Rosa already has over 40 gas stations, more than ten of which are within a 5- mile radius of the Wright Road location. Also, gas powered autos are being replaced with electric vehicles that are recharged at homes and at various destinations.

It should also be noted that the applicant's traffic studies are based on stale data that do not take into account updated figures for population, traffic, collisions, or changing context such as the 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the Active Transportation Plan and the Highway 12 interchange project.

For the above reasons we urge you to close out this project.

Cordially,
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 2 10/21/2024, 9:26 AM
Stephen Birdlebough
Chair, Sonoma County Transportation and Land-Use Coalition 684 Benicia Drive, Apt 63 Santa Rosa CA 95409 707-576-6632 From: Christopher Bornman
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas Station @ 874 North Wright Road Date: Thursday, March 27, 2025 6:35:35 PM
Hello!
I am not sure if this is the right way to register an opinion, as I've never written a planning commission letter before.

I would like to express my hope that the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road will not be approved. There are numerous reasons to not approve it, of which just a few are...

1. The known health impact of pollutants on the surrounding area and residents.

2. That the proposed station is adjacent to a popular bike and walking path.

3. That the proposed station is adjacent to a seasonal wetland.

4. Gas stations are not in short supply and there is no need for more.

5. There's never been a gas station that didn't eventually have tanks that leak.

6. It's contradictory to the Climate Action Plan.

I hope you are allowed (legally) to take the above into consideration, and can put a stop to this project once and for all.

Thank you so much!
- chris
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Please deny more gas station permits
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/21/2024 2:36 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Sonja Cary <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 2:34 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please deny more gas staƟon permits I am opposed to having a new gas staƟon on North Wright Road. More gas staƟons just dilute the exisƟng gas business while increasing the potenƟal for superfund sites and community blight.

People will need to ﬁll up cars that use gas but the number is decreasing rapidly. I don't see lines at the Chevron or other nearby gas staƟons.

I use an app to ﬁnd a place to plug in. Maybe out of town gas car owners can ﬁnd the remaining gas staƟons by using Gas Buddy.

Respecƞully,
Sonja Cary
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/4/2024, 11:31 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE Conditional Use Permit for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station (File No. PRJ21-033)
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Wed 10/23/2024 10:25 AM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Laurel Chambers <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 10:24 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE CondiƟonal Use Permit for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon (File No.

PRJ21-033)
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners,
This email is to ask you to please deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit for the planned gas staƟon on North Wright Rd. I live in the neighborhood just north of the proposed gas staƟon and I drive Hwy 12 and Fulton/Wright Rd. every day. A new gas staƟon is the last thing our neighborhood needs! My kids go to Wright Charter School and I have been parƟcipaƟng in the planning meeƟngs hosted by SCTA regarding the Hwy 12 and Fulton intersecƟon to give input on the proposed improvements. They are planning on the gas staƟon being there, but it is clear that they will have a lot more opƟons if it is never built. I really want my kids to be able to walk or bike to school and the increased traﬃc that the gas staƟon will bring will make it more dangerous to do so. I also worry about the increased air polluƟon that this gas staƟon will bring.

This project goes against the Climate Emergency ResoluƟon passed in 2020 and the CIty's Climate AcƟon Plan.

If you approve this permit, you are sending a message that the city isn't actually serious about ﬁghƟng climate change. I will lose a lot of respect for the city government if this happens.

Furthermore, there are already several gas staƟons and convenience stores in the area and gas sales are declining overall as people move towards hybrid and electric cars. Why are we allowing a new business that is doomed to fail?
Please think about the climate and the safety of the community and deny this CondiƟonal Use Permit.

Sincerely,
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 2 11/4/2024, 11:48 AM

Laurel Chambers
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 2 of 2 11/4/2024, 11:48 AM

From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Gas station at Wright & Fulton location needless given stations nearby Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:42:48 PM

-----Original Message-----
From: Terri Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 2:36 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas station at Wright & Fulton location needless given stations nearby

There are gas stations in very nearby developed areas without putting a new fuel station next to a propane distribution center. There can be problems enough in the area as demonstrated by the dump truck accident that closed the opposite side of the busy intersection for a while.

What use is the property currently zoned for?

A recycling business, bottling plant, Trader Joe’s,
while increasing traffic would not create a larger conflagration or explosion and hazard to under groundwater/stream. Many water wells could be impacted by a fuel spill.

Terri Clark
Sent from my iPhone,

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] 874 Wright Rd
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/18/2024 2:22 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Cc Crocker, Ashle <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> FYI
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director ‐ Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543‐3253 | Mobile (707) 292‐0963 | [email protected] ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Kevin Conway <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 2:18 PM
To: _PLANCOM ‐ Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 Wright Rd
Dear Planning Commission members:

I'm wriƟng to encourage you to not allow a new gas staƟon at 874 Wright Rd. A gas staƟon there is not needed bec ause there are at least 10 gas staƟons within a 5 mile radius of that locaƟon.

Most importantly it ﬂies in the face of our 2020 Climate AcƟon Plan. Why establish a CAP plan if it is ignored? We all know how terrible the consequences are of climate change and m illions of people are currently suﬀering from the damage done by the recent hurricanes and tornadoes. Let's demonstrate Santa Rosa’s leadership on addressing climate change by not permiƫng a new gas staƟon on Wright Rd.

Thank You,
Kevin Conway
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 1 10/18/2024, 2:24 PM

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:40 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/31/2024 4:19 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: dogskniƩer <dogskniƩ[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 4:19 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners: I am wriƟng to urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. In their normal operaƟons, gas staƟons pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traﬃc, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much beƩer how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas staƟons are part of the system that fuels the climate crisis. Under city rules, the Commission must deny a CUP if it ﬁnds that granƟng the permit would be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negaƟve impacts and you must use your discreƟonary authority to make that ﬁnding and deny the CUP . Please use your discreƟonary authority and deny the condiƟonal use permit. Thank you.

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:42 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Please NO NEW GAS STATION @ 874 N. Wright Road! (Intersection of Hwy. 12 and Fulton/Wright Roads, Santa Rosa) Pl. add statement below to Public Record.

FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateThu 3/20/2025 2:56 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
CcMurray, Susie <[email protected]>; Crocker, Ashle <[email protected]> Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform.

Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon!
From: Marsha Dupre <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 5:05 PM
To: Alton, Alan <[email protected]>; Manis, Dina <[email protected]>; Nu�, Jason <jnu�@srcity.org>; Burke, Jennifer <[email protected]>; Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>; Smith, Maraskeshia <[email protected]>; Dunston, Daryel <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeﬀ <[email protected]>; Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Stricker, Teresa <[email protected]>; Pardo, Aaron <[email protected]>; Carter, Charles <[email protected]>; Weeks, Karen <[email protected]>; Brown, Madeline <[email protected]>; Horton, Miles <[email protected]>; Cisco, Pa� <[email protected]>; Sanders, Terrence <[email protected]>; Duggan, Vicki <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please NO NEW GAS STATION @ 874 N. Wright Road! (Intersec�on of Hwy. 12 and Fulton/Wright Roads, Santa Rosa) Pl. add statement below to Public Record.

Dear Members of the SR CC Planning Commission and SR CC:

As a former SR CC member, many of us acknowledged the crisis of climate change and we were very pleased that the City developed the stated goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2030. We had proposed an earlier deadline, but we know that progress often, sadly, moves more slowly than global warming. Please do vote "No" on the proposed GAS STATION @ 874 N. Wright Road as it is well accepted that this should not happen in the middle of this severe climate crisis. Truly, not the time to be expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. It has been proven that toxic pollution threatens public health and safety; that the location is a greenfield with seasonal wetlands; that the site is adjacent to a propane vehicle fueling station; that it’s not needed: there are already 10 gas stations in a 5-mile radius; that there will be increased traffic congestion, noise, idling cars adjacent to the Joe Rodota Trail; that it is against city rules to build two fueling stations within 500 feet of each other; and that it would worsen the climate crisis as wildfire, drought, flood and other extreme weather events buffet our community.

I endorse the March 14, 2025 Press Democrat Letter to the Editor by Jenny Blaker:

Reject gas station
EDITOR: The Santa Rosa Planning Commission has an important decision to make at a public hearing on April 10 — whether to approve or deny a proposal for a new gas station at Highway 12 and Wright Road.

One of the requirements for a conditional use permit is that the project should be for the public health, safety and welfare. This project has been in the pipeline on and off since 2007, initially rejected by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Approved in 2013, it was never built, and the permits expired.

Much has changed since 2013. The serious health impacts of toxic pollution from gas stations, including links to childhood leukemia, are better understood. The impacts of the climate crisis have escalated. The traffic and other environmental studies are outdated, ignoring many changes that have occurred. The project would conflict with the city’s climate policies and aspects of the general plan.

A coalition of over 20 organizations submitted a letter last fall urging the Planning Commission to deny the project. It’s time to say no and consider the best interests of the community.

JENNY BLAKER
********************************************************************************** ***************
Pl. add to Public Record. Thank You.

Sincerely,
Marsha
Marsha Vas Dupre, Ph.D.

Former Santa Rosa City Council Vice Mayor, SRJC Trustee

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE %2 CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/31/2024 3:56 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Ellen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 3:54 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE %2�� CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:47 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Fri 11/1/2024 8:18 AM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Janice FlaƩo <janiceﬂaƩ[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 11:16 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am wriƟng to urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please use your discreƟonary authority and deny the condiƟonal use permit.

Thank you.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/1/2024, 4:59 PM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] IN OPPOSITION to 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (File No.

PRJ21-033)
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Tue 10/22/2024 10:20 AM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: James Freed <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:46 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] IN OPPOSITION to 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Gas stations pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traffic, and other problems. The 2013 mitigated negative declaration that is before you is 11 years out of date. In 2024 we understand much better how fossil fuels also threaten public health, safety, and welfare and that gas stations are part of what fuels the climate crisis.

Under city rules, the Commission has the authority to deny a CUP if it finds that granting the permit would be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts and you can use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

I also oppose this gas station because:
• There already over 10 gas stations operating within a 5 mile radius of the proposed location. Access to gasoline is very easy in that area.
• Approval of the CUP would go against the spirit of the Climate Emergency Resolution adopted by the Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 2 11/4/2024, 11:38 AM

City of Santa Rosa in 2020.
• Approving a new gas station also goes against the City’s Climate Action Plan. • Instead of new gas stations, we should be supporting quick charging stations for electric vehicles. • The area that the new station would be built is surrounded by seasonal wetlands that flow into the Laguna De Santa Rosa. The runoff of spilled gasoline, and the leaks that could develop over time would threaten this integral portion of the watershed with preventable pollution.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the permit.

Respectfully,
James Freed

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 2 of 2 11/4/2024, 11:38 AM

FW: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) OPPOSE From: Pam Gentry <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 12:04 PM
To: _PLANCOM ‐ Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal (File No. PRJ21‐033) OPPOSE Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Gas stations pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traffic, and other problems.

In 2024 we understand much better how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas stations are part of what fuels the climate crisis.

There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts and you can use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

I also oppose this gas station because I believe it would create additional traffic and confusion at an intersection that is already extremely congested.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the permit.

Respectfully,
1 of
2 10/21/2024, 9:09 AM
Pamela Gentry
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 2 of 2 10/21/2024, 9:09 AM
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] N. Wright Road Gas Station Proposal - VOTE NO ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Laura <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 8:01 PM
To: _PLANCOM ‐ Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Planning Shared <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] N. Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal ‐ VOTE NO Hello,
As a resident of west Santa Rosa, I am OPPOSED to the proposal for a gas staƟon on N. Wright Road.

There is absolutely no reason to build a new gas staƟon at this locaƟon. There's one just up the road at the entrance to Sebastopol, and a Chevron on Stony Point Rd near Hwy 12. There is no reason to add a new one. Didn't SR make some kind of resoluƟon about climate change a few years back? How does that square with adding a new gas staƟon to an area that has one minutes to the east and one minutes to the west? Plus this site is next to the Joe Rodota Trail, where I like to ride my bike between Stony Point and Sebastopol. The trail has had enough issues with closure due to camping and now we're going to add a gas staƟon so that those who use the trail need to watch out for cars? It's a lovely spot, so why ruin it? This area is NOT in need of another gas staƟon; it's not a "gas staƟon desert." Please deny the permit.

Thank you,
Laura Gonzalez
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 1 10/21/2024, 9:31 AM

From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] NO NEW GAS STATIONS!
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:42:57 PM

From: Marie Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 2:51 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO NEW GAS STATIONS!

Thank you.

Marie Anderson
[email protected]

Sebastopol Grange #306 P.O. Box 2759 Sebastopol, CA 95473 707-331-4400

D
EAR
M
EMBERS

THE
P

LANNING
C

OMMISSION
,
T
HE
S

EBASTOPOL
G
RANGE

WRITING

EXPRESS

ITS

STRONG

OPPOSITION

THE

PROPOSED

GAS

STATION

AT
H
WY
12 AND

W
RIGHT

ROAD
.

T
HE
S

EBASTOPOL
G
RANGE

BELIEVES

THE
P

LANNING
C

OMMISSION
'
S

DECISION

THIS

PROJECT

VITAL

IMPORTANCE

THE

HEALTH
,

SAFETY
,

AND

WELFARE

OUR

COMMUNITY
.

W
E

ARE

DEEPLY

CONCERNED

ABOUT

THE

POTENTIAL

NEGATIVE

IMPACTS

NEW

GAS

STATION
. T
HE

SERIOUS

HEALTH

CONSEQUENCES

TOXIC

POLLUTION

FROM

SUCH

FACILITIES

ARE

INCREASINGLY

UNDERSTOOD
,

INCLUDING

LINKS

CHILDHOOD

ILLNESSES
.

URTHERMORE
,

LIGHT

THE

ESCALATING

CLIMATE

CRISIS
,

EXPANDING

FOSSIL

FUEL

INFRASTRUCTURE

STEP

THE

WRONG

DIRECTION
.

W
E

ARE

ALSO

CONCERNED

THAT

THE

EXISTING

ENVIRONMENTAL

AND

TRAFFIC

STUDIES

MAY

NOT

REFLECT

CURRENT

CONDITIONS

AND

COULD

UNDERESTIMATE

THE

TRUE

IMPACT

THIS

PROJECT
.

W
E

BELIEVE

THIS

PROPOSAL

CONFLICTS

WITH

THE

CITY
’
S

CLIMATE

POLICIES

AND

POTENTIALLY

WITH

ASPECTS

THE

GENERAL

PLAN

THAT

PRIORITIZE

COMMUNITY

WELL
-
BEING

AND

ENVIRONMENTAL

STEWARDSHIP
.

T
HE
S

EBASTOPOL
G
RANGE

URGES

THE
P

LANNING
C

OMMISSION

REJECT

THIS

PROPOSAL

AND

PRIORITIZE

LAND

USE

DECISIONS

THAT

SERVE

THE

BEST

LONG
-
TERM

INTERESTS

OUR

COMMUNITY

AND

ITS

ENVIRONMENT
.

INCERELY
,

T
HE
S

EBASTOPOL
G
RANGE

Lawrence Jaffe, President, Sebastopol Grange #306

From: Woody Hastings
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter from Sebastopol Grange
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 6:35:46 PM
Greetings,
I am a member of the Sebastopol Grange. Last night, it was requested of me by my fellow Grangers to share with you this letter from Sebastopol Grange.

Please share this with Commissioners and please include it in the record of the April 10 Commission meeting and in the case file of the gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road.

Thank you,
Woody Hastings,
Sebastopol Grange #306
Outlook
[EXTERNAL] A Request: The City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission Hearing (Agenda for the 10/24 Public Hearing on 874 North Wright Road - PRJ21-033)
From Woody Hastings <[email protected]>
Date Fri 10/18/2024 2:26 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Cc Weeks, Karen <[email protected]>
1 attachments (152 KB)
PC- Agenda -2024-10-24.pdf;
Hello Conor (and Chair Weeks),
I am emailing to respectfully request a postponement of the Public Hearing regarding the gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road, scheduled for October 24. I just received the agenda yesterday (Thursday, October 17). The Staff Report, 21 attachments, and three additional items add up to hundreds of pages to review in less than a week. I and many community members I have been in touch with need more time to review these documents in order to meaningfully and constructively participate in the Hearing.

Please let me know as soon as possible if this request will be granted.

Thank you for your consideration,
Woody Hastings
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: The City of Santa Rosa <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 2:26 PM
Subject: The City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission Update To: <
[email protected]>
City of Santa Rosa Logo
You are subscribed to Planning Commission for The City of Santa Rosa.

The final agenda for the Planning Commission on October 24, 2024 is now available here:
https://santa-rosa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
PC- Agenda -2024-10-24.pdf
This email notification is provided to you at no charge by The City of Santa Rosa, CA . Update your subscriptions, modify y our password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page . You will need to use your e-mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com .

This email was sent to [email protected] using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: The City of Santa Rosa 100 Santa Rosa Ave ꞏ Santa Rosa, CA 95404 ꞏ 707-543-3000 Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 2 10/18/2024, 3:33 PM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) OPPOSE From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Tue 10/22/2024 2:31 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: carol henderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 2:28 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) OPPOSE Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am wriƟng to urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. There is ample evidence that this project could impose negative impacts such as threats to water, air, and soil. You can use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

I also oppose this gas station because there is no need for another gas station with many gas stations already operating within a 5-mile radius. The climate crisis is real and we know that fossil fuels contribute to that. We need to plan for a more sustainable future.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny this permit.

Respectfully,
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 2 11/4/2024, 11:40 AM

Carol Henderson
Santa Rosa citizen
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 2 of 2 11/4/2024, 11:40 AM
From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] No gas station on Wright Rd.

From: John Hervey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 6:31:25 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] No gas station on Wright Rd.

Please no more fossil fuel infrastructure. Climate change is real. Sonoma County is our best opportunity to do what is right for humanity.

Let’s show leadership.

John Hervey Sebastopol farmer
Sent from my iPhone
FW: [EXTERNAL] N. Wright Road Gas
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: john hervey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 2:28 PM
To: _PLANCOM ‐ Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] N. Wright Road Gas
GreeƟngs Planners,
I urge you to deny the permit for a gas staƟon on Wright Road near Sebastopol. It damages The environment, encourages consumpƟon and is contrary to the public good.

Consider a clean fuel staƟon , that will be cleaner, safer and beƩer for the people you represent.

CUP allows you to deny the permit in order to ensure the safety of the people.

Thanks,
John A Hervey
Sent from my iPhone
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 1 10/21/2024, 8:31 AM

From: Vincent Hoagland Jr
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to gas station next to Joe Rodota Trail Date: Friday, March 28, 2025 10:37:36 AM
As a cyclist who uses the Joe Rodota Trail, I strongly oppose the construction of a new gas station adjacent to the trail. There already are 10 stations within 5 miles so it is not necessary to build another one. It will increase vehicular traffic at a difficult place for cyclists who must cross in front of the entrance heading north on S. Wright Road in riding from Sebastopol.

I urge you not to permit this station to be constructed.

Vincent Hoagland
From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station (File # PRJ21-033) Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:43:31 PM

From: christine hoex <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2025 6:12 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station (File # PRJ21-033)

To the City of Santa Rosa Planning Commission,

I am writing on behalf of 350 Sonoma/350 Bay Area Climate Action steering Committee.

We have been following and supporting many positive actions by the Santa Rosa since the adoption of the Climate Emergency Resolution.

That is why we oppose the permitting the Gas station on Wright Road (file # PRJ21-033)

The Commission should deny the permit on the same grounds on which the Commission and Santa Rosa City Council based the citywide prohibition on new gas stations.

There is no need for another gasoline station in Santa Rosa. There are already more than ten operating
gasoline stations within a five-mile radius of this project site and over 40 in total in and near Santa Rosa.

Electric car charging with an Active Transportation support station would be a better fit as Santa Rosa’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan is currently being updated as the Active Transportation Plan.

A new vision for our city is coming into view. Gas stations are polluting relic of a the past.

Public awareness of the climate crisis has grown enormously since 2013. The Climate Emergency Resolution passed in January 2020,

included the statement that the City of Santa Rosa

joins a nationwide call for a just transition away from fossil fuels.

Denying this gas station is
within the spirit of that resolution.

Thank you for this oppertunity to comment.

Climate-Emergency-ResolutionPDF Document · 260 KB

Respectfully,

Outlook
Fw: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Elm Street Station
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/28/2024 5:32 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> 1 attachment (160 KB)
To members of the Planning Commission.pdf;
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Pierce Hollis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 4:11:00 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Elm Street StaƟon
Hello,
I was disappointed to arrive at this meeting and find it canceled. I've now signed up for notifications and hope they'll arrive in time for me to check if meetings will be occurring.

I sent the information included below to CT McKay (?) but want to be sure it is included for consideration regarding Elm Tree Station, so I'm sending it to this email address as well.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Elm Street Station
Date:Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:32:16 -0700
From:Pierce Hollis <[email protected]>
To:[email protected]
Hello,
I am attaching a letter expressing my concern over the proposed Elm Tree Station gas station. I hope the members of the commission will have the time to look it over before tomorrow's meeting and include it in the record.

Thank you,
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 2 of 3 11/7/2024, 11:58 AM
Holly Pierce
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 3 of 3 11/7/2024, 11:58 AM
October 23, 2022

To members of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission,

I have lived for thirty years close to the intersection of Highway 12 and Fulton Road. I have learned that there is a move to build a gas station, identified as the Elm Tree Station (ETS) proposed by Mr. Mangal Dhillon at the southeast corner of that intersection. I have several objections to that plan.

The first has to do with a new gas station in Santa Rosa . In the General Plan Update of 2020, it states that the city’s desire is to determine “ways the city can grow and evolve in a more healthy, sustainable, and equitable fashion.”1 And so, in August of 2022 our city adopted a landmark ban on new construction of gas stations.2

In an August 11, 2022 appeal, however, ETS’ applicant asserted that “The Project is consistent with the Santa Rosa General Plan.”3 In light of the city’s ban on new gas stations enacted, this assertion contradicts the General Plan. A new gas station defies the spirit of the legislation against such new construction.

In fact, in ETS’ October 24, 2024 presentation, applicant asserts that in August of 2022: “City Council adopts gas station ban. Project specifically exempt.”4 This is false. The city has only said, “Gas stations that submit completed applications before the ban goes into effect in October will be considered by staff [italics mine].”4

Probably simplest to understand is that there are already two gas stations off Highway 12 east of this proposed site, one at Stony Point Road and the other at Dutton Avenue. To the west is a station on the eastern outskirts of Sebastopol. There is no need for yet another.

Then there are environmental concerns. While ETS applicant states that “[t]he Project will cause no adverse environmental effects,”5 it is worth noting that almost half of the proposed site is comprised of wetlands that include plants and animals sensitive to development. ETS is aware of this status, in that its applications include “0.45-acre of Wetland mitigation purchased;” “1.96 acres of CTS [California Tiger Salamander] mitigation credits purchased;” and “0.33-acre of Special Status Plants mitigation credits purchased.”7 (The question as to why developments should be able to buy their way out of habitat destruction is a question for another day.)

The city’s general plan expresses concern for “[e]nvironmental conditions including areas of known sensitive habitats, natural hazards and noise, topography, soil, or groundwater contamination.”7 The map I’ve included shows one of the gasoline storage tanks as buried directly beneath the wetland as designated by the North Coast Regional Quality Control Board. Should the tank develop a leak, this could seriously contaminate the surrounding wetlands. In light of this, the Elm Tree Station project is an area of serious environmental concern.

My third worry has to do with ETS as a magnet for the homeless. This project’s northern boundary is the Joe Rodota Trail. I feel placing a gas station and minimarket there will only result in one more spot for the homeless to gather.

Look at the site plan and consider what ETS would offer. Two patios with benches and seating are planned, one covered, both along a bike path’s eastern opening to the trail. Available food and water at the site will be an attraction. If a person cannot afford the food there, Victory Outreach is right around the corner. Having volunteered at the food bank for five years, I know they come on Wednesday mornings to pick up food for distribution.

Problems along the trail are well-known and chronic. The city’s resources for dealing with the homeless are already stretched thin. There is no reason to think that encampments won’t arise there, creating another intractable problem.

There are various other questions to be considered:

The proposal includes a “privately maintained public park with amenities.”8 What is the purpose for including this park? In 2007 the plan originally included a car wash (on a wetland site?) and a “drive- through restaurant”9 that have since been eliminated. Is a park meant to make this proposal more attractive, to “sweeten the deal,” so to speak? And how do they expect to keep this private park safe and secure? A security guard?

There is also no indication as to what “privately maintained” entails. ETS’ October 24, 2024 presentation states, “Agreement with Sonoma County Parks and Recreation finalized.”10 What would this “agreement” be, and how does it coordinate with a privately owned entity?

There is also the proposed small, one-bedroom apartment. I can only wonder why that is included. Is this to be considered the applicant’s virtuous attempt to ease the housing market? It’s a mystery.

I acknowledge that my discussion of this matter is perhaps overlong, and that seventeen years and a lot of Mr. Dhillon’s money has gone into this project. Yet it seemed as if the more I looked into it, the further down this questionable rabbit hole I went. I can only hope you will take the time to consider it carefully and conclude with me that Elm Tree Station is unnecessary and problematic. I urge you to reject its implementation.

(Oh, and one more thing: while the station was supposed to be named after the elm tree on the lot, it has since been cut down. The irony.)

Sincerely,

Holly J. Pierce

Email: [email protected]

Footnotes

1 https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/28176/Work-Plan p.6

2 https://envirocentersoco.org/updates/2022/08/santa-rosa-largest-us-city-to-ban-new-gas-stations/

3 file:///C:/Users/rhpie/Downloads/Late%20Public%20Correspondence%20as%20of%208.11.2022%20at% 20noon-1.pdf p. 5

4 https://envirocentersoco.org/updates/2022/08/santa-rosa-largest-us-city-to-ban-new-gas-stations/

5 file:///C:/Users/rhpie/Downloads/Late%20Public%20Correspondence%20as%20of%208.11.2022%20at% 20noon-1.pdf p. 6

6 ADDED Applicant Presentation (Uploaded 10-18-2024).pdf p. 9

7 https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/28176/Work-Plan p. 10

8 file:///C:/Users/rhpie/Downloads/ADDED%20Applicant%20Presentation%20(Uploaded%2010-18- 2024)-3.pdf p. 8

9 file:///C:/Users/rhpie/Downloads/Presentation.pdf

10 ADDED Applicant Presentation (Uploaded 10-18-2024).pdf p. 9

Attachment: Project map with overlay showing identified wetlands FW: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) NO! From: Margaret Howe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 8:04 AM
To: _PLANCOM ‐ Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Planning Shared <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal (File No. PRJ21‐033) NO! Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am wriƟng to urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Gas staƟons pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traﬃc, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much beƩer how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas staƟons are part of what fuels the climate crisis.

Under city rules, the Commission has the authority to deny a CUP if it ﬁnds that granting the permit would constitute a nuisance or be injurious ordetrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts and you can use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

Please use your discreƟonary authority and deny the permit.

Respecƞully,
Margaret Howe
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 1 10/21/2024, 9:38 AM
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/31/2024 7:42 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Molly Huddleston <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 7:41 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:38 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/31/2024 7:42 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Veronica Jacobi <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 6:52 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners: I am wriƟng to strongly urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. In their normal operaƟons, gas staƟons pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traﬃc, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much beƩer how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas staƟons are part of the system that fuels the very dangerous climate crisis. Under city rules, the Commission must deny a CUP if it ﬁnds that granƟng the permit would be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negaƟve impacts and you must use your discreƟonary authority to make that ﬁnding and deny the CUP . Please use your discreƟonary authority and deny the condiƟonal use permit. Thank you very much!
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:36 AM

Sebastopol Grange #306 P.O. Box 2759 Sebastopol, CA 95473 707-331-4400

D
EAR
M
EMBERS

THE
P

LANNING
C

OMMISSION
,
T
HE
S

EBASTOPOL
G
RANGE

WRITING

EXPRESS

ITS

STRONG

OPPOSITION

THE

PROPOSED

GAS

STATION

AT
H
WY
12 AND

W
RIGHT

ROAD
.

T
HE
S

EBASTOPOL
G
RANGE

BELIEVES

THE
P

LANNING
C

OMMISSION
'
S

DECISION

THIS

PROJECT

VITAL

IMPORTANCE

THE

HEALTH
,

SAFETY
,

AND

WELFARE

OUR

COMMUNITY
.

W
E

ARE

DEEPLY

CONCERNED

ABOUT

THE

POTENTIAL

NEGATIVE

IMPACTS

NEW

GAS

STATION
. T
HE

SERIOUS

HEALTH

CONSEQUENCES

TOXIC

POLLUTION

FROM

SUCH

FACILITIES

ARE

INCREASINGLY

UNDERSTOOD
,

INCLUDING

LINKS

CHILDHOOD

ILLNESSES
.

URTHERMORE
,

LIGHT

THE

ESCALATING

CLIMATE

CRISIS
,

EXPANDING

FOSSIL

FUEL

INFRASTRUCTURE

STEP

THE

WRONG

DIRECTION
.

W
E

ARE

ALSO

CONCERNED

THAT

THE

EXISTING

ENVIRONMENTAL

AND

TRAFFIC

STUDIES

MAY

NOT

REFLECT

CURRENT

CONDITIONS

AND

COULD

UNDERESTIMATE

THE

TRUE

IMPACT

THIS

PROJECT
.

W
E

BELIEVE

THIS

PROPOSAL

CONFLICTS

WITH

THE

CITY
’
S

CLIMATE

POLICIES

AND

POTENTIALLY

WITH

ASPECTS

THE

GENERAL

PLAN

THAT

PRIORITIZE

COMMUNITY

WELL
-
BEING

AND

ENVIRONMENTAL

STEWARDSHIP
.

T
HE
S

EBASTOPOL
G
RANGE

URGES

THE
P

LANNING
C

OMMISSION

REJECT

THIS

PROPOSAL

AND

PRIORITIZE

LAND

USE

DECISIONS

THAT

SERVE

THE

BEST

LONG
-
TERM

INTERESTS

OUR

COMMUNITY

AND

ITS

ENVIRONMENT
.

INCERELY
,

T
HE
S

EBASTOPOL
G
RANGE

Lawrence Jaffe, President, Sebastopol Grange #306

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/31/2024 4:39 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: allanb jones <allan8838@aƩ.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 4:39 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners: I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. In their normal operations, gas stations pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traffic, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much better how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas stations are part of the system that fuels the climate crisis.

Under city rules, the Commission must deny a CUP if it finds that granting the permit would be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts, and you must use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP. Please use your discretionary authority and deny the conditional use permit. Thank you.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:38 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Opposed to proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Rd. (File No. PRJ21-033) From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Tue 10/22/2024 12:53 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Jan Kahdeman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 12:52 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Opposed to proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Rd. (File No. PRJ21-033) Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I write you today to express my opposiƟon to the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. CondiƟonal Use Permits can be granted for projects that are not consistent with zoning rules when projects have overriding beneﬁts to the community. The gas staƟon proposal does not ﬁt this criteria.

I believe this is the wrong type of development for Sonoma County and for this site in parƟcular because:

The project is not sustainable—Santa Rosa adopted a climate emergency resolu Ɵon in 2020, and has in place a climate acƟon plan. New gas staƟons are not a ﬁt for the resoluƟon and plan. In addiƟon, gasoline sales are declining currently, making this a poor economic opƟon.

California intends to stop registering new gasoline-powered cars beginning in 2035. Again, the long- term prospects for a new gas staƟon are poor.

New gas staƟons are not needed in this locaƟon. There are more than 10 gas staƟons within a 5-mile radius of this site.

The site is part of an undeveloped greenﬁeld with seasonal wetlands and vernal pools. Gas inevitably leaks from storage tanks and small spills occur, polluƟng the groundwater and posing a threat to human health.

The site is adjacent to the well-used Joe Rodota trail. It is on Highway 12, a designated scenic highway.

Gas staƟons are not scenic.

For these and several other reasons, I urge you to deny this condiƟonal use permit.

Sincerely,
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 2 11/4/2024, 11:39 AM

Jan Kahdeman
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 2 of 2 11/4/2024, 11:39 AM
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/31/2024 4:12 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Kenyon <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 4:12 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:43 AM

From: Hannelor <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 11:20 AM
To: _PLANCOM ‐ Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal (File No. PRJ21‐033) OPPOSE Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am wriƟng to urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Under city rules, the Commission has the authority to deny a CUP if it ﬁnds that granting the permit would constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts and you can use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

Please use your discreƟonary authority and deny the permit. 1 of 2 10/21/2024, 9:18 AM
Respecƞully,
___Hannelore Kickstein, Santa Rosa, 5764 Edmund Ave__[your name]___October 20th, 2024_______
Reasons:
 Sales of gasoline are declining so this is not a good long-term economic proposition for the developer or for the city;  This new gas station is not needed -- there are already more than ten operating gas stations within a 5-mile radius;  Underground fuel storage tanks, even with all the modern monitoring and double walls, inevitably, eventually leak;  The county is riddled with undevelopable toxic sites that are the result of underground storage tanks that leaked;  Small spills on a daily basis pollute surface and groundwater and are dangerous for human health;  Gas stations are a source of toxic air pollution;
 This site is an undeveloped greenfield with seasonal wetlands and vernal pools on Highway 12 between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol which is a designated Scenic Highway;
 The site is adjacent to the Joe Rodota trail;
 This is an environmental justice issue. Gasoline use leaves a trail of community and environmental destruction from the point of extraction, to transportation, storage, refining, and end use. It is primarily indigenous, low income communities of color that bear the brunt of the burdens.

Fw: [EXTERNAL] Oppose - 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (File No PRJ21-033) From: Wendy Krupnick <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 9:07:39 PM
To: _PLANCOM ‐ Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Oppose ‐ 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal (File No PRJ21‐033) Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners,
I live on Occidental Rd. 1.5 miles west of Fulton Rd. and am strongly opposed to the proposed gas station and convenience store at 874 North Wright Rd. I ask you to deny the Conditional Use Permit as there would be zero benefit to the community and a long list of negative results that would come from this development.

There is no need for another gas station at a time when we desperately need to reduce fossil fuel emissions and pollution from all aspects of the oil industry.

We also do not need another convenience store in this location. There are two convenience stores within a mile, and two grocery stores, two liquor stores and two drug stores within three miles.

What we do need in this location is a transit hub which could be incorporated into the improved intersection planning now underway if PRJ21-033 is rejected now.

I urge you to quickly deny this permit and move forward with projects our community really needs.

Thank you for considering my views,
Wendy Krupnick
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 1 10/21/2024, 8:23 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 874 N Wright Rd gas station
From Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/17/2024 4:38 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
FYI
Sheila Wolski, City Planner
Planning & Economic Development
100 Santa Rosa Ave., Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543‐4705| [email protected]
Hours | Monday‐Friday 7:30am‐4:30pm
From: Jennifer LaPorta <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2024 4:03 PM
To: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 874 N Wright Rd gas staƟon
I forgot to send this to you, the planners.  Please make this part of the record for the 10/24/24 meeƟng. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jennifer LaPorta <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 10:29 AM
Subject: 874 N Wright Rd gas staƟon
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commission,
I strongly oppose the construcƟon of a gas staƟon at 874 N Wright Rd, Santa Rosa.  The whole world is in a climate catastrophe!
We all need to do our part to reduce fossil fuels.  We don't need a new gas staƟon, because we already have TEN within a 5 mile radius.  A new gas staƟon would be contrary to Santa Rosa's Climate ResoluƟon 2020 and Climate AcƟon Plan.  Leaking Underground Storage Tanks and surface spills pollute surface and groundwater, and these sites are very expensive to clean up.  I should know, because in a previous job as a Haz Mat Specialist for Alameda County, I oversaw the cleanup of such sites. PrevenƟon is much beƩer than cure.  Last, this site is undeveloped with sensiƟve habitats of wetlands and vernal pools.

Say NO to this gas staƟon!
Jennifer LaPorta
reƟred REHS/Haz Mat Specialist
Santa Rosa
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/ mail/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMDEt... 1 of 1 10/17/2024, 5:07 PM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) OPPOSE From: Robin Latham <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 10:34 PM
To: _PLANCOM ‐ Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal (File No. PRJ21‐033) OPPOSE Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Gas stations threaten air, water, and soil, create noise, traffic, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much better how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas stations are part of what fuels the climate crisis.

Under city rules, the Commission has the authority to deny a CUP if it finds that granting the permit would constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts and you can use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

I also oppose this gas station because our society is moving towards more EV and Hybrid cars and we need to end our dependence on oil and fossil fuels, which will mean we need fewer polluting gas stations That corner is 1/2 block from the corridor that is the beginning of the green belt between Sebastopol and Santa Rosa. The road there close to Highway 12 will become a busier intersection. There was recently a large accident nearby with a fatality and that area floods Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 2 10/21/2024, 9:34 AM
which would make a gas station a toxic hazard as well.

We don't need more gas stations, and we don't want more gas stations.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the permit.

Respectfully,
Robin Latham
Outlook
Fw: [EXTERNAL] gas station project
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/21/2024 8:08 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: The Lochners <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 7:40:32 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] gas staƟon project
I oppose the gas station project at 874 North Wright Road (highway 12 and Fulton/Wright) and I urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit.

Jan Lochner
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/4/2024, 11:33 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to proposed gas station at 874 N. Wright Rd From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/21/2024 3:32 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Amy Lyman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 3:31 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OpposiƟon to proposed gas staƟon at 874 N. Wright Rd Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to ask you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. Gas stations bring with them threats to the quality air, water, and soil and create noise, traffic, and other problems. In 2024 we all understand how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare, and the continued development of gas stations contributes notably to our ever worsening climate crisis.

Under city rules, the Commission has the authority to deny a CUP if granting the permit would constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts and you can use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

This site is also an undeveloped greenfield with seasonal wetlands necessary to support wildlife and help recharge our depleted aquifers. We should be helping sites like this one to remain as healthy open space, not impose artificial and harmful uses onto them.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the permit.

Respectfully,
Amy Lyman
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/4/2024, 11:32 AM

From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] proposed gas station @ Fulton & HYW 12 Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:43:47 PM

From: Mary Jane Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2025 9:21 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] proposed gas station @ Fulton & HYW 12

lAs a resident of our city for more than 50 years and one who uses this intersection fairly often, I STRONGLY URGE THE CITY COUNCIL
TO NOT SUPPORT BUILDING THIS OR ANY OTHER GAS STATION IN SANTA ROSA. Air pollution is a huge problem everywhere, so
why would the city council want air pollution to increase in any corner of this county???

PLEASE DO NOT EVEN CONSIDER THIS PROPOSAL WORTHY OF ANY DISCUSSION!!!

Thank you,

MJMartin
Santa Rosa, 95403
From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] NO NEW GAS STATION
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:41:12 PM

From: Wendy Millstine <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 8:20 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO NEW GAS STATION

Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commission,
I’m a resident and homeowner at Sequoia Gardens Mobile Home Park on Fulton Road in Santa Rosa. I’m writing to express my strong opposition to any New Gas Stations in Sonoma County ever. And here’s why:

Extensive scientific research shows that toxic pollution threatens public health and safety
The location is a greenfield with seasonal wetlands
The site is adjacent to a propane vehicle fueling station It is against city rules to build two fueling stations within 500 feet of each other It's not needed: there are already 10 gas stations in a 5-mile radius There will be increased traffic congestion, noise, idling cars adjacent to the Joe Rodota Trail
Will worsen the climate crisis as wildfire, drought, flood and other extreme weather events buffet our community.

Please support the permanent banning of new gas stations in Sonoma County. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Wendy Millstine
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Wed 10/23/2024 12:35 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Dianne Monroe <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 12:31 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) I am wriƟng to urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Under city rules, the Commission has the authority to deny a CUP if it ﬁnds that granting the permit would constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located. There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts and you can use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

Some reasons that this gas staƟon is NOT what our community needs:

Santa Rosa adopted a climate emergency resolution in 2020, acknowledging that the climate crisis is real and that the city will look at all policies through a climate lens. Approving a new gas station in 2024 is not consistent with that resolution;
Approving new fossil fuel infrastructure is also inconsistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan.

California is on a policy trajectory toward full economic decarbonization by 2045. That process is already underway. One element of that is that California will stop registering new gasoline-powered cars beginning in 2035..

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 2 11/7/2024, 12:06 PM

This new gas station is not needed -- there are already more than ten operating gas stations within a 5-mile radius.

This site is an undeveloped greenfield with seasonal wetlands and vernal pools on Highway 12 between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol which is a designated Scenic Highway; The site is adjacent to the Joe Rodota trail.

Please use your discreƟonary authority and deny the permit.

Respecƞully,
Dianne Monroe
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 2 of 2 11/7/2024, 12:06 PM
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Fri 11/1/2024 8:17 AM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Monica Moura <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 9:37 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am wriƟng to urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please use your discreƟonary authority and deny the condiƟonal use permit.

Thank you.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/1/2024, 5:01 PM

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:35 AM

From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] 3-22 Deny permit for gas station at Wright and Hwy 12.

Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:42:29 PM

From: Janet Lorraine Paul <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 1:05 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3-22 Deny permit for gas station at Wright and Hwy 12.

It's a seasonal wetland, for heaven's sake. This isn't hard logic. Deny that gas station permit.

Thank you for your attention and time.
--
Janet Lorraine Paul
From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] On Refusing Permit for Wright Road Gas Station at April 10, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:46:55 PM

From: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:08 PM
To: Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] On Refusing Permit for Wright Road Gas Station at April 10, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting

FYI

From: Guasco, Cher <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 1:07 PM
To: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] On Refusing Permit for Wright Road Gas Station at April 10, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting

All emails are subject to the California Public Records Act and neither the sendor nor any recipients should have any expectation of privacy regarding the contents of such communications.

From:

Jeff Rooney <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 11:03 AM
To: _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] On Refusing Permit for Wright Road Gas Station at April 10, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting

Dear City Council Members,
Recently I learned of a plan to allow permitting of a new gas station at Wright Road and Hwy 12! I live down the street from there on Fulton Rd. That juncture is extremely busy already. The proposed location is the side next to both the Joe Rodota Trail and Blue Star Propane fueling business. My understanding is that would be in violation of the rules in Santa Rosa that do not allow two fueling stations within 500 feet of each other.

This Sonoma County community is by now well aware of the dangerous and catastrophic consequences of the worsening climate crisis upon us. Many in this community have been at the forefront of efforts to mitigate the disastrous effects we witness around the country and world almost daily. One step has been to stop permitting of new gas stations and dramatically shift away from carbon polluting measures in transportation and all other means possible.

As you may know on April 10 there is a planning commission meeting that will discuss this permit process. I urge all of you Santa Rosa City Council members to consider the sentiments of Santa Rosa residents firmly opposed to any expansion of carbon polluting to dissuade any permit for this proposed gas station. It is the right thing to do looking toward our present and future wellbeing!

Thank you for all you do!

Jeff Rooney

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) - I OPPOSE

THIS MEASURE
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Wed 10/23/2024 12:47 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Jeﬀ Rooney <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2024 12:41 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Proposal (File No. PRJ21-033) - I OPPOSE THIS

MEASURE
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

I am a long term resident of Sequoia Gardens on Fulton Rd and the last thing we need on that corner is another gas station at a time of climate crisis and the need to shift away from fossil fuels.

Gas stations pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traffic, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much better how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas stations are part of what fuels the climate crisis.

Furthermore Santa Rosa adopted a climate emergency resolution in 2020, acknowledging that the climate crisis is real and that the city will look at all policies through a climate lens. Approving a new gas station in 2024 is not consistent with that resolution.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 2 11/7/2024, 12:05 PM

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the permit.

Respectfully,
Jeff Rooney
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 2 of 2 11/7/2024, 12:05 PM
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/31/2024 3:53 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Joe Salazar <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 3:51 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners: I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. In their normal operations, gas stations pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traffic, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much better how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas stations are part of the system that fuels the climate crisis.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:48 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/31/2024 7:43 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Becky Shirley <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 5:01 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am wriƟng to urge you to deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please use your discreƟonary authority and deny the condiƟonal use permit.

Thank you.

Rebecca Shirley
of
1 11/1/2024, 5:04 PM

From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] oppose gas station at Wright Rd. and Highway 12 Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:42:14 PM

-----Original Message-----
From: Carol Sklenicka <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 12:07 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] oppose gas station at Wright Rd. and Highway 12

Hello,

Please oppose the gas station proposed for the intersection that is near the Joe Rodota Trail and wetlands.

Not needed.

Carol Sklenicka
From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] No New Gas Station at 874 North Wright Road Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:41:01 PM

From: SoCoCAN! <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 12:55 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] No New Gas Station at 874 North Wright Road

Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners,
Sonoma County Climate Activist Network (SoCoCAN!) brings together over 50 local groups and hundreds of individuals to address the social, political and environmental challenges of our time, with the climate crisis as a common concern.

We urge the Planning Commission to reject the addendum to the mitigated negative declaration (MND) and deny the conditional use permit (CUP) for the development of a gas station at 874 North Wright Road.

We find this proposal to be in conflict with the City’s policies on climate change.

The City of Santa Rosa sees itself as a leader in climate action , with “a long-
standing commitment to environmental protection and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The City’s Climate Action policies and strategies recognize the imperative to act and demonstrate a continued commitment to reducing GHG emissions. The City has and continues to actively implement GHG reduction measures to reduce emissions to meet local, regional, and State reduction targets.” On January 14, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution NO. RES-2020-002 declaring a climate emergency and joining a nationwide call for a “just transition away from fossil fuels and an urgent collaborative climate mobilization effort focused on enacting policies that dramatically reduce heat-trapping emissions, and rapidly catalyzing a mobilization at all levels of government to restore a safe climate.”
On August 23, 2022 the City Council unanimously adopted ordinance no. ORD- 2022-010 prohibiting new gas station land uses. Although this proposal at 874 North Wright Road was exempted this was only because the permit application was already complete. All the reasons that the resolution was adopted still apply to this proposal. These include, as well as climate and climate policies, the presence or potential presence of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, including gasoline, diesel, and petroleum oil, volatile organic compounds and solvents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and lead, which can threaten the public health, safety, or welfare of neighboring communities.

This Resolution quotes Goal OSC-M-1 of the General Plan:

OSC-M-1 Meet local, regional and state targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through implementation of the Climate Action Plan…adding “businesses involving gasoline result in the creation of increased air pollution/greenhouse gases, increased traffic congestion, negatively affecting community health outcomes, acceleration of climate change, impacts to water quality, and other negative environmental or indirect effects.”
The General Plan also includes:

LUL-A-1 As part of plan implementation – including development review, capital improvements programming, and preparation of detailed area plans – foster close land use/transportation relationships to promote use of alternative transportation modes and discourage travel by automobile.

NS-B-3 Prevent new stationary and transportation noise sources from creating a nuisance in existing developed areas. Use a comprehensive program of noise prevention through planning and mitigation, and consider noise impacts as a crucial factor in project approval.

We urge you to vote consistently with the City’s existing policies on climate and in line with the existing ordinance to prohibit new gas stations.

In addition there are multiple site-specific reasons to reject a new gas station at this particular location, including that there are more than enough gas stations nearby already to meet drivers’ current needs; the proximity to land that is zoned for medium density housing; the propane auto gas fueling station immediately adjacent to the site, contrary to city code which does not allow two fueling stations within 500 feet of one another; proximity to the Joe Rodota trail; traffic hazards with ingress and egress onto a busy road close to a dangerous intersection; impacts to air and water quality and the dangers of leaks and spills into wetlands.

Many substantial changes have taken place since the 2013 Mitigated Negative Declaration was written and many of these have not been taken into account in the Addendum.

We would like to see the City of Santa Rosa continue to focus on forward-looking projects that will benefit the community and the environment, such as the Active Transportation Plan, rather than taking a step backwards by approving new fossil fuel infrastructure where it is not needed and is likely to become a toxic brownfield site requiring expensive clean up at some point in the future.

We see multiple reasons to reject a new gas station at 874 North Wright Road and none to support it. We therefore urge you to vote consistently with the City’s existing climate policies and to prioritize the health, safety and welfare of the local community by denying this project.

Sonoma County Climate Activist Network (SoCoCAN!)
https://www.SonomaCountyCAN.org
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Bluesky
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Deny the Conditional Use Permit and amended MND for the gas station at 874 North Wright Road
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Tue 11/5/2024 7:47 AM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Cate Steane <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 8:35 PM
To: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Deny the CondiƟonal Use Permit and amended MND for the gas staƟon at 874 North Wright Road
To: Gabe Osburn, Director of Planning and Economic Development ( [email protected])
cc: Planning Commission: [email protected] Natalie Rogers, Mayor ([email protected])
November 4, 2024
Re: Deny the Conditional Use Permit and amended MND for the gas station at 874 North Wright Road
Dear Mr. Osburn,
I am writing to urge you to recommend to the Planning Commission that they (1) Deny the addendum to the Elm Tree Station Mitigated Negative Declaration and (2) Deny a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of a gas station on the property located at 874 N. Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

I am writing with several objections to the proposed conditional use permit.

Land Use
When a jurisdiction permits a gas station, it buys itself a brownfield. As recent local news has shown, station owners cannot be relied upon to follow the laws intended protect the environment from the Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 3 11/7/2024, 11:24 AM

risks of petroleum fueling infrastructure.

While there are insurance programs aimed at preventing jurisdictions from getting stuck with the cleanup bill when a gas station is abandoned, it is a gamble to assume that this system will remain solvent, especially since vast numbers of gas stations will be going out of business over the next 20 years as the world pivots away from petroleum-based transportation. One real estate expert estimates that 50% of gas stations will close by 2030.

Gas stations are a low-density use of land in a county in desperate need of land for housing. As transportation is electrified in the years to come, gas stations sales will decline and they will generate less sales tax revenue each year.

Santa Rosa has passed a climate emergency resolution stating: “The Council of the City of Santa Rosa declares that a climate emergency threatens humanity and the natural and built environments….The City of Santa Rosa joins a nationwide call for a just transition away from fossil fuels and an urgent collaborative climate mobilization effort focused on enacting policies that dramatically reduce heat-trapping emissions, and rapidly catalyzing a mobilization at all levels of government to restore a safe climate….Addressing climate chan ge underscores everything that we do, and the City remains committed to taking action to mitigate, draw down, and take adaptive measures, with the goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2030.

The least the City can do to meet its commitment to transition away from fossil fuels and to take action to reach carbon neutrality by 2030 is to deny the applicant the special privilege of further developing the county’s fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when the public is moving toward adoption of electric vehicles.

If the City reaches the goals declared in the climate emergency resolution, in less than 10 years the gas station at this site will be abandoned and commercially useless. Its presence, however, will most likely have contaminated the soil, turning the site into a brownfield, either abandoned or in need of costly mitigation.

Groundwater Contamination
A 10-gallon spill of petroleum can contaminate 12,000,000 gallons of groundwater. Spills can occur because of leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs), piping connecting tanks to dispensers, and from dispensers themselves. Spills of small amounts of gasoline, which can pass through concrete pads around dispensers, happen routinely when drivers are filling their tanks and when tanker trucks are refilling underground storage tanks.

The cumulative effect of small gasoline leaks is enough to cause concern about gas stations anywhere. But we live in earthquake country. Were a UST, fuel dispenser, or pipe to rupture and release gasoline in an earthquake, the environmental impact would be catastrophic. Additionally, major floods can cause of erosion that can displace USTs, which can then break free of the piping connecting them to fuel dispensers.

Air Pollution Near Residential-Zoned Property
Underground gasoline storage tanks at gas stations vent through 12-foot-tall pipes to balance pressures. Gasoline vapors can be released through the vent pipes when gas is pumped into tanks and when vapor expands or contracts due to temperature or barometric pressure changes. In other words, gasoline vapors are routinely released from gas stations by design under normal operations.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 2 of 3 11/7/2024, 11:24 AM
Benzene typically constitutes 1 to 3% of the volume of gasoline. It is a carcinogen associated with lung cancer and many types of blood cancers. The World Health Organization maintains that there is no safe level of exposure to benzene. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or NIOSH sets unsafe benzene exposure as anything above 0.1 parts per million.

People living near gas stations can be exposed to elevated levels benzene. In one study, benzene levels were found to be at unsafe levels 160 meters from a gas station and 10 times higher than the estimates used to derive safe setback distances from gas stations. Another study found benzene at the boundaries of service stations 1.4 times higher than NIOSH safe levels in summer in 4.6 times higher in winter, with levels spiking as high as 54 times safe levels. Another study found that gas stations can create unsafe vapor levels up to 100 meters away. It recommended a minimum distance of 50 meters between gas stations and housing.

So unsafe benzene levels have been found 160 meters away from a gas station and a scientific study recommended a 50-meter minimum distance between gas stations and housing. Using the map in the staff report, I calculate that the gas station would be about 40 meters from the property line of the residential zoned property. The artificial creation of a small parcel between the gas station and the neighboring property will not protect future residents from gasoline vapors.

You can find citations for these statements and others regarding exposure to other toxic substances in gasoline in a 2021 article in the Environmental Law Reporter called Governing the Gasoline Spigot, 51 ELR 10058.

There is no good reason to permit the development of a gas station at this site and 100 good reasons not to. I urge you to vote against this conditional use permit to safeguard our air, water, and wildlife and keep this land available for more beneficial uses.

Sincerely,
Cate Steane
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 3 of 3 11/7/2024, 11:24 AM

Outlook
Fw: [EXTERNAL] Gas Station at Hwy 12 & Wright Road
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Fri 3/14/2025 10:08 AM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Jeﬀ Stucker <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 8:19:08 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas StaƟon at Hwy 12 & Wright Road
To Whom This Concerns at SR Planning Commission & Commissioners, This letter vehemently discourages any approvals regarding the proposed gas station for the corner of Highway 12 and Wright Road! We frequently travel this route and have already found it to be challenging at various times of day due to backed up traffic.

The following are other solid reasons to deny this proposal:

There already exists enough gas stations to provide these products and services to the public.

The serious health impacts of toxic pollution from gas stations, including links to childhood leukemia, are now better understood.

The impacts of the climate crisis have escalated.

Increases in vehicular traffic at this intersection, adding to the already challenging traffic growth on Highway 12 heading into, and out of, Sebastopol, plus increases at the highway and Fulton/ Wright will be exacerbated!
The project would conflict with the city’s climate policies and aspects of the general plan.

A coalition of over 20 organizations submitted a letter last fall urging the Planning Commission to deny the project.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 2 3/17/2025, 8:43 AM

It’s time to say no and consider the best interests of the community. Please deny all proposals, permits, and future considerations for this project!
Sincerely,
Jeff Stucker & Laura Lee
Property Owners on Elphick Road in Sebastopol
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 2 of 2 3/17/2025, 8:43 AM
From: Dee Swanhuyser
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Date: Friday, March 7, 2025 10:30:40 AM

7 March 2025

Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners,

The West County Rural Alliance urges the Commission to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

· Sales of gasoline are declining so this is not a good long-term economic proposition for the developer or for the city. · This new gas station is not needed -- there are already more than ten operating gas stations within a 5-mile radius. · This is on undeveloped land with seasonal wetlands and vernal pools – we’ve already lost 95% of the nation’s wetlands.

The Rural Alliance opposes this gas station because we have enough gas stations in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the permit.

Regards,

Dee Swanhuyser, Board Member
West County Rural Alliance

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] PLEASE. no new gas station at Hwy12 and Wright/Fulton. It is not necessary as there are plenty of existing gas stations and there is a propane station too close to make it legal.

Please STOP
FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateTue 3/25/2025 1:42 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform.

Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon!
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 12:07 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] PLEASE. no new gas sta�on at Hwy12 and Wright/Fulton. It is not necessary as there are plenty of exis�ng gas sta�ons and there is a propane sta�on too close to make it legal. Please STOP Sent from my iPhone
From: Jones, Jessica
To: McKay, Conor
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] No more gas stations
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 1:43:09 PM

From: Amy Van Syoc <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2025 6:37 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] No more gas stations

Please nix this request for
874 N. Wright Road
Need more Electrify America / electric charging stations.

No more tanks creating superfund sites.

Thanks,
Amy Van Syoc

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Mon 11/4/2024 9:52 AM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Tracy Wallace <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 9:13 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas StaƟon Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners: I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. In their normal operations, gas stations pose threats to air, water, and soil and create noise, traffic, and other problems. In 2024 we understand much better how fossil fuels also threaten public safety and welfare in that gas stations are part of the system that fuels the climate crisis. Under city rules, the Commission must deny a CUP if it finds that granting the permit would be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to people or property where the proposed project is located.

There is ample evidence that this project imposes these negative impacts and you must use your discretionary authority to make that finding and deny the CUP.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the conditional use permit. Thank you.

Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:33 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Gas Station at Wright and Fulton RDs
From: Reuben Weinzveg <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 1:51 PM
To: _PLANCOM ‐ Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas StaƟon at Wright and Fulton RDs This intersecƟon is one of the busiest and most dangerous intersecƟons in Sonoma County; it is not an appropriate place for a Gas StaƟon that will increase the interface of autos and trucks exiƟng and entering the Gas StaƟon. Please use your common sense and deny this applicaƟon on grounds of PUBLIC SAFETY.

Reuben Weinzveg, Sebatopol
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LT... 1 of 1 10/21/2024, 8:33 AM

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/31/2024 4:37 PM
To McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2024 4:28 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] OPPOSE – CUP for 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to urge you to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please use your discretionary authority and deny the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPad
Firefox https://outlook.office.com/m ail/id/AAMkAGEzZjYwMDk0LTgyMD... 1 of 1 11/7/2024, 11:41 AM

Outlook
Fw: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Elm Street Station
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Mon 10/28/2024 5:32 PM
T o McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> 1 attachment (160 KB)
To members of the Planning Commission.pdf;
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Pierce Hollis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 4:11:00 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Elm Street Sta�on
Hello,
I was disappointed to arrive at this meeting and find it canceled. I've now signed up for notifications and hope they'll arrive in time for me to check if meetings will be occurring.

I sent the information included below to CT McKay (?) but want to be sure it is included for consideration regarding Elm Tree Station, so I'm sending it to this email address as well.

Sincerely,
Holly Pierce
(Here's the elm tree for which the proposed gas station is named--or what's left of it. It's been so long since this project was started--seventeen years?--that the tree had to be cut down.) -------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:Elm Street Station
Date:Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:32:16 -0700
From:Pierce Hollis <[email protected]>
To:[email protected]
Hello,
I am attaching a letter expressing my concern over the proposed Elm Tree Station gas station. I hope the members of the commission will have the time to look it over before tomorrow's meeting and include it in the record.

Thank you,
Holly Pierce
Outlook
[EXTERNAL] CONGAS Comments - 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (Item 11.1, Nov. 14, 2024)
FromWoody Hastings <[email protected]>
DateFri 11/8/2024 12:59 PM
T o_PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> CcPlanning Shared <[email protected]>; Weeks, Karen <[email protected]>; Duggan, Vicki <[email protected]>; Carter, Charles <[email protected]>; Cisco, Patti <[email protected]>; Sanders, Terrence <[email protected]>; Peterson, Julian <[email protected]>; Pardo, Aaron <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Jones, Jessica <[email protected]> 1 attachment (3 MB)
CONGAS Letter to Planning Commission - 874 N Wright Rd 10.25.2024.pdf; Dear Commissioners:

14. Now we have received confirmation that the November 14 hearing has also been "continued to a date uncertain."
In the course of preparing for the hearings, we have worked with organizations and individuals in the community to produce the attached letter that outlines our concerns about this project. As you will see, we have significant concerns regarding the appropriateness of moving forward with merely an addendum for a 2013 MND, inconsistency with standing Santa Rosa policies, inconsistency with Santa Rosa's General Plan, inconsistency with land use zoning rules, incompatibility with requirements for a Conditional Use Permit, and more, that should compel the Commission to deny the addended MND and the CUP.

We also note that although the staff report for Oct. 24 stated that the requirements for public notification had been met, this turned out not to be the case. A sign was not posted as required, and we have seen no evidence that neighbors were informed via mail or a notice posted in a newspaper of record, by that date, as required. These omissions only serve to undermine trust in the public process. Until we receive confirmation that the applicant has withdrawn the permit application, we will proceed with the assumption that this project is still in play and that it may reappear on a Planning Commission agenda at some point in the future. Therefore, we are submitting our letter today with the expectation that the letter will be preserved in the file for this project and will be accessible to the public at any time in the future.

We respectfully request confirmation of receipt of the letter and confirmation that the letter will be preserved on the record for case file # PRJ21-033.

Please let us know if you have any difficulty opening the attachment and/or if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Woody Hastings and Jenny Blaker,
Co-coordinators, Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations
Outlook
[EXTERNAL]
Correct attachment Re: CONGAS Comments - 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (Item 11.1, Nov. 14, 2024)
From Woody Hastings <[email protected]>
Date Fri 11/8/2024 4:52 PM
T o _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc Planning Shared <[email protected]>; Weeks, Karen <[email protected]>; Duggan, Vicki <[email protected]>; Carter, Charles <[email protected]>; Cisco, Patti <[email protected]>; Sanders, Terrence <[email protected]>; Peterson, Julian <[email protected]>; Pardo, Aaron <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Jones, Jessica <[email protected]> 1 attachment (2 MB)
Coalition Letter to SR Planning Commission 11-8-24.pdf; My Apologies -- I attached the wrong comment letter in the email to you earlier today. The correct letter is attached.

Thank you,
-Woody
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 12:58 PM Woody Hastings <
[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Commissioners:

Please see
attached comments from the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS) regarding agenda item 11.1 on your November 14 agenda "PUBLIC HEARING - ELM TREE STATION EIR PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED BY PC - PLANNING PROJECT - 874 N WRIGHT RD - PRJ21-033."
We had been planning to attend the public hearing on Oct. 24 which was continued to November 14. Now we have received confirmation that the November 14 hearing has also been "continued to a date uncertain."
In the course of preparing for the hearings, we have worked with organizations and individuals in the community to produce the attached letter that outlines our concerns about this project. As you will see, we have significant concerns regarding the appropriateness of moving forward with merely an addendum for a 2013 MND, inconsistency with standing Santa Rosa policies, inconsistency with Santa Rosa's General Plan, inconsistency with land use zoning rules, incompatibility with requirements for a Conditional Use Permit, and more, that should compel the Commission to deny the addended MND and the CUP.

We respectfully request confirmation of receipt of the letter and confirmation that the letter will be preserved on the record for case file # PRJ21-033.

Please let us know if you have any difficulty opening the attachment and/or if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Woody Hastings and Jenny Blaker,
Co-coordinators, Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations
SantaRosaPlanningCommissionCityHall, 100SantaRosaAve,SantaRosa, CA, 95404Viaemail: [email protected] November 8, 2024
Subject: 874NorthWright RoadGasStation(File#PRJ21-033)
Dear Chair WeeksandCommissioners:

Therearemanyreasonsfor theCommissiontoreject theAddendumtotheMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(MND) anddenytheConditional UsePermit (CUP) for thedevelopment of agasstationwithextendedhoursof operation, twogeneral retail landusesacrosstwobuildings, oneapartment andasmall parkat 874N. Wright Road. Most of thesereasonsrelatetothegasolinefuelingcomponent of theapplication.

CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
1 InSeptember 2022SantaRosa, alongwithfiveother citiesandtheCountyof Sonoma, passedordinancesprohibitingthepermittingof newgasstations. The874N. Wright Roadwasexcludedbecauseitspermitapplicationwasalreadydeemedcompleteprior toadoptionof theordinance. However, acompletedapplicationdoesnot requiretheCommissiontogrant apermit for theconstructionof thisnewgasstation.Thereisnothinguniqueabout thisproject that overcomesthefact that at itscore, it isnewfossil fuelinfrastructure. TheCommissionshoulddenythepermit onthesamegroundsonwhichtheCommissionandSantaRosaCityCouncil basedthecitywideprohibitiononnewgasstations.

Thereisnoneedfor another gasolinestationinSantaRosa. Therearealreadymorethantenoperatinggasolinestationswithinafive-mileradiusof thisproject siteandover 40intotal inandnear SantaRosa.

CONGASandthecoalitionof co-signersurgethePlanningCommissionto(1) DenytheaddendumtotheElmTreeStationMitigatedNegativeDeclarationand(2) DenytheConditional UsePermit.

ADDENDUMTOMITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATION
Accordingtothestaff report, October 24, 2024, p. 11, ThisAddendumreliesontheMitigatedNegativeDeclarationadoptedbythePlanningCommissiononOctober 24, 2013, byResolutionNo. 11653andtheanalysisdiscusseswhether therehasbeenasubstantial changeincircumstancesor if newinformationexiststosuchadegreethat anewor subsequent MitigatedNegativeDeclarationshouldberequired.

Under CEQAGuidelinesSection15164, anaddendumtoanadoptednegativedeclarationshall bepreparedif onlyminor technical changesor additionsarenecessary. Under Section15162, theleadagencyshallprepareanEIRif thereareoneor moresignificant effectsor anincreaseintheseverityof previouslyidentifiedsignificant effects.

Changesfrom2013to2024: It isundeniablethat therehavebeenmanychangesincircumstancesandnewinformationthat hasbecomeavailablesince2013. WhiletheAddendumattachedtoResolutionNo.PC-2024-024acknowledgessomechangessince2013regardingAir Quality, Energy, GHGs, Traffic, andWildfire, thereareothersalso. For example, theAddendumaddressesthefact that VehicleMilesTraveled(VMT) hasreplacedLevel of Service(LOS) asacriterion, but still assumesthesamelevel of 1,506net newdailyvehicletripsper day, despiteanincreaseinpopulationandsopotentiallyincreasesintrafficsince2013. The2013TrafficReport usedcollisionratescalculatedbasedonCaliforniaHighwayPatrol recordsdatingbacktoJuly2006toJune2011. SantaRosa’sBicycle&PedestrianPlanwasupdatedin2018, andiscurrentlybeingupdatedagainastheActiveTransportationPlan. ThereisnoreferencetothenewHighway12InterchangeFeasibilityStudycurrentlyunderway. Thesesubstantivechangessince2013suggest thatthetrafficstudiesneedtobeupdatedtotakeaccount of current conditions–andthesearejust afewexamples.

Publicawarenessof theclimatecrisishasgrownenormouslysince2013. TheCityof SantaRosapassedaClimateEmergencyResolutioninJanuary2020, whichincludedthestatement that theCityof SantaRosajoinsanationwidecall for ajust transitionawayfromfossil fuelsandanurgent collaborativeclimatemobilizationeffort focusedonenactingpoliciesthat dramaticallyreduceheat-trappingemissions, andrapidlycatalyzingamobilizationat all levelsof government torestoreasafeclimate. 1 Approvinganewgasolinestationin2024wouldbecontradictorytotheCity’sownpoliciesonclimateaction. It wouldaddnewfossil fuel infrastructureandanother newsourceof GHGemissionsinsteadof supportingatransitionawayfromfossil fuels. 1 https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/28039/Climate-Emergency-Resolution CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
2 RegardingAir Quality, theAddendum, p.15, 2.8, referencesair qualityduringconstructionbut doesnot takeintoaccount long-termor cumulativeimpactsfromanewgasstation. Thesummaryonp.15, 3. Air Qualityisbasedonthe2013TrafficImpact Studycalculationthat theproject wouldgeneral 1,506tripsper day.

Studiessince2013haveshownthat gasstationsvent far moretoxicfumesthanpreviouslythought 2 .AccordingtoOSHAthereisnosafelevel of exposuretogasolineandstudieshaveshownlinksbetweengasolineexposureandchildhoodleukemia. 3 A2021Harvardstudyshowedthat 1in5deathsworldwidearecausedbyfossil fuel emissions. 4 Gasolinestationsinevitablyleadtoleaksandspillswhichcontaminatesurfaceandgroundwater. Recent studiesreveal moredetailsabout theimpactsof groundwatercontaminationfromgasolineonhumanhealthandtheenvironment. Evenasmall leakagerateof twodropsper secondcanrender nearlyhalf abilliongallonsof water unfit for drinking….Groundwater contaminationaroundfuel stationsinresidential areaspresentssignificant healthriskstothelocal population 5 .

Thesenewstudiessuggest anincreaseintheseverityof previouslyidentifiedsignificant effects, andgiventhat theadjacent siteiszonedfor mediumdensityhousing, addingfurther riskof groundwater contaminationmakesnosense.

Likewise, theimmediateconsequencesof theclimatecrisishavebecomefar moreapparent since2013asSonomaCountyresidentshaveexperiencedthe2017Tubbswildfireandsubsequent wildfires, floods,drought, extremeheat, andother climateanomalies.

Governor Newsom’sExecutiveOrder of 2020
6 will bringtoanendtheregistrationof newfossil-fueledcarsby2035. Gasolinesalesaredecliningasmorepeopleswitchtoelectricvehicles. Thesechangesshouldbeborneinmindwhilerecognizingthat whengasstationsreachtheendof their functional existencetheyrequireexpensivecleanupandaresometimesabandoned, leavingtoxicsitesthat cannot bedevelopedforother purposes.

Thisisnot acomprehensivelist of changes, but just afewimmediatelyobviousexamplesof substantialchangesincircumstancesandcontext since2013, that includesignificant effectsandincreasesinseverityof previouslyidentifiedsignificant effects. Theyarefar morethanmere“minor technical changesoradditions,” anddemandat minimumacomprehensivenewEnvironmental Impact Report, not just anaddendumtoanoutdatedMitigatedNegativeDeclaration.

CONDITIONALUSEPERMIT
SantaRosa’sInstructionsfor Conditional UsePermit Applicationsstatethat “the[PlanningCommission]mayapproveaMajor Conditional UsePermit or Minor Conditional UsePermit onlyafter first findingall ofthefollowing,”

1. Theproposeduseisallowedwithintheapplicablezoningdistrict andcomplieswithall other applicableprovisionsof thisZoningCodeandtheCityCode;2. Theproposeduseisconsistent withtheGeneral Planandanyapplicablespecificplan;3. Thedesign, location, size, andoperatingcharacteristicsof theproposedactivitywouldbecompatiblewiththeexistingandfuturelandusesinthevicinity; 6 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf 5 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024019558#bbib8(2024 )
4 https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/ (2024) 3 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275799/ (2023) 2 https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/gas-stations-vent-far-more-toxic-fumes-previously-thought (2018) CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
3 4. Thesiteisphysicallysuitablefor thetype, density, andintensityof usebeingproposed, includingaccess,utilities, andtheabsenceof physical constraints;5. Grantingthepermit wouldnot constituteanuisanceor beinjuriousor detrimental tothepublicinterest, orhealth, or safety, or convenience, or welfare, or materiallyinjurioustopersons, property, or improvementsinthevicinityandzoningdistrict inwhichthepropertyislocated.” Weunderline“or” inthat sentencetoemphasizethat theCommissionmust denytheCUPif it istheopinionof theCommissionthat anyoneofthestandardsarenot met. It isnot requiredthat twoor moreof thembemet.6. Theproposedproject hasbeenreviewedincompliancewiththeCaliforniaEnvironmental QualityAct(CEQA).

At least fiveof theseconditionshavenot beenmet:

RegardingCondition1, compliancewithZoning: TheStaff Report statesthat: “Theproject siteiswithinPlannedDevelopment (PD) 0435, whichallowstheservicestation(gasstation) landusewiththeapprovalof aConditional UsePermit. Somedevelopment standardsarenot specificallyaddressedinthePD0435PolicyStatement, sostaff hasanalyzedtheProject’scompliancewiththemost similar zoningdistrict CG(General Commercial) inthosecases.” Inother words, theproject sitedidnot meet thezoningconditionsnecessaryfor approval. Onwhat groundsdidstaff decidetoanalyzetheproject’scompliancewiththeCGzoningdistrict instead?What aretherelevant differencesbetweentheproject andPDdevelopment standardsthat werenot met?Thestaff’srationalefor thischoiceisnot madeexplicit.

Distancebetweenservicestationsites: AccordingtothetheStaff Report, page7, theproposedgasstationisrequiredtocomplywiththesesiterequirementsof Code§20-42.150:

1. Siteareaanddimensions. Thesiteshall haveaminimumareaof 15,000squarefeet, at least 100feet of frontageonanarterial street, aminimumwidthof 150feet, andaminimumdepthof 100feet.2. Proximitytoresidential. Thesiteshall not adjoinanexistingR-1, R-2or R-3zoningdistrict orsingle-familyor two-familyresidential useat thetimetheservicestationuseisestablished, except anonconformingsingle-familyor two-familyresidential use, or asingle-familyor two-familyresidentialuseinacommercial zone.3. Distancebetweenservicestationsites. Aproposedservicestationsiteshall beaminimumof 500feet fromanyother servicestationsite, withthefollowingexceptions:a) Servicestationsiteswithin150feet of theU.S. Highway101intersectionsandFreeway12intersectionsmeasuredalongtheintersectingstreet.”TheStaff Report, page8, regardingtheabovelistedsiterequirement #3, incorrectlystatesthat: “Theclosest stationistheChevronstationonStonyPoint Rd., approximately1.5milestotheeast. Thenextclosest stationisRoselandGasonSebastopol Road, approximately2.3milestotheeast.” TheStaff Report hasneglectedtorecognizethat theclosest stationistheBlueStar Gasstationat 880N.Wright Road, aparcel adjacent totheproposedproject site, withnomeasurabledistanceseparatingthem.TheStaff Report referstoBlueStar Gasassimplya“propanemanufacturer.” However, BlueStar Gasat880N. Wright RdalsomeetsSantaRosa’sdefinitionof agasstation.

AstheStaff Report onpage7notes:

CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
4 BeforetheCityCouncil bannednewgasstations, theCodedefinedaServiceStationas: “aretailbusinesssellinggasolineand/or other motor vehiclefuels, andrelatedproducts.” …OrdinanceNo. ORD-2022-010(the2022ban) amendedthedefinitionof “GasStation” as: “aretailbusinesssellinggasolineand/or other motor vehiclefuelsderivedfromfossil fuels(e.g.,petroleum, coal, natural gas), andrelatedproducts.”BlueStar Gasat 880N. Wright Rdisaretail businesssellingamotor vehiclefuel derivedfromfossil fuels, apropanefuel that BlueStar Gascalls“Autogas.”TheCoderequirement of distancebetweenservicestationsiteshasanexceptionfor “Servicestationsiteswithin150feet of theU.S. Highway101intersectionsandFreeway12intersectionsmeasuredalongtheintersectingstreet.” Theexceptioncannot beappliedfor theproposedproject. Theproposedgasstationsiteisover 300feet fromtheintersectionof Hwy/Freeway12measuredalongtheintersectingstreet that isNorthWright Road.Constructionof agasstationwithin500feet of another servicestation, suchastheproposeddevelopmentadjacent totheexistingBlueStar Gasstation, isexplicitlyprohibitedbytheSantaRosaZoningCode. Theproposedproject cannot qualifyfor aCUPbecausetheproposedusedoesnot complywiththeapplicableprovisionsof theCode. ThePlanningCommissionmust denythepermit.RegardingCondition2, consistencywithGeneral Plan: Thestaff report statestheproject isconsistentwiththeRetail &BusinessServicesdesignationinthe General Plan, but therearenotableinconsistencieswiththeGeneral Plan, for example:

LUL-A: Foster acompact rather thanascattereddevelopment patterninorder toreducetravel, energy,land, andmaterialsconsumptionwhilepromotinggreenhousegasemissionreductionscitywide.

LUL-A-1: Aspart of planimplementation–includingdevelopment review, capital improvementsprogramming, andpreparationof detailedareaplans–foster closelanduse/transportationrelationshipstopromoteuseof alternativetransportationmodesanddiscouragetravel byautomobile.

LUL-I-2: Encourageregion-serving, highvolumeretail outletstolocatenear freewayaccess(generallywithinone-half mileof Highway101) tominimizetrafficoncitystreets. Donot allowregional-servingusesinresidential neighborhoods.

LUL-I-3: …ensurethat neighborhoodcentersdonot createunacceptabletrafficor nuisancesfor residentsduetothehoursandnatureof their operation, andaredesignedtofacilitatewalkingandbicycling.

AccordingtotheStaff Report, p. 6, “Theattractivebuildingdesignandsitedesignwill enhancethevisualqualityof theHighway12entryintotheCity…” However, fewpeoplewouldgenerallyregardagasstationasascenicenhancement. TheGeneral Planmainlyhighlightstreesandother vegetationasscenicenhancements, e.g.:

UD-C-4: WorkwithCalTranstobeautifyHighway101andHighway12.

EncourageCalTranstoincorporatemorelandscaping, plantingof trees, andsoundwall mitigationintoanyimprovementsplannedfor thesehighways. Lessentheimpact of newsoundwallsthroughtheuseof vegetation. SpecifictoHighway12(west of Highway101), therearemanyplaceswherethemedianislargeenoughtosafelyplant treesandmakeother significant landscapingimprovementstoenhancethescenicqualitiesof thisroadway.

UD-C-5: WorkwiththeCountyof Sonomatoretainandimprovethescenicqualitiesof Highway101andHighway12, includingtheplantingof treesinthebackof developmentsandalongtheedgeoftheCalTransrights-of-way.

CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
5 UD-C-7: Install plantedmediansonwideregional/arterial streetstomakethemmorepedestrianfriendly.

RegardingCondition3, Proximitytoexistingandfutureuses: Sincetheneighboringparcel totheeast iszonedfor futureresidential development, theproject isincompatiblewithfuturelanduse.

Currently, usersof theJoeRodotaTrail must proceedsouthonthesidewalkinfront of theproposedprojectbeforecrossingWright Road, proceedingwest onSebastopol Roadfor twoblocksbeforethetrail picksbackupagain. Thisproject wouldcreateaconflict zonefor cyclistswhowouldhavetocrossthedrivewaysintothegasstation. Contrarytobeingaconvenient amenityfor cyclistsontheJoeRodotatrail asclaimed,manycyclistsfeel that thisproject conflictswiththeir interestsfor asafeandpleasant cyclingexperienceontheJoeRodotatrail.

RegardingCondition5, Publicinterest: Agasolinestationat thislocationwouldinfact bedetrimental tothepublicinterest, health, welfare, andsafety. It isimportant toemphasizethat therulesdon't requireathresholdor level of significant impact that maybefoundinaCEQAdocument tojustifydenial of theCUP.Therulesstatethat theproject simplycannot beanuisanceor detrimental tothepublicinterest intheopinionof theCommission. TheCommissionisrequiredtodenytheCUPif theproject isanticipatedtodoanyoneof theharmsonthelist quotedabove. That isabasisuponwhichthePlanningCommissionmustdenytheCUP.

Thereisampleevidencethat theburningof fossil fuelsistheprimarycauseof anthropogenicclimateheating. 7 Gasolinestationsfacilitateaccesstoandburningof fossil fuels. Expansionof fossil fuelinfrastructureprolongsandexacerbatestheclimatecrisis. Thereforeit isnecessaryfor publicinterest,health, welfare, andsafetythat thecityceasepermittingnewfossil fuel infrastructure.

Inadditiontoglobal climatepollution, gasstations, intheir normal operation, emit hazardoustoxicaircontaminants(several, suchasbenzene, withnosafelevel of exposure), contaminatesurfacewater runoff,andposehazardsof contaminationof soil andgroundwater. Thisproject isnot far fromresidencesandissitedadjacent totheJoeRodotaTrail, atrail whereusersshouldbeabletobreathecleanair whiletheywalkor ridetheir bikes. SonomaCountyisriddledwithleakingundergroundstoragesites, andwhengasstationsreachtheendof their functional existence, thesitesoftenbecomeanexpensiveliabilitytobecleanedup, or abandonedtoxicsitesthat cannot bedevelopedfor other uses. Thisisclearlycontrarytothepublicinterest.

For all thesereasons, it isnecessaryfor thepublicinterest, health, safety, andwelfarethat theCommissionreject thisproject.

RegardingCondition6, CompliancewithCEQA: Asdescribedabove, theAddendumwhichreliesupontheoutdatedMitigatedNegativeDeclarationshouldbereplacedbyafull Environmental Impact Report,giventhesubstantivecontextual changesthat havetakenplacesince2013.

Other questionsandinconsistencies
a. Thestaff report statesthat theapplicationwasdeemedcompleteonDec. 17, 2021; theaddenduminResolution1statesthat thecompleteapplicationdatewasAugust 10, 2022. Whichiscorrect? b. Istheproject classifiedasprimarilyservinglocal-servingretail (asper W-TransVMTanalysis, July20,2022; Resolution1, Addendum) or pass-bytraffic, asper the2013TrafficImpact Study? 7 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/resources/climate-change-in-data/ (scroll todatapoint 7) CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
6 c. Whyisan806-squarefoot, one-bedroomapartment beingclassifiedasamultifamilydwelling, per staffreport? d. Conditional UsePermitsaregenerallygrantedfor aoneyear period. Whyisthisonefor twoyears? e. Attachment 11–CommunicationfromBAAQMD–referstothe43MiddleRinconRoadproject, not the874NorthWright Roadproject.

PublicNoticeNotifyingthepublicabout projectsof thiskindisrequired. Noneof thepublicnoticingstatementsat thetopof page13intheStaff Report about thepublicnoticingfor theOctober 24PublicHearingweretrue. Asnotedinthestaff report, project history, neighborhoodmeetingsandnotificationstopropertyownersweresent inadvanceof previouspublichearingsin2007and2011. Theruleswerebeingfollowedthen, whynotnow?Therehasbeennoneighborhoodmeetingabout thisproject. Therewasnoevidencethat propertyownershadbeenalertedabout thependingproject or thecanceledOctober 24PlanningCommission. Forprojectsof thiskind, theapplicant isrequiredtoinstall asignat theperimeter. SantaRosacitycode(§20-66.020Noticeof hearing.) 8 statesthat “Whenalandusepermit, variance, or other matter isrequiredbyStatelawor thisZoningCodetohaveapublichearing, thepublicshall (emphasisadded) beprovidednoticeof thehearingincompliancewiththeprovisionsof thisChapter.” In“Methodof noticedistribution” itoutlinesrequirementsfor mail, newspaper publication, siteposting, andonlineposting. CONGAShasphotographicandvideoevidencethat nosignhadbeenpostedasof October 29, 2024.

Wehopethecorrect proceduresarebeingfollowedfor theNovember 14PublicHearing, but thelackofthemfor thepreviouslyscheduledOctober 24meeting, despiteassurancesinthestaff report that therequisiteprocedureshadbeenfollowed, doesnothingtoinspireconfidenceinthisprocess.

ConclusionBasedonthefindingthat theproject iswithin500feet of anexistinggasstation, whichisprohibitedbycitycode; that theproject wouldbeinjurioustothepublicinterest, health, safetyandwelfare; that publicnoticeabout theproject andtheHearingdidnot occur inaccordancewithcitycode; that significant newinformationhasbecomeknownsince2013; andthat substantial inconsistenciesexist inconflict withboththeGeneral Planandthecriteriafor CUPapproval, CONGASrespectfullyrequeststhat theCommissiondenytheCUP. Tofacilitateadenial, wehaveattachedadraft resolutionthat substantiatesthisrationalefordenial. TheCommissionmayconsider, asaconditionof approval, requiringtheapplicant torevisetheproject withanewplanthat eliminatesthegasolinepumpsfromtheproject andthat includescompliancewithpublicnoticingrequirements.

Respectfully, onbehalf of CONGAS, its1000+supportersinSonomaCounty, andtheco-signingorganizationsbelow, WoodyHastings, Co-coordinator, CONGASJennyBlaker, Co-coordinator, CONGAS WendyKrupnik, ProprietorChiatri deLagunaFarm
LauraNeish, ExecutiveDirector350BayArea
8 https://ecode360.com/42983981#42983983
CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
7 ChristineHoex, SteeringCommitteeMember350Sonoma
DeeSwanhuyserSonomaCountyRural Alliance
ReubenWeinzveg, TreasurerSonomaCountyTomorrow
Padi Selwyn, Co-chair,PreserveRural SonomaCounty
ErisWeaver, ExecutiveDirectorSonomaCountyBicycleCoalition KevinConway, SantaRosaFriendsof theClimateActionPlan
LawrenceJaffeandNancyCadigan, Co-PresidentsSebastopol Grange#306 SteveBirdlebough, AdvocateSonomaCountyTransportationandLandUseCommittee Paul LarkinCitizens’ ClimateLobby, SantaRosaChapter
NathanTaft, Senior CampaignerSAFECitieswithStand.earth
LeahRedwoodExtinctionRebellionSanFranciscoBayArea
PortiaSinnott, ExecutiveDirectorLITEInitiatives, CommunityBikesProgram BeverlyAlexanderProtect WildPetaluma 🌿
SonomaCountyClimateActivist Network(SoCoCAN!)
AnnHamilton(she/her/ella), NorthBayResilienceManagerGreenbelt Alliance Neal Fishman, BoardPresidentSonomaCountyConservationAction CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
8 Individuals
JerryBernhaut, Environmental AttorneyVeronicaJacobi, Former SantaRosaCityCouncilmemberAlayaBabineau, WildernessWithinSebastopolJanusMatthes, Wine&Water WatchGail YamamotoSeymour, RetiredGovernmental Environmental Scientist, SantaRosaTeri Shore, SonomaCountyEnvironmentalistRueFurch, SonomaCountyEnvironmentalistCateSteane, SonomaCountyEnvironmentalistJaneBender, Former SantaRosaCityCouncilmember andMayorLaurel Chambers, SantaRosaresidentWayneYamagishi &Debbi Yamagishi, SantaRosaresidentsStevenPierce, CityClimateDashboard.org cc:KarenWeeks, Chair, PlanningCommissionVicki Duggan, ViceChair, PlanningCommissionJulianPeterson, member, PlanningCommissionCharlesCarter, member, PlanningCommissionPatti Cisco, member, PlanningCommissionAaronPardo, member, PlanningCommissionTerrenceSanders, member, PlanningCommissionNatalieRogers, Mayor, Cityof SantaRosaGabeOsburn, Director of PlanningandEconomicDevelopmentJessicaJones, DeputyDirector, PlanningConor McKay, Senior Planner CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
9 October25,2024SantaRosaPlanningCommissionCityHall,100SantaRosaAve, SantaRosa,CA,95404Viaemail:[email protected] Subject:874NorthWrightRoadGasStation(File#PRJ21-033)
HonorableCommissioners:TheCoalitionOpposedtoNewGasStations(CONGAS)respectfullyassertsthatperzoningandConditionalUsePermit(CUP)rules,theCommissionmustdenytheCUPfortheproposedgasolinestationat874NorthWrightRoad.Thereasonsrelatetothegasolinefuelingcomponentoftheapplication.IntheStaff Report,page7,itiscorrectlystatedthattheproposedgasstationrequiresaCUPandisrequiredtocomplywiththesiterequirementsofCode§20-42.150whichare:1.Siteareaanddimensions.Thesiteshallhaveaminimumareaof15,000squarefeet,atleast100feetoffrontageonanarterialstreet,aminimumwidthof150feet,andaminimumdepthof100feet.2.Proximitytoresidential.ThesiteshallnotadjoinanexistingR-1,R-2orR-3zoningdistrictorsingle-familyortwo-familyresidentialuseatthetimetheservicestationuseisestablished,exceptanonconformingsingle-familyortwo-familyresidentialuse,orasingle-familyortwo-familyresidentialuseinacommercialzone.3.Distancebetweenservicestationsites.Aproposedservicestationsiteshallbeaminimumof500feetfromanyotherservicestationsite,withthefollowingexceptions:a)Servicestationsiteswithin150feetoftheU.S.Highway101intersectionsandFreeway12intersectionsmeasuredalongtheintersectingstreet.”IntheStaff Report,page8,regardingtheabovelistedsiterequirement#3,itisincorrectlystatedthat:
“ThecloseststationistheChevronstationonStonyPointRd.,approximately1.5milestotheeast.ThenextcloseststationisRoselandGasonSebastopolRoad,approximately2.3milestotheeast.”TheStaff ReporthasneglectedtorecognizethatthecloseststationistheBlueStarGasstationat880N.WrightRoad,whichisaparceladjacenttotheproposedprojectsite,approximatelyzerofeettothesouth.TheStaff ReportreferstoBlueStarGasassimplya“propanemanufacturer.”However,BlueStarGasat880N.WrightRdalsomeetsthedefinitionofbeingaServiceStationorGasStation. 1 AstheStaff Reportonpage7notes:BeforetheCityCouncilbannednewgasstations,theCodedefinedaServiceStationas:“aretailbusinesssellinggasolineand/orothermotorvehiclefuels,andrelatedproducts.”…OrdinanceNo.ORD-2022-010amendedthedefinitionof“GasStation”as:“aretailbusinesssellinggasolineand/orothermotorvehiclefuelsderivedfromfossilfuels(e.g.,petroleum,coal,naturalgas),andrelatedproducts.”BlueStarGasat880N.WrightRdisaretailbusinesssellingamotorvehiclefuelderivedfromfossilfuels,apropanefuelthatBlueStarGascalls“Autogas.”HereisaphotooftheBlueStarGaspropanefuelingstationformotorvehicles.

BelowisanotherphotoofthatBlueStarGaspropanevehiclefuelingstation.Theproposedprojectsitecanbeseeninthebackgroundareabeyondthetrucks. 2 OntheLocationMapfromtheprojectreport(Attachment2),theBlueStarGasstationat880N.WrightRoadcanbeseenastheadjacentparceltothesouthoftheproposedprojectsite.(Seemapbelow).Onthismap,wehavecircledinredthelocationoftheexistingpropanevehiclefuelingstationontheBlueStarGasstationsite. 3 TheCoderequirementofdistancebetweenservicestationsiteshasanexceptionfor“Servicestationsiteswithin150feetoftheU.S.Highway101intersectionsandFreeway12intersectionsmeasuredalongtheintersectingstreet.”Theexceptioncannotbeappliedfortheproposedproject.Theproposedgasstationsiteisover300feetfromtheintersectionofHwy/Freeway12measuredalongtheintersectingstreetthatisWrightRoad.Constructionofagasstationwithin500feetofanotherservicestation,suchastheproposeddevelopmentadjacenttotheexistingBlueStarGasstation,isexplicitlyprohibitedbytheSantaRosaZoningCode.TheproposedprojectcannotqualifyforaCUPbecausetheproposedusedoesnotcomplywiththeapplicableprovisionsoftheCode.ThePlanningCommissionmustdenythepermit.

Sincerely,
WoodyHastingsandJennyBlakerCo-coordinators,CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations cc:ConorMcKay, SeniorPlanner, [email protected]
4 Santa Rosa Planning Commission
100

Santa

Rosa

Avenue

Santa

Rosa,

95404
Via Email: [email protected]
April 8, 2025
Subject: 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal – Adjacent to the Joe Rodota Trail –

OPPOSE

–

Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the undersigned leaders and members of Santa Rosa’s bicycling community, write to express

our

strong

opposition

the

proposed

gas

station

adjacent

the

Joe

Rodota

Trail

874

North

Wright

Road.

It is our understanding that the developer believes that bicyclists will like having a gas station along

the

trail

place

stop,

rest,

and

maybe

grab

snack.

write

make

clear

that

not

want

gas

station

anywhere

near

the

trail
,

regardless

the

amenities

might

provide.

The Joe Rodota Trail is a treasured multi-use trail that is an essential corridor for cyclists, pedestrians,

and

outdoor

enthusiasts

who

rely

for

recreation,

commuting,

and

safe,

car-free

environment.

The

addition

new

gas

station

this

location

threatens

the

integrity,

safety,

and

environmental

quality

the

trail

and

contradicts

the

city’s

commitment

sustainability

and

active

transportation.

The Joe Rodota Trail serves as a vital connection for cyclists traveling between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol,

reducing

vehicle

congestion

and

promoting

alternative

zero-emission

means

transportation.

gas

station

this

location

would

increase

traffic

hazards

with

cars

frequently

turning

and

out

the

station,

creating

dangerous

interactions

between

vehicles

and

vulnerable

trail

users.

This

not

only

endangers

bicyclists

but

also

discourages

active

transportation,

counteracting

efforts

reduce

greenhouse

gas

emissions

and

improve

air

quality.

Additionally, gas stations pose environmental risks, including potential fuel spills, increased air pollution,

and

groundwater

contamination.

The

placement

such

facility

community-focused

trail

undermines

efforts

promote

clean,

healthful

outdoor

spaces.

climate

concerns

become

urgent,

our

city

should

prioritizing

investments

sustainable

infrastructure,

such

bicycle

lanes

and

public

transit,

rather

than

expanding

fossil

fuel

infrastructure.

Santa Rosa has made strides in fostering a bicycle-friendly community, and approving this gas station

would

step

backward.

urge

you

reject

this

proposal

and

instead

consider

developments

that

align

with

the

city’s

climate

goals

and

support

the

well-being

all

residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We appreciate your commitment to making Santa Rosa

safer,

healthier,

and

sustainable

place

for

all.

Sincerely,
Eris Weaver, Executive Director, Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Geoffrey Smith, Owner, BikePartners.net Folding Bicycle Shop Alexa Forrester and Chris Guenther, Bikeable Santa Rosa Co-Leads Portia Sinnott, Executive Director, LITE Initiatives, Community Bikes Program

From: Brent Anderson
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Gas Station
Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 6:28:27 PM
Santa Rosa City Planning Commission,

I am opposed to the gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road (intersection of Highway 12 and Fulton/Wright Rd.) in Santa Rosa. Don’t we have enough future toxic waste FEMA sites in Sonoma County. If a new gas station is built in this or any location, I will make a point of never buying gas there.

Sincerely,

Brent E Anderson
Windsor

From: Jan Armenta
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No Gas Station at Wright Road.

Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon!
From: Eileen Bill <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 1:53 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas Sta�on
Dear Commissioners,
Please stop any work or progress on installing a gas station on North Wright Road and Highway 12. In all cases, this station is not needed. The environment and all life around this area do not need this - in fact, it is detrimental to all.

The station goes against the Climate Emergency Resolution (2020) as well as the ban on new gas stations (2022) as Woody Hastings points out (Santa Rosa Press Democrat, April 4, 2025). Woody knows and has been studying this plan as well as being a great steward of the environment for many years! Please protect our fine City and stop any further development or plans for such a station.

Thanks very much!
Eileen Bill
1945 Long Drive #43
Santa Rosa CA 95405
707-523-2110
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] gas station proposal
FromMurray, Susie <[email protected]>
DateFri 4/4/2025 12:42 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
FYI
Worth noting:
• My regular working hours are Tuesday through Friday, 8:30 to 5:00 • Starting March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon!
Susie Murray |Supervising Planner |Staff Liaison to the Design Review Board Planning and Economic Development |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-4348 | Fax (707) 543-3269 | [email protected] From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 12:33 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] gas sta�on proposal
4-4-25
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

I am writing to urge you not to approve a new gas station at 874 N. Wright Road. Climate change is real, and we are certainly feeling the devastating impact locally. If anyone should be a leader in climate-intelligent decision-making, Santa Rosa should.

Santa Rosa has led the nation by exemplifying a forward-thinking approach to environmental sustainability through the prohibition of new gas stations. Your commitment to fostering a cleaner and greener future is truly inspiring and serves as a model for other cities to follow. I realize the proposed gas station had already been in the pipeline, but I feel there are many reasons to oppose it.

A new gas station at the proposed location would cause increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The fact that it would be right next to a nature trail and impact a seasonal wetland area adds insult to injury. We have enough gas stations, and it is a shame to build more polluting infrastructure that will hopefully soon be obsolete.

I urge you to stay the course and remain true to Santa Rosa's visionary path. Approving this gas station would run counter to the core principles of the Planning Commission, which prioritize long-term sustainability, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and the advancement of equitable, community-focused development.

Finally, I will add that prior to living in Cotati, I lived in Santa Rosa for many years. I have had countless walks on the Joe Rodota Trail and would hate to see the lovely views of green fields and seasonal wetlands marred by having a gas station adjacent to it.

Sincerely,
Marla Charbonneau
[email protected]

From: [email protected]
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe; Stapp, Mark; Rogers, Natalie; Pardo, Aaron Subject: [EXTERNAL] Petitions - OPPOSE - 874 N. Wright Rd. Gas Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:38:07 AM
Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners,

My name is Marla Charbonneau, I am a volunteer with the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS). Over the past weekend, I helped collect signatures from people in Sonoma County that agree with the following statement:

I oppose the gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road. On April 10 the Santa Rosa Planning Commission must DENY the Conditional Use Permit for a new gas station at 874 N. Wright Road (Highway 12 and Wright/Fulton Rd.) because It is in conflict with Santa Rosa zoning code. Also, the Commissioners cannot make a finding that granting the permit would not be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety, or convenience, or welfare. Any one of these findings is enough of a finding on which a Commissioner may base a judgment of denial.

On behalf of the CONGAS, I am providing a link to the set of scans of all petitions.

Respectfully submitted,
Marla Charbonneau

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Ou7GRMuXQkiCVXZjmqwOioMgfuE7YUxi2Gp0zZRJ2E/edit? usp=sharing
Scanned Petitions
Petitions gathered by CONGAS volunteers between April 4 and April 6, 2025 230 people added their names to this
statement of opposition to the gas station proposal at 874 N.

Wright Rd. For information contact
[email protected] 707-238-2298 www.con-gas....
docs.google.com

SantaRosaPlanningCommissionCityHall, 100SantaRosaAve,SantaRosa, CA, 95404Viaemail: [email protected] November 8, 2024
Subject: 874NorthWright RoadGasStation(File#PRJ21-033)
Dear Chair WeeksandCommissioners:

Thereisnoneedfor another gasolinestationinSantaRosa. Therearealreadymorethantenoperatinggasolinestationswithinafive-mileradiusof thisproject siteandover 40intotal inandnear SantaRosa.

CONGASandthecoalitionof co-signersurgethePlanningCommissionto(1) DenytheaddendumtotheElmTreeStationMitigatedNegativeDeclarationand(2) DenytheConditional UsePermit.

At least fiveof theseconditionshavenot beenmet:

Distancebetweenservicestationsites: AccordingtothetheStaff Report, page7, theproposedgasstationisrequiredtocomplywiththesesiterequirementsof Code§20-42.150:

AstheStaff Report onpage7notes:

LUL-A: Foster acompact rather thanascattereddevelopment patterninorder toreducetravel, energy,land, andmaterialsconsumptionwhilepromotinggreenhousegasemissionreductionscitywide.

LUL-I-3: …ensurethat neighborhoodcentersdonot createunacceptabletrafficor nuisancesfor residentsduetothehoursandnatureof their operation, andaredesignedtofacilitatewalkingandbicycling.

UD-C-4: WorkwithCalTranstobeautifyHighway101andHighway12.

UD-C-5: WorkwiththeCountyof Sonomatoretainandimprovethescenicqualitiesof Highway101andHighway12, includingtheplantingof treesinthebackof developmentsandalongtheedgeoftheCalTransrights-of-way.

CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
5 UD-C-7: Install plantedmediansonwideregional/arterial streetstomakethemmorepedestrianfriendly.

RegardingCondition3, Proximitytoexistingandfutureuses: Sincetheneighboringparcel totheeast iszonedfor futureresidential development, theproject isincompatiblewithfuturelanduse.

For all thesereasons, it isnecessaryfor thepublicinterest, health, safety, andwelfarethat theCommissionreject thisproject.

the

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

–

874

Wright

(PRJ21-033)
April 9, 2025 Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners, On behalf of the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations, we write to express our concerns about the gas station

proposal

874

North

Wright

Road

and

provide

reasons

why

the

Commission

must

deny

the

Addendum

the

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

(MND)

and

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

(CUP).

We highlight several assertions, as outlined below, any one of which constitutes a finding that the CUP and Addendum

the

MND

must

denied.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
1 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum
a. The MND addresses light and glare on neighboring properties but does not mention risks of fire

and

explosion.

“One of the foremost environmental concerns associated with gas station lighting

the

potential

for

explosions.

Gasoline

vapors

are

highly

flammable,

and

any

spark

ignition

source

the

vicinity

can

lead

catastrophic

explosion…Gas

station

lighting

also

presents

fire

hazards

that

can

endanger

both

property

and

lives.” https://www.ledcostsaver.com/concerns-regarding-safety-in-gas-station-lighting/ (March 21, 2024). b. The Addendum to the MND, 3. Air Quality (p.19 of 47) states that “ The BAAQMD 2010 thresholds

significance,

which

were

the

applicable

Air

Quality

CEQA

Guidelines

the

time,

indicated

that

projects

which

generate

fewer

than

2,000

vehicle

trips

per

day

were

not

considered

major

air

pollutant

contributors

and

did

not

require

technical

air

quality

study.

July

26,

2013,

Traffic

Impact

Study

prepared

W-Trans

determined

that

the

Project

would

generate

1,506

vehicle

trips

per

day.

Hence,

technical

air

quality

report

was

prepared.”
Attachment 9, the Health Risk Assessment Memo, Feb.27, 2023, p.9, uses the figure of 1,506

(“
Daily

traffic

generation

was

calculated

1,506

primary

trips

per

day

based

the

Project’s

traffic

analysis.”
)
However, Attachment 7, the March 7, 2024 W-Trans Memo Updated Trip Generation and Trip Length

Information

for

Elm

Tree

Station

has

“reevaluated

the

proposed

project’s

anticipated

trip

generation

based

current

rates….”

These

rates

are

not

site-specific

but

use

“standard

rates

published

the

Institute

Transportation

Engineers

(ITE)

Trip

Generation

Manual,

11th

Edition,

2021,

for

Convenience

Store/Gas

Station

–

9-15

VFP

(LU

#945),

and

Multifamily

House

(Low-Rise)

Not

Rail

Transit

(LU

#220)

these

descriptions

most

closely

match

the

proposed

project.”

This

leads

assumed

2,459

trips

per

day
,

large

increase

the

1,506

trips

upon

which

the

Addendum

the

2013

MND

based.

Attachment 10, the March 6, 2024 GHG Memo estimates 2,546 daily trips. The 2024 Trip Generation

Memo

and

GHG

Memo

are

estimating

increase

approximately

1,000

additional

daily

trips.

The

implications

–

the

new

and

significant

effects

–

the

approximately

1,000

additional

daily

trips

for

traffic

congestion

already

congested

roads,

and

air

quality,

have

not

been

addressed

the

Addendum

the

MND.

c. Traffic safety: The collision history for the 2013 Traffic Impact Study was based on records from

the

California

Highway

Patrol

from

July

2006

through

July

2011.

Those

figures

have

not

been

updated

the

subsequent

Addenda.

The

Third

Addendum

the

Traffic

Impact

Study,

October

16,

2023,

states

“there

were

specific

safety

concerns

the

project.”

However,

there

have

been

collisions

including

fatalities

this

area

since

October

2023,

including:
● Two drivers sustained major injuries in a head-on collision in Fulton near Santa Rosa in

Sonoma

County

January

29,

2025.

● A traffic collision involving injuries occurred at CA-12 Eastbound near N Wright Rd in Santa

Rosa

November

10,

2024
.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
2 ● A multi-vehicle collision on state Highway 12 in southwest Santa Rosa, Fulton, was reported

Aug

29,

2024,

with

one

person

killed

and

seven

injured.

Local Traffic Accident Reports published November 10, 2024, states: “High-traffic routes like CA-12

are

prone

accidents

due

heavy

vehicle

volumes,

high

speeds,

and

frequent

intersections.

Incidents

near

major

roads

Wright

can

add

complexity,

making

defensive

driving

crucial

such

areas."
https://localaccidentreports.com/santa-rosa-ca-accident-on-ca-12-eastbound-at-n-wright-rd-results-in-injuries/ d. Hazards: The gas station proposal would involve installing Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
.

the

years

since

2013,

new

information

about

extensive

problems

leaking

USTs

and

risks

substantial

importance

shows

the

project

will

have

significant

effects

that

were
not discussed in the previous MND. EPA estimates that about 225,000 brownfield sites in the United States are contaminated by petroleum, largely from leaking USTs at gas stations. (July 2020). Incidents in 2024, such as a Chevron Station gas leak that caused a major evacuation and contamination clean up issue, a petroleum spill at a truck stop and a significant gasoline leak/explosion underscore the risk and impact of underground storage tanks (UST) that leak. There are multiple causes of leaks including risks from human error, natural disasters and earthquakes. Santa Rosa is in an area with significant earthquake faults. The California Water Boards state that following a substantial earthquake, a “damaged or improperly operating UST system can pose a significant risk to human health, safety and the environment”. USTs create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials

into

the

environment.

This

was

not

addressed

the

Addendum

the

MND.
e. In the Addendum, regarding hazardous impacts, it states (page 24) “ A Phase 1 Environmental

Site

Assessment

was

prepared

Environmental

Geology

Services,

Inc.

dated

July

15,

2015.

The

report

concluded

that

there

were

environmental

hazards

or
hazardous conditions found on or near the subject property. ” The map from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) below shows there are many nearby contaminated areas, with each purple diamond indicating a site where there’s been a Leaking

Underground

Storage

Tank

(LUST).

The

map

below

shows

the

area

Santa

Rosa

including

the

Wright

site.

shows

purple

diamond

LUST

885

Wright

Rd.

right

across

the

street

from

the

proposed

project

site

and

cluster

the

Naval

Auxiliary

Air

Station

within

mile

the

south.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
3 f. The Addendum, in its consideration of Hazards and Water Quality, failed to address the groundwater threat. The map from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) above shows LUST clean-up sites and also the overall Groundwater Threat Percentile by census tract. Note that according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Groundwater Threats Map on which this is based, at the location of the proposed project the groundwater threats percentile for the census tract is 96 , meaning the number and type of groundwater

threats

higher

than

96%

the

census

tracts

California.

This

map

based

data

that

was

downloaded

and

analyzed

Summer

2021.

This

new

information

substantial

importance

that

was

not

known

and

was

not

discussed

the

2013

MND.

Adding

gas

station

would

certainly

add

the

groundwater

threat

this

already

highly

impacted

area.

The

Addendum

did

not

assess

the

groundwater

threat

nor

the

cumulative

impacts

posed

the

proposed

gas

station.

See:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats g. Cumulative impacts: Although the Blue Star Gas propane facility on the adjacent property is mentioned,

potential

cumulative

impacts

air

quality

from

the

proximity

two

facilities

involving

transportation,

toxic

emissions,

handling

and

storage

flammable

materials,

and

the

resultant

risk

fires

and

explosions,

has

not

been

addressed.

Both

gasoline

and

propane

are

flammable

and

can

explode.

The

proximity

these

two

facilities

would

compound

the

risk,

well

increase

the

potential

for

air

and

water

quality

impacts.

2. Conditional Use Permit.

Santa Rosa’s Instructions for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications state that “the [Planning Commission]

may

approve

CUP

only

after

first

finding

that

granting

the

CUP

would

not

constitute

nuisance

injurious

detrimental

the

public

interest,

health,

safety,

convenience,

welfare,

materially

injurious

persons,

property,

improvements

the

vicinity

and

zoning

district

which

the

property

located.”

underline

“or”

the

sentence

above

emphasize

that

the

Commission

must

deny

the

CUP

the

opinion

the

Commission

that

any

one

the

standards

not

met.

The

findings

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
4 regarding the MND do not supersede the independent judgement of the Commissioners regarding a denial of

the

CUP.

finding

detriment

public

interest

solely

the

judgment

each

Commissioner.

Ample evidence of detriment to public interest has been presented by members of the public. This includes: ● The economic burden on taxpayers (local government budgets) of cleaning up a toxic site after it eventually

closes

the

company

goes

bankrupt.

For

example,

taxpayers

spent

than

$21
million decontaminating gas stations after the Kiel Bros. Oil Co. went bankrupt, the Associated Press reported in 2018. ● Risk of contamination to surface and groundwater including to drinking water wells; ● Health impacts from degraded air quality in the surrounding community due to regular venting of air toxics

including

benzene,

compound

for

which

there

known

safe

level

exposure;
● Traffic safety impacts on a busy road with fast-moving traffic adjacent to a popular cycling route on the

Joe

Rodota

trail.

On July 26, 2022, Santa Rosa City Council adopted the Sonoma County Vision Zero

Action

Plan (VZAP). The VZAP set a target goal of zero traffic deaths and severe injuries on roadways

within

Santa

Rosa

2030

3. Blue Star Gas
At 880 N. Wright Rd is the Blue Star Gas propane vehicle fueling station, a service station, within 500 feet of the

proposed

gas

station

the

adjacent

property.

Code

§20-42.150

prohibits

service

station

within

500

feet

any

other

service

station.

We appreciate staff for hearing our concern and staff’s work delving into the complex topic of what constitutes

gas/service

station.

Staff

have

provided

several

examples

other

governmental

agencies

with

different

definitions

and

designations

that

regulate

propane

fueling

differently

than

gasoline

fueling

stations.

While

the

Blue

Star

Gas

propane

vehicle

fueling

station

might

not

meet

those

other

agencies’

requirements,

what

key

the

Santa

Rosa

Code

provides

clear

definition

service

station

that

the

Blue

Star

Gas

propane

vehicle

fueling

station

certainly

does

meet.

The applicable Santa Rosa Code definition is “ Gas Station. A retail business selling gasoline and/or other

motor

vehicle

fuels,

and

products
.”

This

Santa

Rosa

Code

§20-70.020

was

amended

when

the

gas

station

ban

was

adopted

2022,

changing

the

definition

“A

retail

business

selling

gasoline

and/or

other

motor

vehicle

fuels

derived

from

fossil

fuels

(e.g.,

petroleum,

coal,

natural

gas),

and

products.”

The

Blue

Star

Gas

vehicle

fueling

station

meets

both

the

earlier

and

current

version

the

definition

Santa

Rosa’s

Code.

Blue Star Gas at 880 N. Wright Rd is a retail business selling a motor vehicle fuel. Its fuel is derived from fossil

fuels;

it’s

propane

fuel

for

vehicles

that

Blue

Star

Gas

calls

“Autogas.”

The

Blue

Star

Gas

website

shows

their

retail

business

offers

propane

fuels

including

Autogas.

The

website

includes

Autogas

Station
Locator that displays the station at 880 N. Wright Rd offering its Autogas vehicle fueling services. https://bluestargas.com/station-locator/

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
5 The propane vehicle fueling station at Blue Star Gas both meets the Santa Rosa Code definition of Service Station

and

also

compatible

with

Blue

Star

Gas’s

permitted

land

use

“fuel

dealer”

defined

“a

retail

trade

establishment

that

sells

fuel

oil,

butane,

propane

and

liquefied

petroleum

gas

(LPG),

bottled

bulk,

consumers.”

The

proximity

the

proposed

gas

station

the

existing

Blue

Star

Gas

facility

would

compound

the

risks,

well

increase

the

cumulative

impacts

air

and

water

quality.

In addition to the concerns raised above, please see attached our letter of November 8, 2024. In particular, please

see

the

listing

conflicts

with

Santa

Rosa’s

General

Plan.

On behalf of CONGAS, its 1000+ supporters in Sonoma County, and the co-signing organizations and individuals

below,
Respectfully Submitted,
Woody Hastings, Co-coordinator, CONGAS Jenny Blaker, Co-coordinator, CONGAS Wendy Krupnik, Proprietor Chiatri de Laguna Farm
Laura Neish, Executive Director 350 Bay Area

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
6 Christine Hoex, Steering Committee Member 350 Sonoma Dee Swanhuyser Sonoma County Rural Alliance Reuben Weinzveg, Treasurer Sonoma County Tomorrow
Padi Selwyn, Co-chair, Preserve Rural Sonoma County Eris Weaver, Executive Director Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Kevin Conway, Santa Rosa Friends of the Climate Action Plan Lawrence Jaffe and Nancy Cadigan, Co-Presidents Sebastopol Grange #306 Steve Birdlebough, Advocate Sonoma County Transportation and Land Use Committee Paul Larkin Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Santa Rosa Chapter Nathan Taft, Senior Campaigner SAFE Cities with Stand.earth Leah Redwood Extinction Rebellion San Francisco Bay Area Portia Sinnott, Executive Director LITE Initiatives, Community Bikes Program Beverly Alexander Protect Wild Petaluma 🌿
Sonoma County Climate Activist Network (SoCoCAN!) Ann Hamilton (she/her/ella), North Bay Resilience Manager Greenbelt Alliance Neal Fishman, Board President Sonoma County Conservation Action Individuals Jerry Bernhaut, Environmental Attorney Veronica Jacobi, Former Santa Rosa City Councilmember Alaya Babineau, Wilderness Within Sebastopol

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
7 Janus Matthes, Wine & Water Watch Gail Yamamoto Seymour, Retired Governmental Environmental Scientist, Santa Rosa Teri Shore, Sonoma County Environmentalist Rue Furch, Sonoma County Environmentalist Cate Steane, Sonoma County Environmentalist Jane Bender, Former Santa Rosa City Councilmember and Mayor Laurel Chambers, Santa Rosa resident Wayne Yamagishi & Debbi Yamagishi, Santa Rosa residents Steven Pierce, CityClimateDashboard.org ATTACHMENT Letter from November 2024

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
8 Santa Rosa Planning Commission City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404 Via email: [email protected] November 8, 2024 Subject: 874 North Wright Road Gas Station (File # PRJ21-033) Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners: There are many reasons for the Commission to reject the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)

and

deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

(CUP)

for

the

development

gas

station

with

extended

hours

operation,

two

general

retail

land

uses

across

two

buildings,

one

apartment

and

small

park

874

Wright

Road.

Most

these

reasons

relate

the

gasoline

fueling

component

the

application.

In September 2022 Santa Rosa, along with five other cities and the County of Sonoma, passed ordinances prohibiting

the

permitting

new

gas

stations.

The

874

Wright

Road

was

excluded

because

its

permit

application

was

already

deemed

complete

prior

adoption

the

ordinance.

However,

completed

application

does

not

require

the

Commission

grant

permit

for

the

construction

this

new

gas

station.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
9 There is nothing unique about this project that overcomes the fact that at its core, it is new fossil fuel infrastructure.

The

Commission

should

deny

the

permit

the

same

grounds

which

the

Commission

and

Santa

Rosa

City

Council

based

the

citywide

prohibition

new

gas

stations.

There is no need for another gasoline station in Santa Rosa. There are already more than ten operating gasoline

stations

within

five-mile

radius

this

project

site

and

over

40 in

total

and

near

Santa

Rosa.

CONGAS and the coalition of co-signers urge the Planning Commission to (1) Deny the addendum to the Elm

Tree

Station

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

and

(2)

Deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit.

ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
According to the staff report, October 24, 2024, p. 11, This Addendum relies on the Mitigated Negative Declaration

adopted

the

Planning

Commission

October

24,

2013,

Resolution

No.

11653

and

the

analysis

discusses

whether

there

has

been

substantial

change

circumstances

new

information

exists

such

degree

that

new

subsequent

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

should

required.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 , an addendum to an adopted negative declaration shall be prepared if

only

minor

technical

changes

additions

are

necessary.

Under

Section

15162
,

the

lead

agency

shall

prepare

EIR

there

are

one

significant

effects

increase

the

severity

previously

identified

significant

effects.

Changes from 2013 to 2024: It is undeniable that there have been many changes in circumstances and new

information

that

has

become

available

since

2013.

While

the

Addendum

attached

Resolution

No.

PC-2024-024

acknowledges

some

changes

since

2013

regarding

Air

Quality,

Energy,

GHGs,

Traffic,

and

Wildfire,

there

are

others

also.

For

example,

the

Addendum

addresses

the

fact

that

Vehicle

Miles

Traveled

(VMT)

has

replaced

Level

Service

(LOS)

criterion,

but

still

assumes

the

same

level

1,506

net

new

daily

vehicle

trips

per

day,

despite

increase

population

and

potentially

increases

traffic

since

2013.

The

2013

Traffic

Report

used

collision

rates

calculated

based

California

Highway

Patrol

records

dating

back

July

2006

June

2011.

Santa

Rosa’s

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Plan

was

updated

2018,

and

currently

being

updated

again

the

Active

Transportation

Plan.

There

reference

the

new

Highway

12 Interchange

Feasibility

Study

currently

underway.

These

substantive

changes

since

2013

suggest

that

the

traffic

studies

need

updated

take

account

current

conditions

–

and

these

are

just

few

examples.

Public awareness of the climate crisis has grown enormously since 2013. The City of Santa Rosa passed a Climate

Emergency

Resolution

January

2020,

which

included

the

statement

that

the

City

Santa

Rosa

joins

nationwide

call

for

just

transition

away

from

fossil

fuels

and

urgent

collaborative

climate

mobilization

effort

focused

enacting

policies

that

dramatically

reduce

heat-trapping

emissions,

and

rapidly

catalyzing

mobilization

all

levels

government

restore

safe

climate
.
1 Approving

new

gasoline

station

2024

would

contradictory

the

City’s

own

policies

climate

action.

would

add

new

fossil

fuel

infrastructure

and

another

new

source

GHG

emissions

instead

supporting

transition

away

from

fossil

fuels.

Regarding Air Quality, the Addendum, p.15, 2.8, references air quality during construction but does not take into

account

long-term

cumulative

impacts

from

new

gas

station.

The

summary

p.15,

3. Air

Quality

based

the

2013

Traffic

Impact

Study

calculation

that

the

project

would

general

1,506

trips

per

day.

1 https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/28039/Climate-Emergency-Resolution

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
10 Studies since 2013 have shown that gas stations vent far more toxic fumes than previously thought 2 .

According

OSHA

there

safe

level

exposure

gasoline

and

studies

have

shown

links

between

gasoline

exposure

and

childhood

leukemia.
3 A

2021

Harvard

study

showed

that

1 in

5 deaths

worldwide

are

caused

fossil

fuel

emissions.
4 Gasoline stations inevitably lead to leaks and spills which contaminate surface

and

groundwater.

Recent studies reveal more details about the impacts of groundwater contamination

from

gasoline

human

health

and

the

environment.

Even a small leakage rate of two drops
per

second

can

render

nearly

half

billion

gallons

water

unfit

for

drinking….Groundwater

contamination

around

fuel

stations

residential

areas

presents

significant

health

risks

the

local

population
5 .

These new studies suggest an increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and given that

the

adjacent

site

zoned

for

medium

density

housing,

adding

further

risk

groundwater

contamination

makes

sense.

Likewise, the immediate consequences of the climate crisis have become far more apparent since 2013 as Sonoma

County

residents

have

experienced

the

2017

Tubbs

wildfire

and

subsequent

wildfires,

floods,

drought,

extreme

heat,

and

other

climate

anomalies.

Governor Newsom’s Executive Order of 2020
6 will bring to an end the registration of new fossil-fueled cars by

2035.

Gasoline

sales

are

declining

people

switch

electric

vehicles.

These

changes

should

borne

mind

while

recognizing

that

when

gas

stations

reach

the

end

their

functional

existence

they

require

expensive

clean

and

are

sometimes

abandoned,

leaving

toxic

sites

that

cannot

developed

for

other

purposes.

This is not a comprehensive list of changes, but just a few immediately obvious examples of substantial changes

circumstances

and

context

since

2013,

that

include

significant

effects

and

increases

severity

previously

identified

significant

effects.

They

are

far

than

mere

“minor

technical

changes

additions,”

and

demand

minimum

comprehensive

new

Environmental

Impact

Report,

not

just

addendum

outdated

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Santa Rosa’s Instructions for Conditional Use Permit Applications state that “the [Planning Commission] may approve a Major Conditional Use Permit or Minor Conditional Use Permit only after first finding all of the

following,”

1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions

this

Zoning

Code

and

the

City

Code;

2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the

existing

and

future

land

uses

the

vicinity;

4. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities,

and

the

absence

physical

constraints;

5. Granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health,

safety,

convenience,

welfare,

materially

injurious

persons,

property,

improvements

the

vicinity

and

zoning

district

which

the

property

located.”

underline

“or”

that

sentence

6 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf

5 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024019558#bbib8

(2024
)

4 https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/

(2024)

3 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275799/

(2023)

2 https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/gas-stations-vent-far-more-toxic-fumes-previously-thought

(2018)

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
11 emphasize that the Commission must deny the CUP if it is the opinion of the Commission that any one of the

standards

are

not

met.

not

required

that

two

them

met.

6 . The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

At least five of these conditions have not been met: Regarding Condition 1, compliance with Zoning: The Staff Report states that: “ The project site is within Planned

Development

(PD)

0435,

which

allows

the

service

station

(gas

station)

land

use

with

the

approval

Conditional

Use

Permit.

Some

development

standards

are

not

specifically

addressed

the

0435

Policy

Statement,

staff

has

analyzed

the

Project’s

compliance

with

the

most

similar

zoning

district

(General

Commercial)

those

cases.”

In other words, the project site did not meet the zoning conditions necessary for approval. On what grounds did

staff

decide

analyze

the

project’s

compliance

with

the

zoning

district

instead?

What

are

the

relevant

differences

between

the

project

and

development

standards

that

were

not

met?

The

staff’s

rationale

for

this

choice

not

made

explicit.

Distance between service station sites: According to the the Staff Report, page 7, the proposed gas station

required

comply

with

these

site

requirements

Code

§20-42.150:

1. Site area and dimensions. The site shall have a minimum area of 15,000 square feet, at least 100 feet

frontage

arterial

street,

minimum

width

150

feet,

and

minimum

depth

100

feet.

2. Proximity to residential. The site shall not adjoin an existing R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoning district or single-family

two-family

residential

use

the

time

the

service

station

use

established,

except

nonconforming

single-family

two-family

residential

use,

single-family

two-family

residential

use

commercial

zone.

3. Distance between service station sites. A proposed service station site shall be a minimum of

500

feet

from

any

other

service

station

site,

with

the

following

exceptions:
a) Service station sites within 150 feet of the U.S. Highway 101 intersections and Freeway

12 intersections

measured

along

the

intersecting

street.”
The Staff Report, page 8, regarding the above listed site requirement #3, incorrectly states that: “ The closest

station

the

Chevron

station

Stony

Point

Rd.,

approximately

1.5 miles

the

east.

The

closest

station

Roseland

Gas

Sebastopol

Road,

approximately

2.3 miles

the

east.
”

The Staff Report has neglected to recognize that the closest station is the Blue Star Gas station at 880 N.

Wright

Road,

parcel

adjacent

the

proposed

project

site,

with

measurable

distance

separating

them.

The Staff Report refers to Blue Star Gas as simply a “propane manufacturer.” However, Blue Star Gas at 880

Wright

also

meets

Santa

Rosa’s

definition

gas

station.

As the Staff Report on page 7 notes: Before the City Council banned new gas stations, the Code defined a Service Station as: “ a retail business

selling

gasoline

and/or

other

motor

vehicle

fuels,

and

products
.”

…

Ordinance

No.

ORD-2022-010

(the

2022

ban)

amended

the

definition

“Gas

Station”

as:

“
a

retail

business

selling

gasoline

and/or

other

motor

vehicle

fuels

derived

from

fossil

fuels

(e.g.,

petroleum,

coal,

natural

gas),

and

products
.”

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
12 Blue Star Gas at 880 N. Wright Rd is a retail business selling a motor vehicle fuel derived from fossil fuels, a propane fuel that Blue Star Gas calls “Autogas.” The Code requirement of distance between service station sites has an exception for “ Service station sites within

150

feet

the

U.S.

Highway

101

intersections

and

Freeway

12 intersections

measured

along

the

intersecting

street.
”

The

exception

cannot

applied

for

the

proposed

project.

The

proposed

gas

station

site

over

300

feet

from

the

intersection

Hwy/Freeway

12 measured

along

the

intersecting

street

that

North

Wright

Road
.

Construction of a gas station within 500 feet of another service station, such as the proposed development adjacent

the

existing

Blue

Star

Gas

station,

explicitly

prohibited

the

Santa

Rosa

Zoning

Code.

The

proposed

project

cannot

qualify

for

CUP

because

the

proposed

use

does

not

comply

with

the

applicable

provisions

the

Code.

The

Planning

Commission

must

deny

the

permit.

Regarding Condition 2, consistency with General Plan : The staff report states the project is consistent with

the

Retail

Business

Services

designation

the

General

Plan,

but

there

are

notable

inconsistencies

with

the

General

Plan,

for

example:

LUL-A: Foster a compact rather than a scattered development pattern in order to reduce travel, energy, land,

and

materials

consumption

while

promoting

greenhouse

gas

emission

reductions

citywide.

LUL-A-1: As part of plan implementation – including development review, capital improvements programming,

and

preparation

detailed

area

plans

–

foster

land

use/transportation

relationships

promote

use

alternative

transportation

modes

and

discourage

travel

automobile
.

LUL-I-2: Encourage region-serving, high volume retail outlets to locate near freeway access (generally within

one-half

mile

Highway

101)

minimize

traffic

city

streets.

not

allow

regional-serving

uses

residential

neighborhoods.

LUL-I-3: …ensure that neighborhood centers do not create unacceptable traffic or nuisances for residents due

the

hours

and

nature

their

operation,

and

are

designed

facilitate

walking

and

bicycling.

According to the Staff Report, p. 6, “The attractive building design and site design will enhance the visual quality

the

Highway

12 entry

into

the

City…”

However,

few

people

would

generally

regard

gas

station

scenic

enhancement.

The

General

Plan

mainly

highlights

trees

and

other

vegetation

scenic

enhancements,

e.g.:

UD-C-4: Work with CalTrans to beautify Highway 101 and Highway 12.

Encourage CalTrans to incorporate more landscaping, planting of trees, and soundwall mitigation into

any

improvements

planned

for

these

highways.

Lessen

the

impact

new

soundwalls

through

the

use

vegetation.

Specific

Highway

12 (west

Highway

101),

there

are

many

places

where

the

median

large

enough

safely

plant

trees

and

make

other

significant

landscaping

improvements

enhance

the

scenic

qualities

this

roadway.

UD-C-5: Work with the County of Sonoma to retain and improve the scenic qualities of Highway 101 and

Highway

12,

including

the

planting

trees

the

back

developments

and

along

the

edge

the

CalTrans

rights-of-way.

UD-C-7: Install planted medians on wide regional/arterial streets to make them more pedestrian friendly.

Regarding Condition 3, Proximity to existing and future uses: Since the neighboring parcel to the east is zoned

for

future

residential

development,

the

project

incompatible

with

future

land

use.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
13 Currently, users of the Joe Rodota Trail must proceed south on the sidewalk in front of the proposed project before

crossing

Wright

Road,

proceeding

west

Sebastopol

Road

for

two

blocks

before

the

trail

picks

back

again.

This

project

would

create

conflict

zone

for

cyclists

who

would

have

cross

the

driveways

into

the

gas

station.

Contrary

being

convenient

amenity

for

cyclists

the

Joe

Rodota

trail

claimed,

many

cyclists

feel

that

this

project

conflicts

with

their

interests

for

safe

and

pleasant

cycling

experience

the

Joe

Rodota

trail.

Regarding Condition 5, Public interest: A gasoline station at this location would in fact be detrimental to the

public

interest,

health,

welfare,

and

safety.

important

emphasize

that

the

rules

don't

require

threshold

level

significant

impact

that

may

found

CEQA

document

justify

denial

the

CUP.

The

rules

state

that

the

project

simply

cannot

nuisance

detrimental

the

public

interest

the

opinion

the

Commission.

The

Commission

required

deny

the

CUP

the

project

anticipated

any

one

the

harms

the

list

quoted

above.

That

basis

upon

which

the

Planning

Commission

must

deny

the

CUP.

There is ample evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of anthropogenic climate heating.
7 Gasoline

stations

facilitate

access

and

burning

fossil

fuels.

Expansion

fossil

fuel

infrastructure

prolongs

and

exacerbates

the

climate

crisis.

Therefore

necessary

for

public

interest,

health,

welfare,

and

safety

that

the

city

cease

permitting

new

fossil

fuel

infrastructure.

In addition to global climate pollution, gas stations, in their normal operation, emit hazardous toxic air contaminants

(several,

such

benzene,

with

safe

level

exposure),

contaminate

surface

water

runoff,

and

pose

hazards

contamination

soil

and

groundwater.

This

project

not

far

from

residences

and

sited

adjacent

the

Joe

Rodota

Trail,

trail

where

users

should

able

breathe

clean

air

while

they

walk

ride

their

bikes.

Sonoma

County

riddled

with

leaking

underground

storage

sites,

and

when

gas

stations

reach

the

end

their

functional

existence,

the

sites

often

become

expensive

liability

cleaned

up,

abandoned

toxic

sites

that

cannot

developed

for

other

uses.

This

clearly

contrary

the

public

interest.

For all these reasons, it is necessary for the public interest, health, safety, and welfare that the Commission reject

this

project.

Regarding Condition 6, Compliance with CEQA : As described above, the Addendum which relies upon the

outdated

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

should

replaced

full

Environmental

Impact

Report,

given

the

substantive

contextual

changes

that

have

taken

place

since

2013.

Other questions and inconsistencies
a. The staff report states that the application was deemed complete on Dec. 17, 2021; the addendum in Resolution

1 states

that

the

complete

application

date

was

August

10,

2022.

Which

correct?

b. Is the project classified as primarily serving local-serving retail (as per W-Trans VMT analysis, July 20, 2022;

Resolution

Addendum)

pass-by

traffic,

per

the

2013

Traffic

Impact

Study?

c. Why is an 806-square foot, one-bedroom apartment being classified as a multifamily dwelling, per staff report?

d. Conditional Use Permits are generally granted for a one year period. Why is this one for two years? e. Attachment 11 – Communication from BAAQMD – refers to the 43 Middle Rincon Road project, not the 874

North

Wright

Road

project.

7 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/resources/climate-change-in-data/ (scroll to data point 7) Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
14 Public Notice Notifying the public about projects of this kind is required. None of the public noticing statements at the top of

page

13 in

the

Staff

Report

about

the

public

noticing

for

the

October

24 Public

Hearing

were

true.

noted

the

staff

report,

project

history,

neighborhood

meetings

and

notifications

property

owners

were

sent

advance

public

hearings

2007

and

2011.

The

rules

were

being

followed

then,

why

not

now?

There

has

been

neighborhood

meeting

about

this

project.

There

was

evidence

that

property

owners

had

been

alerted

about

the

pending

project

the

canceled

October

24 Planning

Commission.

For

projects

this

kind,

the

applicant

required

install

sign

the

perimeter.

Santa

Rosa

city

code

(§

20-66.020

Notice

hearing.)
8 states

that

“When

land

use

permit,

variance,

other

matter

required

State

law

this

Zoning

Code

have

public

hearing,

the

public

shall

(emphasis

added)

provided

notice

the

hearing

compliance

with

the

provisions

this

Chapter.”

“Method

notice

distribution”

outlines

requirements

for

mail,

newspaper

publication,

site

posting,

and

online

posting.

CONGAS

has

photographic

and

video

evidence

that

sign

had

been

posted

October

29,

2024.

We hope the correct procedures are being followed for the November 14 Public Hearing, but the lack of them

for

the

previously

scheduled

October

24 meeting,

despite

assurances

the

staff

report

that

the

requisite

procedures

had

been

followed,

does

nothing

inspire

confidence

this

process.

Conclusion Based on the finding that the project is within 500 feet of an existing gas station, which is prohibited by city code;

that

the

project

would

injurious

the

public

interest,

health,

safety

and

welfare;

that

public

notice

about

the

project

and

the

Hearing

did

not

occur

accordance

with

city

code;

that

significant

new

information

has

become

known

since

2013;

and

that

substantial

inconsistencies

exist

conflict

with

both

the

General

Plan

and

the

criteria

for

CUP

approval,

CONGAS

respectfully

requests

that

the

Commission
deny the CUP. To facilitate a denial, we have attached a draft resolution that substantiates this rationale for denial. The Commission may consider, as a condition of approval, requiring the applicant to revise the project

with

new

plan

that

eliminates

the

gasoline

pumps

from

the

project

and

that

includes

compliance

with

public

noticing

requirements.

Respectfully, on behalf of CONGAS, its 1000+ supporters in Sonoma County, and the co-signing organizations

below,

Woody Hastings, Co-coordinator, CONGAS Jenny Blaker, Co-coordinator, CONGAS Wendy Krupnik, Proprietor Chiatri de Laguna Farm
Laura Neish, Executive Director 350 Bay Area
Christine Hoex, Steering Committee Member 350 Sonoma Dee Swanhuyser Sonoma County Rural Alliance Reuben Weinzveg, Treasurer
8 https://ecode360.com/42983981#42983983
Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
15 Sonoma County Tomorrow
Padi Selwyn, Co-chair, Preserve Rural Sonoma County Eris Weaver, Executive Director Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Kevin Conway, Santa Rosa Friends of the Climate Action Plan Lawrence Jaffe and Nancy Cadigan, Co-Presidents Sebastopol Grange #306 Steve Birdlebough, Advocate Sonoma County Transportation and Land Use Committee Paul Larkin Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Santa Rosa Chapter Nathan Taft, Senior Campaigner SAFE Cities with Stand.earth Leah Redwood Extinction Rebellion San Francisco Bay Area Portia Sinnott, Executive Director LITE Initiatives, Community Bikes Program Beverly Alexander Protect Wild Petaluma 🌿
Sonoma County Climate Activist Network (SoCoCAN!) Ann Hamilton (she/her/ella), North Bay Resilience Manager Greenbelt Alliance Neal Fishman, Board President Sonoma County Conservation Action Individuals Jerry Bernhaut, Environmental Attorney Veronica Jacobi, Former Santa Rosa City Councilmember Alaya Babineau, Wilderness Within Sebastopol Janus Matthes, Wine & Water Watch Gail Yamamoto Seymour, Retired Governmental Environmental Scientist, Santa Rosa Teri Shore, Sonoma County Environmentalist Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
16 Rue Furch, Sonoma County Environmentalist Cate Steane, Sonoma County Environmentalist Jane Bender, Former Santa Rosa City Councilmember and Mayor Laurel Chambers, Santa Rosa resident Wayne Yamagishi & Debbi Yamagishi, Santa Rosa residents Steven Pierce, CityClimateDashboard.org cc: Karen Weeks, Chair, Planning Commission Vicki Duggan, Vice Chair, Planning Commission Julian Peterson, member, Planning Commission Charles Carter, member, Planning Commission Patti Cisco, member, Planning Commission Aaron Pardo, member, Planning Commission Terrence Sanders, member, Planning Commission Natalie Rogers, Mayor, City of Santa Rosa Gabe Osburn, Director of Planning and Economic Development Jessica Jones, Deputy Director, Planning Conor McKay, Senior Planner

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
17 Santa Rosa Planning Commission City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404 Via email: [email protected] Subject : Agenda Item 11.1 – Public Hearing – Gas Station Proposal – Conditional Use Permit and Addendum

the

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

–

874

Wright

(PRJ21-033)
April 9, 2025 Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners, On behalf of the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations, we write to express our concerns about the gas station

proposal

874

North

Wright

Road

and

provide

reasons

why

the

Commission

must

deny

the

Addendum

the

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

(MND)

and

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

(CUP).

We highlight several assertions, as outlined below, any one of which constitutes a finding that the CUP and Addendum

the

MND

must

denied.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

and

explosion.

“One of the foremost environmental concerns associated with gas station lighting

the

potential

for

explosions.

Gasoline

vapors

are

highly

flammable,

and

any

spark

ignition

source

the

vicinity

can

lead

catastrophic

explosion…Gas

station

lighting

also

presents

fire

hazards

that

can

endanger

both

property

and

significance,

which

were

the

applicable

Air

Quality

CEQA

Guidelines

the

time,

indicated

that

projects

which

generate

fewer

than

2,000

vehicle

trips

per

day

were

not

considered

major

air

pollutant

contributors

and

did

not

require

technical

air

quality

study.

July

26,

2013,

Traffic

Impact

Study

prepared

W-Trans

determined

that

the

Project

would

generate

1,506

vehicle

trips

per

day.

Hence,

technical

air

quality

report

was

prepared.”
Attachment 9, the Health Risk Assessment Memo, Feb.27, 2023, p.9, uses the figure of 1,506

(“
Daily

traffic

generation

was

calculated

1,506

primary

trips

per

day

based

the

Project’s

traffic

analysis.”
)
However, Attachment 7, the March 7, 2024 W-Trans Memo Updated Trip Generation and Trip Length

Information

for

Elm

Tree

Station

has

“reevaluated

the

proposed

project’s

anticipated

trip

generation

based

current

rates….”

These

rates

are

not

site-specific

but

use

“standard

rates

published

the

Institute

Transportation

Engineers

(ITE)

Trip

Generation

Manual,

11th

Edition,

2021,

for

Convenience

Store/Gas

Station

–

9-15

VFP

(LU

#945),

and

Multifamily

House

(Low-Rise)

Not

Rail

Transit

(LU

#220)

these

descriptions

most

closely

match

the

proposed

project.”

This

leads

assumed

2,459

trips

per

day
,

large

increase

the

1,506

trips

upon

which

the

Addendum

the

2013

MND

based.

Attachment 10, the March 6, 2024 GHG Memo estimates 2,546 daily trips. The 2024 Trip Generation

Memo

and

GHG

Memo

are

estimating

increase

approximately

1,000

additional

daily

trips.

The

implications

–

the

new

and

significant

effects

–

the

approximately

1,000

additional

daily

trips

for

traffic

congestion

already

congested

roads,

and

air

quality,

have

not

been

addressed

the

Addendum

the

MND.

c. Traffic safety: The collision history for the 2013 Traffic Impact Study was based on records from

the

California

Highway

Patrol

from

July

2006

through

July

2011.

Those

figures

have

not

been

updated

the

subsequent

Addenda.

The

Third

Addendum

the

Traffic

Impact

Study,

October

16,

2023,

states

“there

were

specific

safety

concerns

the

project.”

However,

there

have

been

collisions

including

fatalities

this

area

since

October

2023,

including:
● Two drivers sustained major injuries in a head-on collision in Fulton near Santa Rosa in

Sonoma

County

January

29,

2025.

● A traffic collision involving injuries occurred at CA-12 Eastbound near N Wright Rd in Santa

Rosa

November

10,

2024
.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
2 ● A multi-vehicle collision on state Highway 12 in southwest Santa Rosa, Fulton, was reported

Aug

29,

2024,

with

one

person

killed

and

seven

injured.

Local Traffic Accident Reports published November 10, 2024, states: “High-traffic routes like CA-12

are

prone

accidents

due

heavy

vehicle

volumes,

high

speeds,

and

frequent

intersections.

Incidents

near

major

roads

Wright

can

add

complexity,

making

defensive

driving

crucial

such

the

years

since

2013,

new

information

about

extensive

problems

leaking

USTs

and

risks

substantial

importance

shows

the

project

will

have

significant

effects

that

into

the

environment.

This

was

not

addressed

the

Addendum

the

MND.
e. In the Addendum, regarding hazardous impacts, it states (page 24) “ A Phase 1 Environmental

Site

Assessment

was

prepared

Environmental

Geology

Services,

Inc.

dated

July

15,

2015.

The

report

concluded

that

there

were

environmental

hazards

Underground

Storage

Tank

(LUST).

The

map

below

shows

the

area

Santa

Rosa

including

the

Wright

site.

shows

purple

diamond

LUST

885

Wright

Rd.

right

across

the

street

from

the

proposed

project

site

and

cluster

the

Naval

Auxiliary

Air

Station

within

mile

the

south.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

threats

higher

than

96%

the

census

tracts

California.

This

map

based

data

that

was

downloaded

and

analyzed

Summer

2021.

This

new

information

substantial

importance

that

was

not

known

and

was

not

discussed

the

2013

MND.

Adding

gas

station

would

certainly

add

the

groundwater

threat

this

already

highly

impacted

area.

The

Addendum

did

not

assess

the

groundwater

threat

nor

the

cumulative

impacts

posed

the

proposed

gas

station.

See:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats g. Cumulative impacts: Although the Blue Star Gas propane facility on the adjacent property is mentioned,

potential

cumulative

impacts

air

quality

from

the

proximity

two

facilities

involving

transportation,

toxic

emissions,

handling

and

storage

flammable

materials,

and

the

resultant

risk

fires

and

explosions,

has

not

been

addressed.

Both

gasoline

and

propane

are

flammable

and

can

explode.

The

proximity

these

two

facilities

would

compound

the

risk,

well

increase

the

potential

for

air

and

water

quality

impacts.

2. Conditional Use Permit.

Santa Rosa’s Instructions for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications state that “the [Planning Commission]

may

approve

CUP

only

after

first

finding

that

granting

the

CUP

would

not

constitute

nuisance

injurious

detrimental

the

public

interest,

health,

safety,

convenience,

welfare,

materially

injurious

persons,

property,

improvements

the

vicinity

and

zoning

district

which

the

property

located.”

underline

“or”

the

sentence

above

emphasize

that

the

Commission

must

deny

the

CUP

the

opinion

the

Commission

that

any

one

the

standards

not

met.

The

findings

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
4 regarding the MND do not supersede the independent judgement of the Commissioners regarding a denial of

the

CUP.

finding

detriment

public

interest

solely

the

judgment

each

Commissioner.

closes

the

company

goes

bankrupt.

For

example,

taxpayers

spent

than

including

benzene,

compound

for

which

there

known

safe

level

exposure;
● Traffic safety impacts on a busy road with fast-moving traffic adjacent to a popular cycling route on the

Joe

Rodota

trail.

On July 26, 2022, Santa Rosa City Council adopted the Sonoma County Vision Zero

Action

Plan (VZAP). The VZAP set a target goal of zero traffic deaths and severe injuries on roadways

within

Santa

Rosa

2030

3. Blue Star Gas
At 880 N. Wright Rd is the Blue Star Gas propane vehicle fueling station, a service station, within 500 feet of the

proposed

gas

station

the

adjacent

property.

Code

§20-42.150

prohibits

service

station

within

500

feet

any

other

service

station.

We appreciate staff for hearing our concern and staff’s work delving into the complex topic of what constitutes

gas/service

station.

Staff

have

provided

several

examples

other

governmental

agencies

with

different

definitions

and

designations

that

regulate

propane

fueling

differently

than

gasoline

fueling

stations.

While

the

Blue

Star

Gas

propane

vehicle

fueling

station

might

not

meet

those

other

agencies’

requirements,

what

key

the

Santa

Rosa

Code

provides

clear

definition

service

station

that

the

Blue

Star

Gas

propane

vehicle

fueling

station

certainly

does

meet.

The applicable Santa Rosa Code definition is “ Gas Station. A retail business selling gasoline and/or other

motor

vehicle

fuels,

and

products
.”

This

Santa

Rosa

Code

§20-70.020

was

amended

when

the

gas

station

ban

was

adopted

2022,

changing

the

definition

“A

retail

business

selling

gasoline

and/or

other

motor

vehicle

fuels

derived

from

fossil

fuels

(e.g.,

petroleum,

coal,

natural

gas),

and

products.”

The

Blue

Star

Gas

vehicle

fueling

station

meets

both

the

earlier

and

current

version

the

definition

Santa

Rosa’s

Code.

Blue Star Gas at 880 N. Wright Rd is a retail business selling a motor vehicle fuel. Its fuel is derived from fossil

fuels;

it’s

propane

fuel

for

vehicles

that

Blue

Star

Gas

calls

“Autogas.”

The

Blue

Star

Gas

website

shows

their

retail

business

offers

propane

fuels

including

Autogas.

The

website

includes

Autogas

Station
Locator that displays the station at 880 N. Wright Rd offering its Autogas vehicle fueling services. https://bluestargas.com/station-locator/

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
5 The propane vehicle fueling station at Blue Star Gas both meets the Santa Rosa Code definition of Service Station

and

also

compatible

with

Blue

Star

Gas’s

permitted

land

use

“fuel

dealer”

defined

“a

retail

trade

establishment

that

sells

fuel

oil,

butane,

propane

and

liquefied

petroleum

gas

(LPG),

bottled

bulk,

consumers.”

The

proximity

the

proposed

gas

station

the

existing

Blue

Star

Gas

facility

would

compound

the

risks,

well

increase

the

cumulative

impacts

air

and

water

quality.

In addition to the concerns raised above, please see attached our letter of November 8, 2024. In particular, please

see

the

listing

conflicts

with

Santa

Rosa’s

General

Plan.

On behalf of CONGAS, its 1000+ supporters in Sonoma County, and the co-signing organizations and individuals

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

and

deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

(CUP)

for

the

development

gas

station

with

extended

hours

operation,

two

general

retail

land

uses

across

two

buildings,

one

apartment

and

small

park

874

Wright

Road.

Most

these

reasons

relate

the

gasoline

fueling

component

the

application.

In September 2022 Santa Rosa, along with five other cities and the County of Sonoma, passed ordinances prohibiting

the

permitting

new

gas

stations.

The

874

Wright

Road

was

excluded

because

its

permit

application

was

already

deemed

complete

prior

adoption

the

ordinance.

However,

completed

application

does

not

require

the

Commission

grant

permit

for

the

construction

this

new

gas

station.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
9 There is nothing unique about this project that overcomes the fact that at its core, it is new fossil fuel infrastructure.

The

Commission

should

deny

the

permit

the

same

grounds

which

the

Commission

and

Santa

Rosa

City

Council

based

the

citywide

prohibition

new

gas

stations.

There is no need for another gasoline station in Santa Rosa. There are already more than ten operating gasoline

stations

within

five-mile

radius

this

project

site

and

over

40 in

total

and

near

Santa

Rosa.

CONGAS and the coalition of co-signers urge the Planning Commission to (1) Deny the addendum to the Elm

Tree

Station

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

and

(2)

Deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit.

ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
According to the staff report, October 24, 2024, p. 11, This Addendum relies on the Mitigated Negative Declaration

adopted

the

Planning

Commission

October

24,

2013,

Resolution

No.

11653

and

the

analysis

discusses

whether

there

has

been

substantial

change

circumstances

new

information

exists

such

degree

that

new

subsequent

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

should

required.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 , an addendum to an adopted negative declaration shall be prepared if

only

minor

technical

changes

additions

are

necessary.

Under

Section

15162
,

the

lead

agency

shall

prepare

EIR

there

are

one

significant

effects

increase

the

severity

previously

identified

significant

effects.

Changes from 2013 to 2024: It is undeniable that there have been many changes in circumstances and new

information

that

has

become

available

since

2013.

While

the

Addendum

attached

Resolution

No.

PC-2024-024

acknowledges

some

changes

since

2013

regarding

Air

Quality,

Energy,

GHGs,

Traffic,

and

Wildfire,

there

are

others

also.

For

example,

the

Addendum

addresses

the

fact

that

Vehicle

Miles

Traveled

(VMT)

has

replaced

Level

Service

(LOS)

criterion,

but

still

assumes

the

same

level

1,506

net

new

daily

vehicle

trips

per

day,

despite

increase

population

and

potentially

increases

traffic

since

2013.

The

2013

Traffic

Report

used

collision

rates

calculated

based

California

Highway

Patrol

records

dating

back

July

2006

June

2011.

Santa

Rosa’s

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Plan

was

updated

2018,

and

currently

being

updated

again

the

Active

Transportation

Plan.

There

reference

the

new

Highway

12 Interchange

Feasibility

Study

currently

underway.

These

substantive

changes

since

2013

suggest

that

the

traffic

studies

need

updated

take

account

current

conditions

–

and

these

are

just

few

examples.

Public awareness of the climate crisis has grown enormously since 2013. The City of Santa Rosa passed a Climate

Emergency

Resolution

January

2020,

which

included

the

statement

that

the

City

Santa

Rosa

joins

nationwide

call

for

just

transition

away

from

fossil

fuels

and

urgent

collaborative

climate

mobilization

effort

focused

enacting

policies

that

dramatically

reduce

heat-trapping

emissions,

and

rapidly

catalyzing

mobilization

all

levels

government

restore

safe

climate
.
1 Approving

new

gasoline

station

2024

would

contradictory

the

City’s

own

policies

climate

action.

would

add

new

fossil

fuel

infrastructure

and

another

new

source

GHG

emissions

instead

supporting

transition

away

from

fossil

fuels.

Regarding Air Quality, the Addendum, p.15, 2.8, references air quality during construction but does not take into

account

long-term

cumulative

impacts

from

new

gas

station.

The

summary

p.15,

3. Air

Quality

based

the

2013

Traffic

Impact

Study

calculation

that

the

project

would

general

1,506

trips

per

day.

1 https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/28039/Climate-Emergency-Resolution

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
10 Studies since 2013 have shown that gas stations vent far more toxic fumes than previously thought 2 .

According

OSHA

there

safe

level

exposure

gasoline

and

studies

have

shown

links

between

gasoline

exposure

and

childhood

leukemia.
3 A

2021

Harvard

study

showed

that

1 in

5 deaths

worldwide

are

caused

fossil

fuel

emissions.
4 Gasoline stations inevitably lead to leaks and spills which contaminate surface

and

groundwater.

Recent studies reveal more details about the impacts of groundwater contamination

from

gasoline

human

health

and

the

environment.

Even a small leakage rate of two drops
per

second

can

render

nearly

half

billion

gallons

water

unfit

for

drinking….Groundwater

contamination

around

fuel

stations

residential

areas

presents

significant

health

risks

the

local

population
5 .

These new studies suggest an increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and given that

the

adjacent

site

zoned

for

medium

density

housing,

adding

further

risk

groundwater

contamination

makes

sense.

Likewise, the immediate consequences of the climate crisis have become far more apparent since 2013 as Sonoma

County

residents

have

experienced

the

2017

Tubbs

wildfire

and

subsequent

wildfires,

floods,

drought,

extreme

heat,

and

other

climate

anomalies.

Governor Newsom’s Executive Order of 2020
6 will bring to an end the registration of new fossil-fueled cars by

2035.

Gasoline

sales

are

declining

people

switch

electric

vehicles.

These

changes

should

borne

mind

while

recognizing

that

when

gas

stations

reach

the

end

their

functional

existence

they

require

expensive

clean

and

are

sometimes

abandoned,

leaving

toxic

sites

that

cannot

developed

for

other

purposes.

This is not a comprehensive list of changes, but just a few immediately obvious examples of substantial changes

circumstances

and

context

since

2013,

that

include

significant

effects

and

increases

severity

previously

identified

significant

effects.

They

are

far

than

mere

“minor

technical

changes

additions,”

and

demand

minimum

comprehensive

new

Environmental

Impact

Report,

not

just

addendum

outdated

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Santa Rosa’s Instructions for Conditional Use Permit Applications state that “the [Planning Commission] may approve a Major Conditional Use Permit or Minor Conditional Use Permit only after first finding all of the

following,”

1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions

this

Zoning

Code

and

the

City

Code;

existing

and

future

land

uses

the

vicinity;

4. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities,

and

the

absence

physical

constraints;

5. Granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health,

safety,

convenience,

welfare,

materially

injurious

persons,

property,

improvements

the

vicinity

and

zoning

district

which

the

property

located.”

underline

“or”

that

sentence

6 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf

5 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024019558#bbib8

(2024
)

4 https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/

(2024)

3 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275799/

(2023)

2 https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/gas-stations-vent-far-more-toxic-fumes-previously-thought

(2018)

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
11 emphasize that the Commission must deny the CUP if it is the opinion of the Commission that any one of the

standards

are

not

met.

not

required

that

two

them

met.

6 . The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

At least five of these conditions have not been met: Regarding Condition 1, compliance with Zoning: The Staff Report states that: “ The project site is within Planned

Development

(PD)

0435,

which

allows

the

service

station

(gas

station)

land

use

with

the

approval

Conditional

Use

Permit.

Some

development

standards

are

not

specifically

addressed

the

0435

Policy

Statement,

staff

has

analyzed

the

Project’s

compliance

with

the

most

similar

zoning

district

(General

Commercial)

those

cases.”

In other words, the project site did not meet the zoning conditions necessary for approval. On what grounds did

staff

decide

analyze

the

project’s

compliance

with

the

zoning

district

instead?

What

are

the

relevant

differences

between

the

project

and

development

standards

that

were

not

met?

The

staff’s

rationale

for

this

choice

not

made

explicit.

Distance between service station sites: According to the the Staff Report, page 7, the proposed gas station

required

comply

with

these

site

requirements

Code

§20-42.150:

1. Site area and dimensions. The site shall have a minimum area of 15,000 square feet, at least 100 feet

frontage

arterial

street,

minimum

width

150

feet,

and

minimum

depth

100

feet.

2. Proximity to residential. The site shall not adjoin an existing R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoning district or single-family

two-family

residential

use

the

time

the

service

station

use

established,

except

nonconforming

single-family

two-family

residential

use,

single-family

two-family

residential

use

commercial

zone.

3. Distance between service station sites. A proposed service station site shall be a minimum of

500

feet

from

any

other

service

station

site,

with

the

following

exceptions:
a) Service station sites within 150 feet of the U.S. Highway 101 intersections and Freeway

12 intersections

measured

along

the

intersecting

street.”
The Staff Report, page 8, regarding the above listed site requirement #3, incorrectly states that: “ The closest

station

the

Chevron

station

Stony

Point

Rd.,

approximately

1.5 miles

the

east.

The

closest

station

Roseland

Gas

Sebastopol

Road,

approximately

2.3 miles

the

east.
”

The Staff Report has neglected to recognize that the closest station is the Blue Star Gas station at 880 N.

Wright

Road,

parcel

adjacent

the

proposed

project

site,

with

measurable

distance

separating

them.

The Staff Report refers to Blue Star Gas as simply a “propane manufacturer.” However, Blue Star Gas at 880

Wright

also

meets

Santa

Rosa’s

definition

gas

station.

As the Staff Report on page 7 notes: Before the City Council banned new gas stations, the Code defined a Service Station as: “ a retail business

selling

gasoline

and/or

other

motor

vehicle

fuels,

and

products
.”

…

Ordinance

No.

ORD-2022-010

(the

2022

ban)

amended

the

definition

“Gas

Station”

as:

“
a

retail

business

selling

gasoline

and/or

other

motor

vehicle

fuels

derived

from

fossil

fuels

(e.g.,

petroleum,

coal,

natural

gas),

and

products
.”

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

150

feet

the

U.S.

Highway

101

intersections

and

Freeway

12 intersections

measured

along

the

intersecting

street.
”

The

exception

cannot

applied

for

the

proposed

project.

The

proposed

gas

station

site

over

300

feet

from

the

intersection

Hwy/Freeway

12 measured

along

the

intersecting

street

that

North

Wright

Road
.

Construction of a gas station within 500 feet of another service station, such as the proposed development adjacent

the

existing

Blue

Star

Gas

station,

explicitly

prohibited

the

Santa

Rosa

Zoning

Code.

The

proposed

project

cannot

qualify

for

CUP

because

the

proposed

use

does

not

comply

with

the

applicable

provisions

the

Code.

The

Planning

Commission

must

deny

the

permit.

Regarding Condition 2, consistency with General Plan : The staff report states the project is consistent with

the

Retail

Business

Services

designation

the

General

Plan,

but

there

are

notable

inconsistencies

with

the

General

Plan,

for

example:

LUL-A: Foster a compact rather than a scattered development pattern in order to reduce travel, energy, land,

and

materials

consumption

while

promoting

greenhouse

gas

emission

reductions

citywide.

LUL-A-1: As part of plan implementation – including development review, capital improvements programming,

and

preparation

detailed

area

plans

–

foster

land

use/transportation

relationships

promote

use

alternative

transportation

modes

and

discourage

travel

automobile
.

LUL-I-2: Encourage region-serving, high volume retail outlets to locate near freeway access (generally within

one-half

mile

Highway

101)

minimize

traffic

city

streets.

not

allow

regional-serving

uses

residential

neighborhoods.

LUL-I-3: …ensure that neighborhood centers do not create unacceptable traffic or nuisances for residents due

the

hours

and

nature

their

operation,

and

are

designed

facilitate

walking

and

bicycling.

According to the Staff Report, p. 6, “The attractive building design and site design will enhance the visual quality

the

Highway

12 entry

into

the

City…”

However,

few

people

would

generally

regard

gas

station

scenic

enhancement.

The

General

Plan

mainly

highlights

trees

and

other

vegetation

scenic

enhancements,

e.g.:

UD-C-4: Work with CalTrans to beautify Highway 101 and Highway 12.

Encourage CalTrans to incorporate more landscaping, planting of trees, and soundwall mitigation into

any

improvements

planned

for

these

highways.

Lessen

the

impact

new

soundwalls

through

the

use

vegetation.

Specific

Highway

12 (west

Highway

101),

there

are

many

places

where

the

median

large

enough

safely

plant

trees

and

make

other

significant

landscaping

improvements

enhance

the

scenic

qualities

this

roadway.

UD-C-5: Work with the County of Sonoma to retain and improve the scenic qualities of Highway 101 and

Highway

12,

including

the

planting

trees

the

back

developments

and

along

the

edge

the

CalTrans

rights-of-way.

UD-C-7: Install planted medians on wide regional/arterial streets to make them more pedestrian friendly.

Regarding Condition 3, Proximity to existing and future uses: Since the neighboring parcel to the east is zoned

for

future

residential

development,

the

project

incompatible

with

future

land

use.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
13 Currently, users of the Joe Rodota Trail must proceed south on the sidewalk in front of the proposed project before

crossing

Wright

Road,

proceeding

west

Sebastopol

Road

for

two

blocks

before

the

trail

picks

back

again.

This

project

would

create

conflict

zone

for

cyclists

who

would

have

cross

the

driveways

into

the

gas

station.

Contrary

being

convenient

amenity

for

cyclists

the

Joe

Rodota

trail

claimed,

many

cyclists

feel

that

this

project

conflicts

with

their

interests

for

safe

and

pleasant

cycling

experience

the

Joe

Rodota

trail.

Regarding Condition 5, Public interest: A gasoline station at this location would in fact be detrimental to the

public

interest,

health,

welfare,

and

safety.

important

emphasize

that

the

rules

don't

require

threshold

level

significant

impact

that

may

found

CEQA

document

justify

denial

the

CUP.

The

rules

state

that

the

project

simply

cannot

nuisance

detrimental

the

public

interest

the

opinion

the

Commission.

The

Commission

required

deny

the

CUP

the

project

anticipated

any

one

the

harms

the

list

quoted

above.

That

basis

upon

which

the

Planning

Commission

must

deny

the

CUP.

There is ample evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of anthropogenic climate heating.
7 Gasoline

stations

facilitate

access

and

burning

fossil

fuels.

Expansion

fossil

fuel

infrastructure

prolongs

and

exacerbates

the

climate

crisis.

Therefore

necessary

for

public

interest,

health,

welfare,

and

safety

that

the

city

cease

permitting

new

fossil

fuel

infrastructure.

In addition to global climate pollution, gas stations, in their normal operation, emit hazardous toxic air contaminants

(several,

such

benzene,

with

safe

level

exposure),

contaminate

surface

water

runoff,

and

pose

hazards

contamination

soil

and

groundwater.

This

project

not

far

from

residences

and

sited

adjacent

the

Joe

Rodota

Trail,

trail

where

users

should

able

breathe

clean

air

while

they

walk

ride

their

bikes.

Sonoma

County

riddled

with

leaking

underground

storage

sites,

and

when

gas

stations

reach

the

end

their

functional

existence,

the

sites

often

become

expensive

liability

cleaned

up,

abandoned

toxic

sites

that

cannot

developed

for

other

uses.

This

clearly

contrary

the

public

interest.

For all these reasons, it is necessary for the public interest, health, safety, and welfare that the Commission reject

this

project.

Regarding Condition 6, Compliance with CEQA : As described above, the Addendum which relies upon the

outdated

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

should

replaced

full

Environmental

Impact

Report,

given

the

substantive

contextual

changes

that

have

taken

place

since

2013.

Other questions and inconsistencies
a. The staff report states that the application was deemed complete on Dec. 17, 2021; the addendum in Resolution

1 states

that

the

complete

application

date

was

August

10,

2022.

Which

correct?

b. Is the project classified as primarily serving local-serving retail (as per W-Trans VMT analysis, July 20, 2022;

Resolution

Addendum)

pass-by

traffic,

per

the

2013

Traffic

Impact

Study?

c. Why is an 806-square foot, one-bedroom apartment being classified as a multifamily dwelling, per staff report?

North

Wright

Road

project.

7 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/resources/climate-change-in-data/ (scroll to data point 7) Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
14 Public Notice Notifying the public about projects of this kind is required. None of the public noticing statements at the top of

page

13 in

the

Staff

Report

about

the

public

noticing

for

the

October

24 Public

Hearing

were

true.

noted

the

staff

report,

project

history,

neighborhood

meetings

and

notifications

property

owners

were

sent

advance

public

hearings

2007

and

2011.

The

rules

were

being

followed

then,

why

not

now?

There

has

been

neighborhood

meeting

about

this

project.

There

was

evidence

that

property

owners

had

been

alerted

about

the

pending

project

the

canceled

October

24 Planning

Commission.

For

projects

this

kind,

the

applicant

required

install

sign

the

perimeter.

Santa

Rosa

city

code

(§

20-66.020

Notice

hearing.)
8 states

that

“When

land

use

permit,

variance,

other

matter

required

State

law

this

Zoning

Code

have

public

hearing,

the

public

shall

(emphasis

added)

provided

notice

the

hearing

compliance

with

the

provisions

this

Chapter.”

“Method

notice

distribution”

outlines

requirements

for

mail,

newspaper

publication,

site

posting,

and

online

posting.

CONGAS

has

photographic

and

video

evidence

that

sign

had

been

posted

October

29,

2024.

We hope the correct procedures are being followed for the November 14 Public Hearing, but the lack of them

for

the

previously

scheduled

October

24 meeting,

despite

assurances

the

staff

report

that

the

requisite

procedures

had

been

followed,

does

nothing

inspire

confidence

this

process.

Conclusion Based on the finding that the project is within 500 feet of an existing gas station, which is prohibited by city code;

that

the

project

would

injurious

the

public

interest,

health,

safety

and

welfare;

that

public

notice

about

the

project

and

the

Hearing

did

not

occur

accordance

with

city

code;

that

significant

new

information

has

become

known

since

2013;

and

that

substantial

inconsistencies

exist

conflict

with

both

the

General

Plan

and

the

criteria

for

CUP

approval,

CONGAS

respectfully

requests

that

the

with

new

plan

that

eliminates

the

gasoline

pumps

from

the

project

and

that

includes

compliance

with

public

noticing

requirements.

Respectfully, on behalf of CONGAS, its 1000+ supporters in Sonoma County, and the co-signing organizations

below,

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
17 October25,2024SantaRosaPlanningCommissionCityHall,100SantaRosaAve, SantaRosa,CA,95404Viaemail:[email protected] Subject:874NorthWrightRoadGasStation(File#PRJ21-033)
HonorableCommissioners:TheCoalitionOpposedtoNewGasStations(CONGAS)respectfullyassertsthatperzoningandConditionalUsePermit(CUP)rules,theCommissionmustdenytheCUPfortheproposedgasolinestationat874NorthWrightRoad.Thereasonsrelatetothegasolinefuelingcomponentoftheapplication.IntheStaff Report,page7,itiscorrectlystatedthattheproposedgasstationrequiresaCUPandisrequiredtocomplywiththesiterequirementsofCode§20-42.150whichare:1.Siteareaanddimensions.Thesiteshallhaveaminimumareaof15,000squarefeet,atleast100feetoffrontageonanarterialstreet,aminimumwidthof150feet,andaminimumdepthof100feet.2.Proximitytoresidential.ThesiteshallnotadjoinanexistingR-1,R-2orR-3zoningdistrictorsingle-familyortwo-familyresidentialuseatthetimetheservicestationuseisestablished,exceptanonconformingsingle-familyortwo-familyresidentialuse,orasingle-familyortwo-familyresidentialuseinacommercialzone.3.Distancebetweenservicestationsites.Aproposedservicestationsiteshallbeaminimumof500feetfromanyotherservicestationsite,withthefollowingexceptions:a)Servicestationsiteswithin150feetoftheU.S.Highway101intersectionsandFreeway12intersectionsmeasuredalongtheintersectingstreet.”IntheStaff Report,page8,regardingtheabovelistedsiterequirement#3,itisincorrectlystatedthat:
“ThecloseststationistheChevronstationonStonyPointRd.,approximately1.5milestotheeast.ThenextcloseststationisRoselandGasonSebastopolRoad,approximately2.3milestotheeast.”TheStaff ReporthasneglectedtorecognizethatthecloseststationistheBlueStarGasstationat880N.WrightRoad,whichisaparceladjacenttotheproposedprojectsite,approximatelyzerofeettothesouth.TheStaff ReportreferstoBlueStarGasassimplya“propanemanufacturer.”However,BlueStarGasat880N.WrightRdalsomeetsthedefinitionofbeingaServiceStationorGasStation. 1 AstheStaff Reportonpage7notes:BeforetheCityCouncilbannednewgasstations,theCodedefinedaServiceStationas:“aretailbusinesssellinggasolineand/orothermotorvehiclefuels,andrelatedproducts.”…OrdinanceNo.ORD-2022-010amendedthedefinitionof“GasStation”as:“aretailbusinesssellinggasolineand/orothermotorvehiclefuelsderivedfromfossilfuels(e.g.,petroleum,coal,naturalgas),andrelatedproducts.”BlueStarGasat880N.WrightRdisaretailbusinesssellingamotorvehiclefuelderivedfromfossilfuels,apropanefuelthatBlueStarGascalls“Autogas.”HereisaphotooftheBlueStarGaspropanefuelingstationformotorvehicles.

Sincerely,
WoodyHastingsandJennyBlakerCo-coordinators,CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations cc:ConorMcKay, SeniorPlanner, [email protected]
4 October25,2024SantaRosaPlanningCommissionCityHall,100SantaRosaAve, SantaRosa,CA,95404Viaemail:[email protected] Subject:874NorthWrightRoadGasStation(File#PRJ21-033)
HonorableCommissioners:TheCoalitionOpposedtoNewGasStations(CONGAS)respectfullyassertsthatperzoningandConditionalUsePermit(CUP)rules,theCommissionmustdenytheCUPfortheproposedgasolinestationat874NorthWrightRoad.Thereasonsrelatetothegasolinefuelingcomponentoftheapplication.IntheStaff Report,page7,itiscorrectlystatedthattheproposedgasstationrequiresaCUPandisrequiredtocomplywiththesiterequirementsofCode§20-42.150whichare:1.Siteareaanddimensions.Thesiteshallhaveaminimumareaof15,000squarefeet,atleast100feetoffrontageonanarterialstreet,aminimumwidthof150feet,andaminimumdepthof100feet.2.Proximitytoresidential.ThesiteshallnotadjoinanexistingR-1,R-2orR-3zoningdistrictorsingle-familyortwo-familyresidentialuseatthetimetheservicestationuseisestablished,exceptanonconformingsingle-familyortwo-familyresidentialuse,orasingle-familyortwo-familyresidentialuseinacommercialzone.3.Distancebetweenservicestationsites.Aproposedservicestationsiteshallbeaminimumof500feetfromanyotherservicestationsite,withthefollowingexceptions:a)Servicestationsiteswithin150feetoftheU.S.Highway101intersectionsandFreeway12intersectionsmeasuredalongtheintersectingstreet.”IntheStaff Report,page8,regardingtheabovelistedsiterequirement#3,itisincorrectlystatedthat:
“ThecloseststationistheChevronstationonStonyPointRd.,approximately1.5milestotheeast.ThenextcloseststationisRoselandGasonSebastopolRoad,approximately2.3milestotheeast.”TheStaff ReporthasneglectedtorecognizethatthecloseststationistheBlueStarGasstationat880N.WrightRoad,whichisaparceladjacenttotheproposedprojectsite,approximatelyzerofeettothesouth.TheStaff ReportreferstoBlueStarGasassimplya“propanemanufacturer.”However,BlueStarGasat880N.WrightRdalsomeetsthedefinitionofbeingaServiceStationorGasStation. 1 AstheStaff Reportonpage7notes:BeforetheCityCouncilbannednewgasstations,theCodedefinedaServiceStationas:“aretailbusinesssellinggasolineand/orothermotorvehiclefuels,andrelatedproducts.”…OrdinanceNo.ORD-2022-010amendedthedefinitionof“GasStation”as:“aretailbusinesssellinggasolineand/orothermotorvehiclefuelsderivedfromfossilfuels(e.g.,petroleum,coal,naturalgas),andrelatedproducts.”BlueStarGasat880N.WrightRdisaretailbusinesssellingamotorvehiclefuelderivedfromfossilfuels,apropanefuelthatBlueStarGascalls“Autogas.”HereisaphotooftheBlueStarGaspropanefuelingstationformotorvehicles.

Sincerely,
WoodyHastingsandJennyBlakerCo-coordinators,CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations cc:ConorMcKay,SeniorPlanner, [email protected]
4 Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] No New Gas Station!
FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 3:08 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon! -----Original Message-----
From: James Freed <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 3:04 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] No New Gas Station!
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I’m writing in opposition to the new gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road (intersection of Highway 12 and Fulton/Wright Rd.) in Santa Rosa. The last thing Sonoma County needs now is new fossil fuel infrastructure. We should be preparing for the electrification of major modes of transportation, not bending to the will of the fossil fuel industry. Please refrain from granting your permission to this backward looking and unnecessary blight on the urban landscape.

Sincerely,
James Freed
Sebastopol, CA
From: Woody Hastings
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CONGAS Comment on the the gas station proposal at 874 N. Wright Rd. - Planning Commission meeting item 11.1 4/10/25
Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 4:34:56 PM
Attachments: CONGAS Coalition Letter to SR Planning Commission 4-9-25.pdf Dear Commissioners,
Please see attached a letter from the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS), with the November 8, 2024 letter from CONGAS included.

Please let us know if you have any difficulty opening the attachment or any questions.

Thank you for your consideration.
-Woody Hastings
On behalf of CONGAS
310-968-2757
Outlook
[EXTERNAL]
Correct attachment Re: CONGAS Comments - 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (Item 11.1, Nov. 14, 2024)
FromWoody Hastings <[email protected]>
DateFri 11/8/2024 4:52 PM
T o_PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> CcPlanning Shared <[email protected]>; Weeks, Karen <[email protected]>; Duggan, Vicki <[email protected]>; Carter, Charles <[email protected]>; Cisco, Patti <[email protected]>; Sanders, Terrence <[email protected]>; Peterson, Julian <[email protected]>; Pardo, Aaron <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Jones, Jessica <[email protected]> 1 attachment (2 MB)
Coalition Letter to SR Planning Commission 11-8-24.pdf; My Apologies -- I attached the wrong comment letter in the email to you earlier today. The correct letter is attached.

Thank you,
-Woody
On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 12:58 PM Woody Hastings <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Commissioners:

Please see attached comments from the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS) regarding agenda item 11.1 on your November 14 agenda "PUBLIC HEARING - ELM TREE STATION EIR PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED BY PC - PLANNING PROJECT - 874 N WRIGHT RD - PRJ21-033."
We had been planning to attend the public hearing on Oct. 24 which was continued to November 14. Now we have received confirmation that the November 14 hearing has also been "continued to a date uncertain."
In the course of preparing for the hearings, we have worked with organizations and individuals in the community to produce the attached letter that outlines our concerns about this project. As you will see, we have significant concerns regarding the appropriateness of moving forward with merely an addendum for a 2013 MND, inconsistency with standing Santa Rosa policies, inconsistency with Santa Rosa's General Plan, inconsistency with land use zoning rules, incompatibility with requirements for a Conditional Use Permit, and more, that should compel the Commission to deny the addended MND and the CUP.

We respectfully request confirmation of receipt of the letter and confirmation that the letter will be preserved on the record for case file # PRJ21-033.

Please let us know if you have any difficulty opening the attachment and/or if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Woody Hastings and Jenny Blaker,
Co-coordinators, Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations
Outlook
[EXTERNAL] CONGAS Comments - 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal (Item 11.1, Nov. 14, 2024)
FromWoody Hastings <[email protected]>
DateFri 11/8/2024 12:59 PM
T o_PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> CcPlanning Shared <[email protected]>; Weeks, Karen <[email protected]>; Duggan, Vicki <[email protected]>; Carter, Charles <[email protected]>; Cisco, Patti <[email protected]>; Sanders, Terrence <[email protected]>; Peterson, Julian <[email protected]>; Pardo, Aaron <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Jones, Jessica <[email protected]> 1 attachment (3 MB)
CONGAS Letter to Planning Commission - 874 N Wright Rd 10.25.2024.pdf; Dear Commissioners:

We respectfully request confirmation of receipt of the letter and confirmation that the letter will be preserved on the record for case file # PRJ21-033.

Please let us know if you have any difficulty opening the attachment and/or if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Woody Hastings and Jenny Blaker,
Co-coordinators, Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations
Outlook
Re: [EXTERNAL] Question on the Elm Tree Gas Station Project, It will sell liquor? FromMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
DateThu 4/10/2025 12:42 PM
T oMichael Hilber <[email protected]>
Hello Michael,
The project being presented to the Commission today does not include the sale of any alcohol or tobacco products.

If the applicant changed their mind and wanted to include this in their proposal, they would need to secure addi�onal permits/approvals from the City. For alcohol sales, they would need to modify their Major Condi�onal Use Permit which would undergo further review by staﬀ and be subject to Planning Commission review. We have just adopted a new tobacco licensing requirement for which the applicant would be subject to if they changed their mind. For more informa�on on that new program, please see: h�ps:// www.srcity.org/4116/Tobacco-Retail-License
The City does not regulate the sale of lo�ery �ckets.

Please let me know if you have any further ques�ons.

Thank you,
Conor McKay (he/his) | Senior Planner
Planning & Economic Development | 100 Santa Rosa Avenue | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 [email protected]
(707) 543-4351
Coming soon in 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transi�on to an online applica�on submi�al process through the Accela Ci�zen Access pla�orm. Learn more about the Online Permi�ng System here, and more informa�on will be coming soon! From: Michael Hilber <okie.ﬂ[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 12:23 PM
To: McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ques�on on the Elm Tree Gas Sta�on Project, It will sell liquor? I did not see this anywhere in any of the info I read. So I assume this retail establishment will be selling the usual cigarettes, liquor and Lottery tickets.

Given the number of drug using transients in the area this is not a good idea.

If it were just selling food items it would be different.

Michael Hilber
4480 Price Ave, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 which is just off south Wright Road.

Outlook
Re: [EXTERNAL] Question on the Elm Tree Gas Station Project, It will sell liquor? FromMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
DateThu 4/10/2025 12:42 PM
T oMichael Hilber <[email protected]>
Hello Michael,
The project being presented to the Commission today does not include the sale of any alcohol or tobacco products.

Please let me know if you have any further ques�ons.

Given the number of drug using transients in the area this is not a good idea.

If it were just selling food items it would be different.

Michael Hilber
, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 which is just off south Wright Road.

Outlook
Fw: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Elm Street Station
FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateMon 10/28/2024 5:32 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Murray, Susie <[email protected]> 1 attachment (160 KB)
To members of the Planning Commission.pdf;
Jessica Jones|Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] From: Pierce Hollis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 4:11:00 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Elm Street Sta�on
Hello,
I was disappointed to arrive at this meeting and find it canceled. I've now signed up for notifications and hope they'll arrive in time for me to check if meetings will be occurring.

I sent the information included below to CT McKay (?) but want to be sure it is included for consideration regarding Elm Tree Station, so I'm sending it to this email address as well.

Thank you,
Holly Pierce
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 4:12 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon! -----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Kenyon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 4:06 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road I'm writing to let the Planning Commission know I'm opposed to the gas station proposed for 874 North Wright Road.

Thanks,
Lucy Kenyon
From: Wendy Krupnick
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: Planning Shared
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to new gas station, 874 N. Wright Road, Santa Rosa Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:32:53 AM
Attachments: image.png
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners,
I live on Occidental Rd. 1.5 miles west of Fulton Rd. and am strongly opposed to the proposed gas station and convenience store at 874 North Wright Rd. I ask you to deny the Conditional Use Permit as there would be zero benefit to the community and a long list of negative results that would come from this development.

As you know, the City and most jurisdictions in the county have rightly enacted prohibitions on new gas stations for very good reasons. These reasons pertain to this proposal as well. As the climate crisis has rapidly intensified in recent years, there is ample evidence that a decision that was made in 2013 may not be relevant now, and conditions certainly have changed. There is no need for another gas station at a time when we desperately need to reduce fossil fuel emissions and pollution from all aspects of the oil industry.

We also do not need another convenience store in this location. There are two convenience stores within a mile, and two grocery stores, two liquor stores and two drug stores within three miles.

What we do need is protection for and enhancement of wetlands such as this. As we have seen in recent years, rainfall now often comes in intense downpours and increased flood mitigation is a critical need. Wetlands also filter storm water and slowly release it to groundwater.

I urge you to quickly deny this permit and urge the landowner to find support for wetland protections..

Thank you for considering my views,
Wendy Krupnick

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Gas Station
FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateFri 4/4/2025 1:57 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform.

Sincerely,
Marla Charbonneau
[email protected]

From: Holly J Pierce
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 10 Meeting re: Elm Tree Station Date: Sunday, April 6, 2025 5:09:14 PM
To the Planning Commission,
I would like to present these photos that might help you in your decision regarding approval of the Elm Tree Station project. My feeling is that the station should not be built, and these pictures say why.

A city code states that gas stations cannot be built next to each other. I know there is some question as to whether the facility at Blue Star Gas rates as a fueling station. The photo below shows the pumping station at Blue Gas, which can be seen clearly from the street. Note the similarity in its configuration to your local service station.

Now note this shot from the side. You can clearly read “Alliance AutoGas.” And there, small but legible, are the words, “Propane Vehicle Fuel.” It is clear that these pumps equal a fueling station, regardless of how someone may want to say otherwise.

If you haven’t visited the site, I’m including for you two photos of the large, above-ground tanks at this facility. For those who might question people’s concerns about air pollution, let me say that the unpleasant odor of propane was obvious.

I’d like to turn to the question of wetlands and groundwater pollution. Here is a photo showing the accumulation of water in one area on the site.

Now I’m including a visual showing the US Army Corps of Engineers’ map that outlines the area determined as wetland, and over it the Elm Tree Station schematic. What I find especially disturbing is how one of the fuel tanks is submerged within the officially designated wetland area. It’s a known fact that these tanks, no matter how constructed, often eventually leak. It should be noted that some nearby residents use well water. I feel the possibility of these wells being polluted outweighs the desirability of a new, unneeded gas station.

When I went to take these pictures this afternoon, I was surprised to see that the city’s sign announcing the hearing for this project had been torn down. The question is: who would do this, and why? Certainly not someone opposed to this plan.

Thank you and sincerely,
Holly J. Pierce
[email protected]

From: Anne Pernick at Stand.earth
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station (File # PRJ21-033): Letter from SAFE Cities at Stand.earth urging denial
Date: Monday, April 7, 2025 2:59:21 PM
Attachments: SAFE Cities at Stand.earth letter urging denail of 874 North Wright Road Gas Station.pdf Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners,
Please find attached SAFE Cities at Stand's letter urging denial of the 874 North Wright Road Gas Station (File # PRJ21-033).

Thank you,
Anne
--
Anne Pernick | She / Her
SAFE Cities Senior Advisor
of O: +1 415-863-4563 ext 410
I respectfully acknowledge that I live and work on the traditional land of the Walla Walla, Cayuse, Umatilla, Clackamas, Stl’pulmsh (Cowlitz), Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde First Nations.

Santa Rosa Planning Commission City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404 Via email: [email protected] April 7, 2025
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

SAFE Cities at Stand.earth works with local government leaders and advocates to pass policies that

help

transition

communities

clean,

renewable

energy,

including

policies

prohibit

new

gas

stations.

urge

you

reject

the

Addendum

the

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

(MND)

and

deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

(CUP)

for

the

development

gas

station

with

extended

hours

operation,

two

general

retail

land

uses

across

two

buildings,

one

apartment

and

small

park

874

Wright

Road.

We applaud the vision and action of the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and cities across

Sonoma

County

prohibiting

new

gas

stations.

We understand that the permit for this project was deemed complete before the City’s ordinance was

adopted,

but

that

does

not

mean

the

Planning

Commission

must

should

approve

it.

There

need

for

another

gasoline

station

the

City.

Within

five-mile

radius

this

proposed

project

there

are

than

10 gas

stations

operation.

near

the

City

Santa

Rosa

there

are

40. The Commission should deny the permit on the same grounds on which the Commission and Santa

Rosa

City

Council

based

the

citywide

prohibition

new

gas

stations.

SAFE Cities at Stand.earth urges the Planning Commission to reject the addendum and to deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit.

Thank you for your attention,
Anne

Pernick

SAFE

Cities

Senior

Advisor,

Stand.earth

From: Wendy Krupnick
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: Planning Shared
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to new gas station, 874 N. Wright Road, Santa Rosa Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 8:32:53 AM
Attachments: image.png
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners,
I live on Occidental Rd. 1.5 miles west of Fulton Rd. and am strongly opposed to the proposed gas station and convenience store at 874 North Wright Rd. I ask you to deny the Conditional Use Permit as there would be zero benefit to the community and a long list of negative results that would come from this development.

We also do not need another convenience store in this location. There are two convenience stores within a mile, and two grocery stores, two liquor stores and two drug stores within three miles.

I urge you to quickly deny this permit and urge the landowner to find support for wetland protections..

Thank you for considering my views,
Wendy Krupnick

From: info bikepartners.net
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe; Stapp, Mark; Rogers, Natalie; Pardo, Aaron Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas Station Proposal at 874 N Wright Rd - Letter of OPPOSITION from Bicycling Community Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:11:47 AM
Attachments: Outlook-qqv3pw5d.png
Letter from bicycling community to SR Planning Commission re 874NWR.pdf Subject: Gas Station Proposal at 874 N Wright Rd - Letter of OPPOSITION from Bicycling Community
Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners,
On behalf of hundreds if not thousands of cycling enthusiasts in Sonoma County, I submit this letter of opposition to the gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa, signed by key Sonoma County-based bicycling advocacy organizations. Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing the letter and/or if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
Geoffrey Smith
Attachment:

Letter from bicycling community to SR Planning Commission re 874NWR Geoffrey D. Smith, Owner
BikePartners Folding Bikes and Recumbent Trikes
BikePartners.net
| 707.595.0386 text/voicemail | [email protected]
A Santa Rosa, CA -based mobile shop
Open by appointment Schedule an appointment

Santa Rosa Planning Commission
100

Santa

Rosa

Avenue

Santa

Rosa,

95404
Via Email: [email protected]
April 8, 2025
Subject: 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal – Adjacent to the Joe Rodota Trail –

OPPOSE

–

Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the undersigned leaders and members of Santa Rosa’s bicycling community, write to express

our

strong

opposition

the

proposed

gas

station

adjacent

the

Joe

Rodota

Trail

874

North

Wright

Road.

It is our understanding that the developer believes that bicyclists will like having a gas station along

the

trail

place

stop,

rest,

and

maybe

grab

snack.

write

make

clear

that

not

want

gas

station

anywhere

near

the

trail
,

regardless

the

amenities

might

provide.

The Joe Rodota Trail is a treasured multi-use trail that is an essential corridor for cyclists, pedestrians,

and

outdoor

enthusiasts

who

rely

for

recreation,

commuting,

and

safe,

car-free

environment.

The

addition

new

gas

station

this

location

threatens

the

integrity,

safety,

and

environmental

quality

the

trail

and

contradicts

the

city’s

commitment

sustainability

and

active

transportation.

The Joe Rodota Trail serves as a vital connection for cyclists traveling between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol,

reducing

vehicle

congestion

and

promoting

alternative

zero-emission

means

transportation.

gas

station

this

location

would

increase

traffic

hazards

with

cars

frequently

turning

and

out

the

station,

creating

dangerous

interactions

between

vehicles

and

vulnerable

trail

users.

This

not

only

endangers

bicyclists

but

also

discourages

active

transportation,

counteracting

efforts

reduce

greenhouse

gas

emissions

and

improve

air

quality.

Additionally, gas stations pose environmental risks, including potential fuel spills, increased air pollution,

and

groundwater

contamination.

The

placement

such

facility

community-focused

trail

undermines

efforts

promote

clean,

healthful

outdoor

spaces.

climate

concerns

become

urgent,

our

city

should

prioritizing

investments

sustainable

infrastructure,

such

bicycle

lanes

and

public

transit,

rather

than

expanding

fossil

fuel

infrastructure.

Santa Rosa has made strides in fostering a bicycle-friendly community, and approving this gas station

would

step

backward.

urge

you

reject

this

proposal

and

instead

consider

developments

that

align

with

the

city’s

climate

goals

and

support

the

well-being

all

residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We appreciate your commitment to making Santa Rosa

safer,

healthier,

and

sustainable

place

for

all.

cc: ● Conor McKay, Senior Planner ● Gabe Osburn, Director of Planning & Economic Development ● Mark Stapp, Mayor, City of Santa Rosa, ● Natalie Rogers, Councilmember, District 7 ● Aaron Pardo, Planning Commissioner, District 7 From: Eris Weaver
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment: Agenda item 11.1: OPPOSE Conditional Use Permit Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:57:27 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Commissioners:

On behalf of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, I’m adding our voices to the groundswell of opposition to the proposed gas station on Wright Road.

As other commenters have already stated,
The City has already passed a ban on new gas stations.

The City has declared a Climate Emergency and enacted a Climate Plan.

The City and the State are moving away from fossil fuels toward more sustainable transportation options.

That intersection is already problematic for cyclists, and adding more vehicles entering and exiting the station right will only make Wright Road more dangerous. Even with the path being re-routed around the development and away from the driveway, JRT users will still have to travel on the sidewalk and cross Wright Road.

I don’t doubt that a market would be useful for neighborhood residents, but I find the applicant’s claim that the attached small park will become “a destination for cyclists” somewhat specious. Who goes out of their way to visit a park next to a gas station?
I urge you to vote no on this proposal.

Eris Weaver, Executive Director
Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
[email protected]
707-545-0153 office • 707-338-8589 cell
www.bikesonoma.org

Book time to meet with me
Find out how to
WIN THIS EBIKE!

On behalf of the CONGAS, I am providing a link to the set of scans of all petitions.

Respectfully submitted,
Marla Charbonneau

Wright Rd. For information contact
[email protected] 707-238-2298 www.con-gas....
docs.google.com

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Gas Station
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Fri 4/4/2025 1:57 PM
T o McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 T
el. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform.

Thanks very much!
Eileen Bill

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] gas station proposal
FromMurray, Susie <[email protected]>
DateFri 4/4/2025 12:42 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
FYI
Worth noting:
• My regular working hours are Tuesday through Friday, 8:30 to 5:00 • Starting March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon!
Susie Murray |Supervising Planner |Staff Liaison to the Design Review Board Planning and Economic Development |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-4348 | Fax (707) 543-3269 | [email protected] From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 12:33 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] gas sta�on proposal
4-4-25
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

Sincerely,
Marla Charbonneau
[email protected]

I’d like to turn to the question of wetlands and groundwater pollution. Here is a photo showing the accumulation of water in one area on the site.

Thank you and sincerely,
Holly J. Pierce
[email protected]

Santa Rosa Planning Commission City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404 Via email: [email protected] April 7, 2025
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

SAFE Cities at Stand.earth works with local government leaders and advocates to pass policies that

help

transition

communities

clean,

renewable

energy,

including

policies

prohibit

new

gas

stations.

urge

you

reject

the

Addendum

the

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

(MND)

and

deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

(CUP)

for

the

development

gas

station

with

extended

hours

operation,

two

general

retail

land

uses

across

two

buildings,

one

apartment

and

small

park

874

Wright

Road.

We applaud the vision and action of the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and cities across

Sonoma

County

prohibiting

new

gas

stations.

We understand that the permit for this project was deemed complete before the City’s ordinance was

adopted,

but

that

does

not

mean

the

Planning

Commission

must

should

approve

it.

There

need

for

another

gasoline

station

the

City.

Within

five-mile

radius

this

proposed

project

there

are

than

10 gas

stations

operation.

near

the

City

Santa

Rosa

there

are

40. The Commission should deny the permit on the same grounds on which the Commission and Santa

Rosa

City

Council

based

the

citywide

prohibition

new

gas

stations.

SAFE Cities at Stand.earth urges the Planning Commission to reject the addendum and to deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit.

Thank you for your attention,
Anne

Pernick

SAFE

Cities

Senior

Advisor,

Stand.earth

We also do not need another convenience store in this location. There are two convenience stores within a mile, and two grocery stores, two liquor stores and two drug stores within three miles.

I urge you to quickly deny this permit and urge the landowner to find support for wetland protections..

Thank you for considering my views,
Wendy Krupnick

Respectfully,
Geoffrey Smith
Attachment:

Santa Rosa Planning Commission
100

Santa

Rosa

Avenue

Santa

Rosa,

95404
Via Email: [email protected]
April 8, 2025
Subject: 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal – Adjacent to the Joe Rodota Trail –

OPPOSE

–

Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the undersigned leaders and members of Santa Rosa’s bicycling community, write to express

our

strong

opposition

the

proposed

gas

station

adjacent

the

Joe

Rodota

Trail

874

North

Wright

Road.

It is our understanding that the developer believes that bicyclists will like having a gas station along

the

trail

place

stop,

rest,

and

maybe

grab

snack.

write

make

clear

that

not

want

gas

station

anywhere

near

the

trail
,

regardless

the

amenities

might

provide.

The Joe Rodota Trail is a treasured multi-use trail that is an essential corridor for cyclists, pedestrians,

and

outdoor

enthusiasts

who

rely

for

recreation,

commuting,

and

safe,

car-free

environment.

The

addition

new

gas

station

this

location

threatens

the

integrity,

safety,

and

environmental

quality

the

trail

and

contradicts

the

city’s

commitment

sustainability

and

active

transportation.

The Joe Rodota Trail serves as a vital connection for cyclists traveling between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol,

reducing

vehicle

congestion

and

promoting

alternative

zero-emission

means

transportation.

gas

station

this

location

would

increase

traffic

hazards

with

cars

frequently

turning

and

out

the

station,

creating

dangerous

interactions

between

vehicles

and

vulnerable

trail

users.

This

not

only

endangers

bicyclists

but

also

discourages

active

transportation,

counteracting

efforts

reduce

greenhouse

gas

emissions

and

improve

air

quality.

Additionally, gas stations pose environmental risks, including potential fuel spills, increased air pollution,

and

groundwater

contamination.

The

placement

such

facility

community-focused

trail

undermines

efforts

promote

clean,

healthful

outdoor

spaces.

climate

concerns

become

urgent,

our

city

should

prioritizing

investments

sustainable

infrastructure,

such

bicycle

lanes

and

public

transit,

rather

than

expanding

fossil

fuel

infrastructure.

Santa Rosa has made strides in fostering a bicycle-friendly community, and approving this gas station

would

step

backward.

urge

you

reject

this

proposal

and

instead

consider

developments

that

align

with

the

city’s

climate

goals

and

support

the

well-being

all

residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We appreciate your commitment to making Santa Rosa

safer,

healthier,

and

sustainable

place

for

all.

On behalf of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, I’m adding our voices to the groundswell of opposition to the proposed gas station on Wright Road.

As other commenters have already stated,
The City has already passed a ban on new gas stations.

The City has declared a Climate Emergency and enacted a Climate Plan.

The City and the State are moving away from fossil fuels toward more sustainable transportation options.

Eris Weaver, Executive Director
Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
[email protected]
707-545-0153 office • 707-338-8589 cell
www.bikesonoma.org

Book time to meet with me
Find out how to
WIN THIS EBIKE!

On behalf of the CONGAS, I am providing a link to the set of scans of all petitions.

Respectfully submitted,
Marla Charbonneau

Wright Rd. For information contact
[email protected] 707-238-2298 www.con-gas....
docs.google.com

From: Brent Anderson
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Gas Station
Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 6:28:27 PM
Santa Rosa City Planning Commission,

Sincerely,

Brent E Anderson
Windsor

From: Jan Armenta
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No Gas Station at Wright Road.

Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 5:30:21 PM
Please do not approve the gas station. We don’t need a gas station at this location!! Thank you,
Jan Armenta
Sent from my iPhone
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] No New Gas Station!
From Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>
Date Wed 4/9/2025 3:08 PM
T o McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon! -----Original Message-----
From: James Freed <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 3:04 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] No New Gas Station!
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I’m writing in opposition to the new gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road (intersection of Highway 12 and Fulton/Wright Rd.) in Santa Rosa. The last thing Sonoma County needs now is new fossil fuel infrastructure. We should be preparing for the electrification of major modes of transportation, not bending to the will of the fossil fuel industry. Please refrain from granting your permission to this backward looking and unnecessary blight on the urban landscape.

Sincerely,
James Freed
Sebastopol, CA
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 4:12 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon! -----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Kenyon <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 4:06 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road I'm writing to let the Planning Commission know I'm opposed to the gas station proposed for 874 North Wright Road.

Thanks,
Lucy Kenyon
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] 4-9-25 Please no more gas stations here
FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 2:49 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform.

Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon!
From: Janet Lorraine Paul <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 2:49 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] 4-9-25 Please no more gas sta�ons here 4-9-25 Please no more gas stations here. Not needed. Not wanted. --
Janet Lorraine Paul
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] No new gas stations
FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 4:11 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones | Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon! -----Original Message-----
From: Amy Lyman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 3:10 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] No new gas stations
Dear Planning Commissioners,
With all of the chaos occurring in the country right now with the proposed or actual rollback of environmental protections, and the proposed increased use of coal and gas requiring mining and drilling that will add significantly to the environmental damage facing our world, we need to stand strong and protect the earth, our state and our communities.

We do NOT need a gas station at 874 N. Wright Rd. There are already 10 gas stations within a 5 mile radius. We need to keep moving forward with environmental protections and with the highest consideration for the health of community members, especially the elderly, young children and those with health issues affected by air pollution and toxic materials.

Please vote NO on the proposed gas station on N. Wright Rd.

Thank you
Amy Lyman
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] NO NEW GAS STATION @ 874 N. Wright Road! FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 3:08 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform.

Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon!
From: Wendy Mills�ne <wendyoma�[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 2:49 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO NEW GAS STATION @ 874 N. Wright Road! Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commission,
I’m a resident and homeowner at Sequoia Gardens Mobile Home Park on Fulton Road in Santa Rosa. I’m writing to express my strong opposition to any New Gas Stations in Sonoma County ever. And here’s why:
• Extensive scientific research shows that toxic pollution threatens public health and safety
• The location is a greenfield with seasonal wetlands
• The site is adjacent to a propane vehicle fueling station • It is against city rules to build two fueling stations within 500 feet of each other • It's not needed: there are already 10 gas stations in a 5-mile radius • There will be increased traffic congestion, noise, idling cars adjacent to the Joe Rodota Trail
• Will worsen the climate crisis as wildfire, drought, flood and other extreme weather events buffet our community.

Please support the permanent banning of new gas stations in Sonoma County. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Wendy Millstine
Santa Rosa, CA

Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to oppose the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road. I’m very concerned about the risk of toxic pollution next to environmentally sensitive Laguna.

According to an analysis by Projection Hub , the annual average revenue for a sole proprietorship gas station was over $1.3 million based on tax return data. Their analysis also found that net profit margins on fuel sales are generally only about 1%.

Meanwhile, The Hustle reports that convenience store sales only account for about 30% of a gas station's revenue, but often account for 70% of total profits.

Maybe what is needed is a convenience store at this location. Just don’t allow this gas station which is next to another fueling station which is not allowed under the zoning regulations.

Gas Station is Not Needed
There are already enough gas stations near the proposed project. According to information reported on CityClimateDashboard.org compiled from publicly accessible data sources, the following trends are showing:

Gasoline salesin Santa Rosa aredecliningfrom a high in 2016. 1 While thenumber of gas stations is going upin Sonoma County One of the main markets for gas from this station would be vehicles registered in the 95472 zip code. But the 95472 zip code has the highest percent of electric cars in the county. Over the last two years alone over 2,000 new plug in vehicles were sold each year in the 9572 zip code. 95472 Zip Code
The planning commission should not subject the citizens to the environmental risk of this new gas station when it is clearly not needed now and especially into the future.

Thank You,
Steven Pierce
Sebastopol
2 From: Jeff Rooney
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 N. Wright Rd. - Rally and News Conference - March 25 Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 8:05:53 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
Dear Commissioners:

My name is Jeff Rooney, I live in Santa Rosa, not far from 874 North Wright Road, where there is a plan afoot to build a new gas station. On Tuesday, March 25th, I attended a rally and news conference about this project, which I oppose. I have previously sent letters to you regarding this project. The event took place at the proposed site - 874 N.Wright Rd.

It occurred to me that you may not be aware that the rally and news conference took place, so I'm emailing to share some of the results with you.

There were about 35 people in attendance
Several nearby residents attended, including myself, concerned about health impacts, water well contamination risk, traffic issues, and more About 12 people came on their bicycles. The bicycling community is strongly opposed to the project due to the proximity to the Joe Rodota Trail Media. Two media outlets came for the news conference: KBBF FM 89.1 (Radio Bilingue) and KRCB FM 104.9, the NPR affiliate in Sonoma County. Here is the link to the KRCB coverage.

For the news conference we had representatives from the surrounding neighborhood, healthcare professionals, bicycling advocates, and CONGAS reps. All the speakers did a great job of representing their constituencies. Watch the video or click on it in the photo/video album.

Here are two photos, below, one facing Highway 12, one facing the wetland at 874 N. Wright Rd.

Photo credit: Karen Preuss
Photo credit: Karen Preuss
I hope you found this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions about the rally and news conference on March 25.

Sincerely,
Jeff Rooney
Santa Rosa
Outlook
[EXTERNAL] Gas Station Proposal at 874 N Wright Rd - Letter of OPPOSITION from Sonoma County Healthcare Professionals
FromBarbara Sattler <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 12:02 PM
T o_PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> CcMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Pardo, Aaron <[email protected]> 2 attachments (285 KB)
Health Risk Lit. post 2022 - gas stations.pdf; Healthcare Professionals Letter - SR Planning Commission.pdf; Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners,
On behalf of the undersigned healthcare professionals based in Sonoma County, I submit this letter of opposition (See Attachment) to the gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing the letter and/or if you have any questions. Thank you.

the

fuel

stations

was

about

5.5 times

the

standard

limit.

Ahmad Allahabady1 ID , Zabihollah Yousefi2 ID , Reza Ali Mohammadpour Tahamtan3 ID , Zohre

Payandeh

Sharif.

Measurement

BTEX

(benzene,

toluene,

ethylbenzene

and

xylene)

concentration

gas

stations

Ahmad

Allahabady1

Zabihollah

Yousefi2*

Reza

Ali

Mohammadpour

Tahamtan3

Zohre

Payandeh

Sharif
2) Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) showed the highest concentrations

ranging

from

2 to

15 μ
g/m
3 ,

ten

times

higher

than

those

the

community

air. Jia, C., Fu, X., Chauhan, B. et al. Exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at gas stations:

probabilistic

analysis.

Air

Qual

Atmos

Health

15 ,

465–477

(2022).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-021-01124-5 3) The health of gas station workers is affected by exposure to BTEX and gasoline vapor emissions.

According

the

result

this

study,

BTEX

compounds

cause

genotoxic

changes,

chromosomal

and

genetic

abnormalities.

(This

can

result

number

cancers,

birth

defects,

and

other

health

risks) 4) Overall, residence within close proximity to a petrol station, especially one with more intense

refueling

activity,

was

associated

with

increased

risk

childhood

leukemia, Malavolti, M., Malagoli, C., Filippini, T. et al. Residential proximity to petrol stations and risk of childhood

leukemia.

Eur

Epidemiol

38 ,

771–782

(2023).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-023-01009-0

5) Iskandar Muda, Mohammad Javad Mohammadi, Arefeh Sepahvad, Ali Farhadi, Rasha Fadhel Obaid, Masoume Taherian, Najeh Alali, Shakhawat Chowdhury, Majid Farhadi. Associated health risk assessment assessment due to exposure of BTEX compounds in fuel station workers. Reviews on Environmental Health , March 2023 6) Here is a 2023 article from the Government of Canada that expands the range of possible harmful exposures to benzene from the 160 meters we had cited previously to 300

meters.

This

probably

the

most

useful

new

publication

found

for

the

health

professionals'

letter.

April 8, 2025
Santa Rosa Planning Commission
City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404
Via email: [email protected]

Subject: 874 North Wright Road Gas Station (File # PRJ21-033) Dear Commissioners:

I am a life-long resident of Sonoma County, an environmentalist (Sierra Club Redwood Chapter, Sonoma County Conservation Action, Climate Action Healdsburg, etc.) and retired attorney.

Conditional Use Permit. The CUP should be denied. The fossil fuel component of the Project clashes with urgent fossil reduction and climate action policies recently enacted by Santa Rosa, and strongly reinforced at the state level. The Project’s inconsistency with current policy is striking. An all-electric charging project would be consistent – and welcome. Reviving a 2013 gas station project is not. Moreover, additional fossil fuel access is unnecessary at this location, because 10 gas stations are within a five-mile radius.

As Commissioners, you are given broad discretion to apply Santa Rosa’s general climate policies to deny a CUP when a project is:
“injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health, or safety …” Santa Rosa Instructions for Conditional Use Permit Applications The Project’s fossil fuel component is not in the public’s interest, health and safety, which are already being undermined by climate change. Sonoma County is experiencing climate change and damage with wildfire, flood, record-breaking temperatures and economic losses (agriculture, tourism). More and worse disasters are in the future unless decisive and enduring climate actions are taken. For this to work, large and small actions by many are required, worldwide.

I hope will you stand with consensus science and the local and state public policies that protect the public interest, welfare and safety. Enforce the laws combating climate change.

Trump Executive Order and local laws. On Monday, April 6, 2025, Trump issued an order, titled "Protecting American Energy from State Overreach". It directs the attorney general to identify state laws that get in the way of the use of domestic energy. The directive specifically notes that laws addressing climate change, environmental justice, greenhouse gas or carbon emissions should be prioritized by the attorney general. California is a specific target. “The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, shall identify all State and local laws, regulations, causes of action, policies, and practices (collectively, State laws) burdening the identification, development, siting, production, or use of domestic energy resources …” (Italics added) My reason for bringing up the Trump Executive Order? Obviously, the Order is about future actions, and is not applicable to the current Project. But it illustrates the stakes for making progress on climate change. Commissioners, I hope that this Trump Order will reinforce your commitment to the value and power of local laws, and the importance of standing for small and large actions in the public interest.

Addendum. The Addendum is incomplete in its Alternative analysis.

Finding, Section 3 says the Project has the same number of gas pumps (6) and electric chargers (4), in type and intensity of land use, as analyzed in the MND, thus the Project does not constitute a substantial change that would require major revisions of the previously certified MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Addendum, pages 38, 42, notes the Project has the capacity to expand its electric charging stations, which could reduce future GHGs.

Firstly, the “type” and “intensity” of use is NOT the same: gas pumps produce GHGs, electric chargers do not.

Secondly, the Addendum does NOT analyze an obvious alternative: make ALL the car service units into electric charging stations. That mitigation would effectively eliminate the Project’s GHG emissions that are of concern under local and state climate policy.

In conclusion, the Addendum is inadequate in its Alternatives analysis, and a Supplemental MND should be prepared that addresses a fossil free alternative to gas pumps.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,
Janis Watkins

Santa Rosa Planning Commission 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Via email: [email protected] April 9, 2025 Subject: Gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road, and gas stations in general – A Healthcare Professionals’ Perspective Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners: We, the undersigned local healthcare professionals, write to express our dismay that the City of Santa

Rosa

entertaining

the

notion

permitting

new

gas

station

874

North

Wright

Road,

just

within

Santa

Rosa

city

limits.

As healthcare professionals committed to safeguarding public health, we are writing to express our

deep

concerns

regarding

the

negative

health

impacts

associated

with

gasoline

stations

general,

and

this

particular

proposal,

specifically.

There are several highly toxic chemicals in gasoline. These harmful compounds, which can escape

into

the

air,

include:

benzene,

toluene,

ethyl

benzene,

and

xylene

(BTEX).

these,

benzene

the

gasoline

constituent

most

harmful

human

health.

Adverse

health

effects

benzene

include
cancer (including leukemia), anemia, increased susceptibility to infections, and low

birthweight

babies. When babies are born at low birthweight they have higher risks for a range

complications.

In addition to exposure via air, there is the potential for groundwater contamination from leaking underground

storage

tanks

and

dispensing

operations.

According

the

California

State

Water

Resources

Control

Board,

Nov

2024,

there

were

37,749

leaking

storage

tanks

California.

The

hazards

posed

these

leaking

vessels

can

contaminate

drinking

water

supplies

and

disproportionately

impact

vulnerable

populations,

including

children,

the

elderly,

and

individuals

with

respiratory

conditions.

Wright

Charter

Elementary

School

just

2700

feet

away

from

the

site.

Residents and workers near gasoline stations are at a higher risk of inhaling these harmful vapors,

particularly

when

fuel

being

transferred

dispensed.

Additionally,

particulate

matter
1 and

volatile

organic

compounds
2 released

from

gasoline

stations

contribute

air

pollution,

exacerbating

respiratory

diseases

such

asthma

and

chronic

obstructive

pulmonary

disease.

Underground fuel storage tanks pose a significant risk of soil and groundwater contamination due

potential

leaks

and

spills.

The

risks

are

real.

Contaminated

groundwater

can

impact

local

drinking

water

sources,

leading

long-term

negative

health

effects

the

community.

The

environmental

burden

such

contamination,

including

remediation,

extremely

costly

and

difficult

accomplish.

The

location

the

proposed

gas

station

near

residential

community

where

many

residents

rely

wells

for

their

drinking

water.

These

would

threatened

leaking

underground

storage

tanks.

2 https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-are-volatile-organic-compounds-vocs#

1 https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics# It has come to our attention that the environmental review upon which your decision will be based

was

completed

2013

–

twelve

years

ago.

Much

has

been

learned

over

the

past

twelve

years

about

the

human

health

impacts

exposure

gasoline

and

diesel.

Instead

calling

for

new

environmental

preview,

call

you

simply

reject

the

proposal.

California

transition

away

from

using

dangerous

fossil

fuels

toward

much

cleaner

and

safer

electrification.

Approving

new

gas

station

2025

unhealthy

deviation

from

this

positive

path

healthier

forms

transportation.

believe

that

the

people

Santa

Rosa

are

committed

climate

healthy

choices

are

and

given

the

concerns

noted

above,

urge

the

Commission

deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

for

the

gas

station

874

North

Wright

Road.

Thank you for your attention and scrutiny on this proposal. We hope that you will make a decision

based

the

public’s

health.

Sincerely,
Barbara Sattler, RN, DrPH, FAAN, Professor Emeritus, School of Nursing and Health Professionals,

University

San

Francisco

Gary Pace, MD, MPH, Local Family Physician
Kenna Lee, RN, PHN, MAS, Public Health Practitioner David Schneider, MD, Family Physician and Medical Educator Panna Lossy MD, Local Family Physician
Jenny Fish, MD, HMDC, Local Family Physician
Cynthia Dickinson, RN, retired Nurse Practitioner and member, HPEACE Ariel Muirhead, RDN, Public Health Registered Dietitian (RDN).

Jacob Wilbur, MDiv, Hospice Chaplain
Mary Wyman, Family Nurse Practitioner and Public Health Nurse Margaretha D. Fledderus, RN, MSN, retired FNP, Oncology CNS.

Kendall Jones, MD, Local Family Physician
Ember Keighley, MD, MPH
Wendy Kohatsu, MD, ABOIM, Assoc. Clinical Professor, Family & Community Medicine, UCSF Danny Toub, MD, AAHIVS, Local Family Physician
Jessica Stanton MD, local family physician
Morgan Theis, MD, local family physician
Deirdre Bernard-Pearl MD, local Pediatrician

Note: all of the above-signed individuals are residents of Sonoma County cc: ● Conor McKay, Senior Planner ● Gabe Osburn, Director of Planning & Economic Development ● Mark Stapp, Mayor, City of Santa Rosa ● Natalie Rogers, Santa Rosa Councilmember, District 7 ● Aaron Pardo, Planning Commissioner, District 7 Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment: Agenda item 11.1: OPPOSE Conditional Use Permit FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 9:49 AM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon! From: Eris Weaver <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:53 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment: Agenda item 11.1: OPPOSE Condi�onal Use Permit Dear Commissioners:

On behalf of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, I’m adding our voices to the groundswell of opposition to the proposed gas station on Wright Road.
• As other commenters have already stated,
◦ The City has already passed a ban on new gas stations. ◦ The City has declared a Climate Emergency and enacted a Climate Plan. ◦ The City and the State are moving away from fossil fuels toward more sustainable transportation options.
• That intersection is already problematic for cyclists, and adding more vehicles entering and exiting the station right will only make Wright Road more dangerous. Even with the path being re-routed around the development and away from the driveway, JRT users will still have to travel on the sidewalk and cross Wright Road.
• I don’t doubt that a market would be useful for neighborhood residents, but I find the applicant’s claim that the attached small park will become “a destination for cyclists” somewhat specious. Who goes out of their way to visit a park next to a gas station?
I urge you to vote no on this proposal.

Eris Weaver, Executive Director
Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
[email protected]
707-545-0153 office • 707-338-8589 cell
www.bikesonoma.org
Book time to meet with me
Find out how to
WIN THIS EBIKE!
Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal – Risk of Contamination to residential water wells – OPPOSE –
FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 5:04 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform.

Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon!
From: Jacob Wilbur <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 4:59 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: Ariel Muirhead <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Sta�on Proposal – Risk of Contamina�on to residen�al water wells – OPPOSE –
Dear Planning Commission Members,
We are concerned Santa Rosa residents. We heard about the plan for the gas station going in at 874 North Wright Road. We recently bought our first home off Chico Ave. We discovered our well is only 40 feet deep and most people in our area have shallow wells. Our neighbor informed us that everyone on our street is required to have city sewer service because of our shallow wells. Septic tanks were contaminating our water. We are concerned about this plan for a gas station right around the corner from us. We are afraid that the runoff and, if there are any leaks, that it would start to contaminate our drinking water. We hope the city takes into consideration our drinking water and our neighbors drinking water before they build the gas station on South Wright.

Here are some things we learned recently about how gasoline contaminates water:

A 10-gallon spill of petroleum can contaminate 12,000,000 gallons of groundwater. Spills can occur because of leaks from underground storage tanks, piping connecting tanks to dispensers, and from dispensers themselves. Spills of small amounts of gasoline, which can pass through concrete pads around dispensers happen routinely when drivers are filling their tanks and when tanker trucks are refilling underground storage tanks.

The cumulative effect of small gasoline leaks is enough to cause concern about gas stations anywhere. But we live in earthquake country. If an underground tank, fuel dispenser, or pipe ruptures and releases gasoline in an earthquake, the environmental impact could be catastrophic. Additionally, major floods can cause erosion that can displace underground tanks, which can then break free of the piping connecting them to fuel dispensers.

When this matter comes before you, please take the health and well-being of the local residential community into consideration and reject the proposal.

Sincerely,
Jacob Wilbur (he, him, his)
Ariel Muirhead (she/her)
From: Woody Hastings
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CONGAS Comment on the the gas station proposal at 874 N. Wright Rd. - Planning Commission meeting item 11.1 4/10/25
Date: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 4:34:56 PM
Attachments: CONGAS Coalition Letter to SR Planning Commission 4-9-25.pdf Dear Commissioners,
Please see attached a letter from the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS), with the November 8, 2024 letter from CONGAS included.

Please let us know if you have any difficulty opening the attachment or any questions.

Thank you for your consideration.
-Woody Hastings
On behalf of CONGAS
310-968-2757

Santa Rosa Planning Commission City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404 Via email: [email protected] Subject : Agenda Item 11.1 – Public Hearing – Gas Station Proposal – Conditional Use Permit and Addendum

the

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

–

874

Wright

(PRJ21-033)
April 9, 2025 Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners, On behalf of the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations, we write to express our concerns about the gas station

proposal

874

North

Wright

Road

and

provide

reasons

why

the

Commission

must

deny

the

Addendum

the

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

(MND)

and

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

(CUP).

We highlight several assertions, as outlined below, any one of which constitutes a finding that the CUP and Addendum

the

MND

must

denied.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

and

explosion.

“One of the foremost environmental concerns associated with gas station lighting

the

potential

for

explosions.

Gasoline

vapors

are

highly

flammable,

and

any

spark

ignition

source

the

vicinity

can

lead

catastrophic

explosion…Gas

station

lighting

also

presents

fire

hazards

that

can

endanger

both

property

and

significance,

which

were

the

applicable

Air

Quality

CEQA

Guidelines

the

time,

indicated

that

projects

which

generate

fewer

than

2,000

vehicle

trips

per

day

were

not

considered

major

air

pollutant

contributors

and

did

not

require

technical

air

quality

study.

July

26,

2013,

Traffic

Impact

Study

prepared

W-Trans

determined

that

the

Project

would

generate

1,506

vehicle

trips

per

day.

Hence,

technical

air

quality

report

was

prepared.”
Attachment 9, the Health Risk Assessment Memo, Feb.27, 2023, p.9, uses the figure of 1,506

(“
Daily

traffic

generation

was

calculated

1,506

primary

trips

per

day

based

the

Project’s

traffic

analysis.”
)
However, Attachment 7, the March 7, 2024 W-Trans Memo Updated Trip Generation and Trip Length

Information

for

Elm

Tree

Station

has

“reevaluated

the

proposed

project’s

anticipated

trip

generation

based

current

rates….”

These

rates

are

not

site-specific

but

use

“standard

rates

published

the

Institute

Transportation

Engineers

(ITE)

Trip

Generation

Manual,

11th

Edition,

2021,

for

Convenience

Store/Gas

Station

–

9-15

VFP

(LU

#945),

and

Multifamily

House

(Low-Rise)

Not

Rail

Transit

(LU

#220)

these

descriptions

most

closely

match

the

proposed

project.”

This

leads

assumed

2,459

trips

per

day
,

large

increase

the

1,506

trips

upon

which

the

Addendum

the

2013

MND

based.

Attachment 10, the March 6, 2024 GHG Memo estimates 2,546 daily trips. The 2024 Trip Generation

Memo

and

GHG

Memo

are

estimating

increase

approximately

1,000

additional

daily

trips.

The

implications

–

the

new

and

significant

effects

–

the

approximately

1,000

additional

daily

trips

for

traffic

congestion

already

congested

roads,

and

air

quality,

have

not

been

addressed

the

Addendum

the

MND.

c. Traffic safety: The collision history for the 2013 Traffic Impact Study was based on records from

the

California

Highway

Patrol

from

July

2006

through

July

2011.

Those

figures

have

not

been

updated

the

subsequent

Addenda.

The

Third

Addendum

the

Traffic

Impact

Study,

October

16,

2023,

states

“there

were

specific

safety

concerns

the

project.”

However,

there

have

been

collisions

including

fatalities

this

area

since

October

2023,

including:
● Two drivers sustained major injuries in a head-on collision in Fulton near Santa Rosa in

Sonoma

County

January

29,

2025.

● A traffic collision involving injuries occurred at CA-12 Eastbound near N Wright Rd in Santa

Rosa

November

10,

2024
.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
2 ● A multi-vehicle collision on state Highway 12 in southwest Santa Rosa, Fulton, was reported

Aug

29,

2024,

with

one

person

killed

and

seven

injured.

Local Traffic Accident Reports published November 10, 2024, states: “High-traffic routes like CA-12

are

prone

accidents

due

heavy

vehicle

volumes,

high

speeds,

and

frequent

intersections.

Incidents

near

major

roads

Wright

can

add

complexity,

making

defensive

driving

crucial

such

the

years

since

2013,

new

information

about

extensive

problems

leaking

USTs

and

risks

substantial

importance

shows

the

project

will

have

significant

effects

that

into

the

environment.

This

was

not

addressed

the

Addendum

the

MND.
e. In the Addendum, regarding hazardous impacts, it states (page 24) “ A Phase 1 Environmental

Site

Assessment

was

prepared

Environmental

Geology

Services,

Inc.

dated

July

15,

2015.

The

report

concluded

that

there

were

environmental

hazards

Underground

Storage

Tank

(LUST).

The

map

below

shows

the

area

Santa

Rosa

including

the

Wright

site.

shows

purple

diamond

LUST

885

Wright

Rd.

right

across

the

street

from

the

proposed

project

site

and

cluster

the

Naval

Auxiliary

Air

Station

within

mile

the

south.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

threats

higher

than

96%

the

census

tracts

California.

This

map

based

data

that

was

downloaded

and

analyzed

Summer

2021.

This

new

information

substantial

importance

that

was

not

known

and

was

not

discussed

the

2013

MND.

Adding

gas

station

would

certainly

add

the

groundwater

threat

this

already

highly

impacted

area.

The

Addendum

did

not

assess

the

groundwater

threat

nor

the

cumulative

impacts

posed

the

proposed

gas

station.

See:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats g. Cumulative impacts: Although the Blue Star Gas propane facility on the adjacent property is mentioned,

potential

cumulative

impacts

air

quality

from

the

proximity

two

facilities

involving

transportation,

toxic

emissions,

handling

and

storage

flammable

materials,

and

the

resultant

risk

fires

and

explosions,

has

not

been

addressed.

Both

gasoline

and

propane

are

flammable

and

can

explode.

The

proximity

these

two

facilities

would

compound

the

risk,

well

increase

the

potential

for

air

and

water

quality

impacts.

2. Conditional Use Permit.

Santa Rosa’s Instructions for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applications state that “the [Planning Commission]

may

approve

CUP

only

after

first

finding

that

granting

the

CUP

would

not

constitute

nuisance

injurious

detrimental

the

public

interest,

health,

safety,

convenience,

welfare,

materially

injurious

persons,

property,

improvements

the

vicinity

and

zoning

district

which

the

property

located.”

underline

“or”

the

sentence

above

emphasize

that

the

Commission

must

deny

the

CUP

the

opinion

the

Commission

that

any

one

the

standards

not

met.

The

findings

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
4 regarding the MND do not supersede the independent judgement of the Commissioners regarding a denial of

the

CUP.

finding

detriment

public

interest

solely

the

judgment

each

Commissioner.

closes

the

company

goes

bankrupt.

For

example,

taxpayers

spent

than

including

benzene,

compound

for

which

there

known

safe

level

exposure;
● Traffic safety impacts on a busy road with fast-moving traffic adjacent to a popular cycling route on the

Joe

Rodota

trail.

On July 26, 2022, Santa Rosa City Council adopted the Sonoma County Vision Zero

Action

Plan (VZAP). The VZAP set a target goal of zero traffic deaths and severe injuries on roadways

within

Santa

Rosa

2030

3. Blue Star Gas
At 880 N. Wright Rd is the Blue Star Gas propane vehicle fueling station, a service station, within 500 feet of the

proposed

gas

station

the

adjacent

property.

Code

§20-42.150

prohibits

service

station

within

500

feet

any

other

service

station.

We appreciate staff for hearing our concern and staff’s work delving into the complex topic of what constitutes

gas/service

station.

Staff

have

provided

several

examples

other

governmental

agencies

with

different

definitions

and

designations

that

regulate

propane

fueling

differently

than

gasoline

fueling

stations.

While

the

Blue

Star

Gas

propane

vehicle

fueling

station

might

not

meet

those

other

agencies’

requirements,

what

key

the

Santa

Rosa

Code

provides

clear

definition

service

station

that

the

Blue

Star

Gas

propane

vehicle

fueling

station

certainly

does

meet.

The applicable Santa Rosa Code definition is “ Gas Station. A retail business selling gasoline and/or other

motor

vehicle

fuels,

and

products
.”

This

Santa

Rosa

Code

§20-70.020

was

amended

when

the

gas

station

ban

was

adopted

2022,

changing

the

definition

“A

retail

business

selling

gasoline

and/or

other

motor

vehicle

fuels

derived

from

fossil

fuels

(e.g.,

petroleum,

coal,

natural

gas),

and

products.”

The

Blue

Star

Gas

vehicle

fueling

station

meets

both

the

earlier

and

current

version

the

definition

Santa

Rosa’s

Code.

Blue Star Gas at 880 N. Wright Rd is a retail business selling a motor vehicle fuel. Its fuel is derived from fossil

fuels;

it’s

propane

fuel

for

vehicles

that

Blue

Star

Gas

calls

“Autogas.”

The

Blue

Star

Gas

website

shows

their

retail

business

offers

propane

fuels

including

Autogas.

The

website

includes

Autogas

Station
Locator that displays the station at 880 N. Wright Rd offering its Autogas vehicle fueling services. https://bluestargas.com/station-locator/

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
5 The propane vehicle fueling station at Blue Star Gas both meets the Santa Rosa Code definition of Service Station

and

also

compatible

with

Blue

Star

Gas’s

permitted

land

use

“fuel

dealer”

defined

“a

retail

trade

establishment

that

sells

fuel

oil,

butane,

propane

and

liquefied

petroleum

gas

(LPG),

bottled

bulk,

consumers.”

The

proximity

the

proposed

gas

station

the

existing

Blue

Star

Gas

facility

would

compound

the

risks,

well

increase

the

cumulative

impacts

air

and

water

quality.

In addition to the concerns raised above, please see attached our letter of November 8, 2024. In particular, please

see

the

listing

conflicts

with

Santa

Rosa’s

General

Plan.

On behalf of CONGAS, its 1000+ supporters in Sonoma County, and the co-signing organizations and individuals

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

and

deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

(CUP)

for

the

development

gas

station

with

extended

hours

operation,

two

general

retail

land

uses

across

two

buildings,

one

apartment

and

small

park

874

Wright

Road.

Most

these

reasons

relate

the

gasoline

fueling

component

the

application.

In September 2022 Santa Rosa, along with five other cities and the County of Sonoma, passed ordinances prohibiting

the

permitting

new

gas

stations.

The

874

Wright

Road

was

excluded

because

its

permit

application

was

already

deemed

complete

prior

adoption

the

ordinance.

However,

completed

application

does

not

require

the

Commission

grant

permit

for

the

construction

this

new

gas

station.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
9 There is nothing unique about this project that overcomes the fact that at its core, it is new fossil fuel infrastructure.

The

Commission

should

deny

the

permit

the

same

grounds

which

the

Commission

and

Santa

Rosa

City

Council

based

the

citywide

prohibition

new

gas

stations.

There is no need for another gasoline station in Santa Rosa. There are already more than ten operating gasoline

stations

within

five-mile

radius

this

project

site

and

over

40 in

total

and

near

Santa

Rosa.

CONGAS and the coalition of co-signers urge the Planning Commission to (1) Deny the addendum to the Elm

Tree

Station

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

and

(2)

Deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit.

ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
According to the staff report, October 24, 2024, p. 11, This Addendum relies on the Mitigated Negative Declaration

adopted

the

Planning

Commission

October

24,

2013,

Resolution

No.

11653

and

the

analysis

discusses

whether

there

has

been

substantial

change

circumstances

new

information

exists

such

degree

that

new

subsequent

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

should

required.

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 , an addendum to an adopted negative declaration shall be prepared if

only

minor

technical

changes

additions

are

necessary.

Under

Section

15162
,

the

lead

agency

shall

prepare

EIR

there

are

one

significant

effects

increase

the

severity

previously

identified

significant

effects.

Changes from 2013 to 2024: It is undeniable that there have been many changes in circumstances and new

information

that

has

become

available

since

2013.

While

the

Addendum

attached

Resolution

No.

PC-2024-024

acknowledges

some

changes

since

2013

regarding

Air

Quality,

Energy,

GHGs,

Traffic,

and

Wildfire,

there

are

others

also.

For

example,

the

Addendum

addresses

the

fact

that

Vehicle

Miles

Traveled

(VMT)

has

replaced

Level

Service

(LOS)

criterion,

but

still

assumes

the

same

level

1,506

net

new

daily

vehicle

trips

per

day,

despite

increase

population

and

potentially

increases

traffic

since

2013.

The

2013

Traffic

Report

used

collision

rates

calculated

based

California

Highway

Patrol

records

dating

back

July

2006

June

2011.

Santa

Rosa’s

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Plan

was

updated

2018,

and

currently

being

updated

again

the

Active

Transportation

Plan.

There

reference

the

new

Highway

12 Interchange

Feasibility

Study

currently

underway.

These

substantive

changes

since

2013

suggest

that

the

traffic

studies

need

updated

take

account

current

conditions

–

and

these

are

just

few

examples.

Public awareness of the climate crisis has grown enormously since 2013. The City of Santa Rosa passed a Climate

Emergency

Resolution

January

2020,

which

included

the

statement

that

the

City

Santa

Rosa

joins

nationwide

call

for

just

transition

away

from

fossil

fuels

and

urgent

collaborative

climate

mobilization

effort

focused

enacting

policies

that

dramatically

reduce

heat-trapping

emissions,

and

rapidly

catalyzing

mobilization

all

levels

government

restore

safe

climate
.
1 Approving

new

gasoline

station

2024

would

contradictory

the

City’s

own

policies

climate

action.

would

add

new

fossil

fuel

infrastructure

and

another

new

source

GHG

emissions

instead

supporting

transition

away

from

fossil

fuels.

Regarding Air Quality, the Addendum, p.15, 2.8, references air quality during construction but does not take into

account

long-term

cumulative

impacts

from

new

gas

station.

The

summary

p.15,

3. Air

Quality

based

the

2013

Traffic

Impact

Study

calculation

that

the

project

would

general

1,506

trips

per

day.

1 https://www.srcity.org/DocumentCenter/View/28039/Climate-Emergency-Resolution

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
10 Studies since 2013 have shown that gas stations vent far more toxic fumes than previously thought 2 .

According

OSHA

there

safe

level

exposure

gasoline

and

studies

have

shown

links

between

gasoline

exposure

and

childhood

leukemia.
3 A

2021

Harvard

study

showed

that

1 in

5 deaths

worldwide

are

caused

fossil

fuel

emissions.
4 Gasoline stations inevitably lead to leaks and spills which contaminate surface

and

groundwater.

Recent studies reveal more details about the impacts of groundwater contamination

from

gasoline

human

health

and

the

environment.

Even a small leakage rate of two drops
per

second

can

render

nearly

half

billion

gallons

water

unfit

for

drinking….Groundwater

contamination

around

fuel

stations

residential

areas

presents

significant

health

risks

the

local

population
5 .

These new studies suggest an increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and given that

the

adjacent

site

zoned

for

medium

density

housing,

adding

further

risk

groundwater

contamination

makes

sense.

Likewise, the immediate consequences of the climate crisis have become far more apparent since 2013 as Sonoma

County

residents

have

experienced

the

2017

Tubbs

wildfire

and

subsequent

wildfires,

floods,

drought,

extreme

heat,

and

other

climate

anomalies.

Governor Newsom’s Executive Order of 2020
6 will bring to an end the registration of new fossil-fueled cars by

2035.

Gasoline

sales

are

declining

people

switch

electric

vehicles.

These

changes

should

borne

mind

while

recognizing

that

when

gas

stations

reach

the

end

their

functional

existence

they

require

expensive

clean

and

are

sometimes

abandoned,

leaving

toxic

sites

that

cannot

developed

for

other

purposes.

This is not a comprehensive list of changes, but just a few immediately obvious examples of substantial changes

circumstances

and

context

since

2013,

that

include

significant

effects

and

increases

severity

previously

identified

significant

effects.

They

are

far

than

mere

“minor

technical

changes

additions,”

and

demand

minimum

comprehensive

new

Environmental

Impact

Report,

not

just

addendum

outdated

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Santa Rosa’s Instructions for Conditional Use Permit Applications state that “the [Planning Commission] may approve a Major Conditional Use Permit or Minor Conditional Use Permit only after first finding all of the

following,”

1. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions

this

Zoning

Code

and

the

City

Code;

existing

and

future

land

uses

the

vicinity;

4. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed, including access, utilities,

and

the

absence

physical

constraints;

5. Granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, or health,

safety,

convenience,

welfare,

materially

injurious

persons,

property,

improvements

the

vicinity

and

zoning

district

which

the

property

located.”

underline

“or”

that

sentence

6 https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/9.23.20-EO-N-79-20-Climate.pdf

5 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024019558#bbib8

(2024
)

4 https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/c-change/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-responsible-for-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide/

(2024)

3 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275799/

(2023)

2 https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/gas-stations-vent-far-more-toxic-fumes-previously-thought

(2018)

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
11 emphasize that the Commission must deny the CUP if it is the opinion of the Commission that any one of the

standards

are

not

met.

not

required

that

two

them

met.

6 . The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

At least five of these conditions have not been met: Regarding Condition 1, compliance with Zoning: The Staff Report states that: “ The project site is within Planned

Development

(PD)

0435,

which

allows

the

service

station

(gas

station)

land

use

with

the

approval

Conditional

Use

Permit.

Some

development

standards

are

not

specifically

addressed

the

0435

Policy

Statement,

staff

has

analyzed

the

Project’s

compliance

with

the

most

similar

zoning

district

(General

Commercial)

those

cases.”

In other words, the project site did not meet the zoning conditions necessary for approval. On what grounds did

staff

decide

analyze

the

project’s

compliance

with

the

zoning

district

instead?

What

are

the

relevant

differences

between

the

project

and

development

standards

that

were

not

met?

The

staff’s

rationale

for

this

choice

not

made

explicit.

Distance between service station sites: According to the the Staff Report, page 7, the proposed gas station

required

comply

with

these

site

requirements

Code

§20-42.150:

1. Site area and dimensions. The site shall have a minimum area of 15,000 square feet, at least 100 feet

frontage

arterial

street,

minimum

width

150

feet,

and

minimum

depth

100

feet.

2. Proximity to residential. The site shall not adjoin an existing R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoning district or single-family

two-family

residential

use

the

time

the

service

station

use

established,

except

nonconforming

single-family

two-family

residential

use,

single-family

two-family

residential

use

commercial

zone.

3. Distance between service station sites. A proposed service station site shall be a minimum of

500

feet

from

any

other

service

station

site,

with

the

following

exceptions:
a) Service station sites within 150 feet of the U.S. Highway 101 intersections and Freeway

12 intersections

measured

along

the

intersecting

street.”
The Staff Report, page 8, regarding the above listed site requirement #3, incorrectly states that: “ The closest

station

the

Chevron

station

Stony

Point

Rd.,

approximately

1.5 miles

the

east.

The

closest

station

Roseland

Gas

Sebastopol

Road,

approximately

2.3 miles

the

east.
”

The Staff Report has neglected to recognize that the closest station is the Blue Star Gas station at 880 N.

Wright

Road,

parcel

adjacent

the

proposed

project

site,

with

measurable

distance

separating

them.

The Staff Report refers to Blue Star Gas as simply a “propane manufacturer.” However, Blue Star Gas at 880

Wright

also

meets

Santa

Rosa’s

definition

gas

station.

As the Staff Report on page 7 notes: Before the City Council banned new gas stations, the Code defined a Service Station as: “ a retail business

selling

gasoline

and/or

other

motor

vehicle

fuels,

and

products
.”

…

Ordinance

No.

ORD-2022-010

(the

2022

ban)

amended

the

definition

“Gas

Station”

as:

“
a

retail

business

selling

gasoline

and/or

other

motor

vehicle

fuels

derived

from

fossil

fuels

(e.g.,

petroleum,

coal,

natural

gas),

and

products
.”

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

150

feet

the

U.S.

Highway

101

intersections

and

Freeway

12 intersections

measured

along

the

intersecting

street.
”

The

exception

cannot

applied

for

the

proposed

project.

The

proposed

gas

station

site

over

300

feet

from

the

intersection

Hwy/Freeway

12 measured

along

the

intersecting

street

that

North

Wright

Road
.

Construction of a gas station within 500 feet of another service station, such as the proposed development adjacent

the

existing

Blue

Star

Gas

station,

explicitly

prohibited

the

Santa

Rosa

Zoning

Code.

The

proposed

project

cannot

qualify

for

CUP

because

the

proposed

use

does

not

comply

with

the

applicable

provisions

the

Code.

The

Planning

Commission

must

deny

the

permit.

Regarding Condition 2, consistency with General Plan : The staff report states the project is consistent with

the

Retail

Business

Services

designation

the

General

Plan,

but

there

are

notable

inconsistencies

with

the

General

Plan,

for

example:

LUL-A: Foster a compact rather than a scattered development pattern in order to reduce travel, energy, land,

and

materials

consumption

while

promoting

greenhouse

gas

emission

reductions

citywide.

LUL-A-1: As part of plan implementation – including development review, capital improvements programming,

and

preparation

detailed

area

plans

–

foster

land

use/transportation

relationships

promote

use

alternative

transportation

modes

and

discourage

travel

automobile
.

LUL-I-2: Encourage region-serving, high volume retail outlets to locate near freeway access (generally within

one-half

mile

Highway

101)

minimize

traffic

city

streets.

not

allow

regional-serving

uses

residential

neighborhoods.

LUL-I-3: …ensure that neighborhood centers do not create unacceptable traffic or nuisances for residents due

the

hours

and

nature

their

operation,

and

are

designed

facilitate

walking

and

bicycling.

According to the Staff Report, p. 6, “The attractive building design and site design will enhance the visual quality

the

Highway

12 entry

into

the

City…”

However,

few

people

would

generally

regard

gas

station

scenic

enhancement.

The

General

Plan

mainly

highlights

trees

and

other

vegetation

scenic

enhancements,

e.g.:

UD-C-4: Work with CalTrans to beautify Highway 101 and Highway 12.

Encourage CalTrans to incorporate more landscaping, planting of trees, and soundwall mitigation into

any

improvements

planned

for

these

highways.

Lessen

the

impact

new

soundwalls

through

the

use

vegetation.

Specific

Highway

12 (west

Highway

101),

there

are

many

places

where

the

median

large

enough

safely

plant

trees

and

make

other

significant

landscaping

improvements

enhance

the

scenic

qualities

this

roadway.

UD-C-5: Work with the County of Sonoma to retain and improve the scenic qualities of Highway 101 and

Highway

12,

including

the

planting

trees

the

back

developments

and

along

the

edge

the

CalTrans

rights-of-way.

UD-C-7: Install planted medians on wide regional/arterial streets to make them more pedestrian friendly.

Regarding Condition 3, Proximity to existing and future uses: Since the neighboring parcel to the east is zoned

for

future

residential

development,

the

project

incompatible

with

future

land

use.

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
13 Currently, users of the Joe Rodota Trail must proceed south on the sidewalk in front of the proposed project before

crossing

Wright

Road,

proceeding

west

Sebastopol

Road

for

two

blocks

before

the

trail

picks

back

again.

This

project

would

create

conflict

zone

for

cyclists

who

would

have

cross

the

driveways

into

the

gas

station.

Contrary

being

convenient

amenity

for

cyclists

the

Joe

Rodota

trail

claimed,

many

cyclists

feel

that

this

project

conflicts

with

their

interests

for

safe

and

pleasant

cycling

experience

the

Joe

Rodota

trail.

Regarding Condition 5, Public interest: A gasoline station at this location would in fact be detrimental to the

public

interest,

health,

welfare,

and

safety.

important

emphasize

that

the

rules

don't

require

threshold

level

significant

impact

that

may

found

CEQA

document

justify

denial

the

CUP.

The

rules

state

that

the

project

simply

cannot

nuisance

detrimental

the

public

interest

the

opinion

the

Commission.

The

Commission

required

deny

the

CUP

the

project

anticipated

any

one

the

harms

the

list

quoted

above.

That

basis

upon

which

the

Planning

Commission

must

deny

the

CUP.

There is ample evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of anthropogenic climate heating.
7 Gasoline

stations

facilitate

access

and

burning

fossil

fuels.

Expansion

fossil

fuel

infrastructure

prolongs

and

exacerbates

the

climate

crisis.

Therefore

necessary

for

public

interest,

health,

welfare,

and

safety

that

the

city

cease

permitting

new

fossil

fuel

infrastructure.

In addition to global climate pollution, gas stations, in their normal operation, emit hazardous toxic air contaminants

(several,

such

benzene,

with

safe

level

exposure),

contaminate

surface

water

runoff,

and

pose

hazards

contamination

soil

and

groundwater.

This

project

not

far

from

residences

and

sited

adjacent

the

Joe

Rodota

Trail,

trail

where

users

should

able

breathe

clean

air

while

they

walk

ride

their

bikes.

Sonoma

County

riddled

with

leaking

underground

storage

sites,

and

when

gas

stations

reach

the

end

their

functional

existence,

the

sites

often

become

expensive

liability

cleaned

up,

abandoned

toxic

sites

that

cannot

developed

for

other

uses.

This

clearly

contrary

the

public

interest.

For all these reasons, it is necessary for the public interest, health, safety, and welfare that the Commission reject

this

project.

Regarding Condition 6, Compliance with CEQA : As described above, the Addendum which relies upon the

outdated

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

should

replaced

full

Environmental

Impact

Report,

given

the

substantive

contextual

changes

that

have

taken

place

since

2013.

Other questions and inconsistencies
a. The staff report states that the application was deemed complete on Dec. 17, 2021; the addendum in Resolution

1 states

that

the

complete

application

date

was

August

10,

2022.

Which

correct?

b. Is the project classified as primarily serving local-serving retail (as per W-Trans VMT analysis, July 20, 2022;

Resolution

Addendum)

pass-by

traffic,

per

the

2013

Traffic

Impact

Study?

c. Why is an 806-square foot, one-bedroom apartment being classified as a multifamily dwelling, per staff report?

North

Wright

Road

project.

7 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/resources/climate-change-in-data/ (scroll to data point 7) Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
14 Public Notice Notifying the public about projects of this kind is required. None of the public noticing statements at the top of

page

13 in

the

Staff

Report

about

the

public

noticing

for

the

October

24 Public

Hearing

were

true.

noted

the

staff

report,

project

history,

neighborhood

meetings

and

notifications

property

owners

were

sent

advance

public

hearings

2007

and

2011.

The

rules

were

being

followed

then,

why

not

now?

There

has

been

neighborhood

meeting

about

this

project.

There

was

evidence

that

property

owners

had

been

alerted

about

the

pending

project

the

canceled

October

24 Planning

Commission.

For

projects

this

kind,

the

applicant

required

install

sign

the

perimeter.

Santa

Rosa

city

code

(§

20-66.020

Notice

hearing.)
8 states

that

“When

land

use

permit,

variance,

other

matter

required

State

law

this

Zoning

Code

have

public

hearing,

the

public

shall

(emphasis

added)

provided

notice

the

hearing

compliance

with

the

provisions

this

Chapter.”

“Method

notice

distribution”

outlines

requirements

for

mail,

newspaper

publication,

site

posting,

and

online

posting.

CONGAS

has

photographic

and

video

evidence

that

sign

had

been

posted

October

29,

2024.

We hope the correct procedures are being followed for the November 14 Public Hearing, but the lack of them

for

the

previously

scheduled

October

24 meeting,

despite

assurances

the

staff

report

that

the

requisite

procedures

had

been

followed,

does

nothing

inspire

confidence

this

process.

Conclusion Based on the finding that the project is within 500 feet of an existing gas station, which is prohibited by city code;

that

the

project

would

injurious

the

public

interest,

health,

safety

and

welfare;

that

public

notice

about

the

project

and

the

Hearing

did

not

occur

accordance

with

city

code;

that

significant

new

information

has

become

known

since

2013;

and

that

substantial

inconsistencies

exist

conflict

with

both

the

General

Plan

and

the

criteria

for

CUP

approval,

CONGAS

respectfully

requests

that

the

with

new

plan

that

eliminates

the

gasoline

pumps

from

the

project

and

that

includes

compliance

with

public

noticing

requirements.

Respectfully, on behalf of CONGAS, its 1000+ supporters in Sonoma County, and the co-signing organizations

below,

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

Coalition

Opposing

New

Gas

Stations

⧫
(707) 238-2298
⧫
[email protected] www.con-gas.org
17 Outlook
Re: [EXTERNAL] Question on the Elm Tree Gas Station Project, It will sell liquor? From McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Date Thu 4/10/2025 12:42 PM
T o Michael Hilber <[email protected]>
Hello Michael,
The project being presented to the Commission today does not include the sale of any alcohol or tobacco products.

If the applicant changed their mind and wanted to include this in their proposal, they would need to secure addi�onal permits/approvals from the City. For alcohol sales, they would need to modify their Major Condi�onal Use Permit which would undergo further review by staﬀ and be subject to Planning Commission review. We have just adopted a new tobacco licensing requirement for which the applicant would be subject to if they changed their mind. For more informa�on on that new program, please see:
h�ps://
www.srcity.org/4116/Tobacco-Retail-License
The City does not regulate the sale of lo�ery �ckets.

Please le
t me know if you have any further ques�ons.

Thank you,
Conor McKay (he/his) | Senior Planner
Planning & Economic Development | 100 Santa Rosa Avenue | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 C
[email protected]
(707) 543-4351
Coming soon in 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transi�on to an online applica�on submi�al process through the Accela Ci�zen Access pla�orm. Learn more about the Online Permi�ng System
here, and more informa�on will be coming soon!
From: Michael Hilber <okie.ﬂ[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2025 12:23 PM
To: McKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Ques�on on the Elm Tree Gas Sta�on Project, It will sell liquor? I did not see this anywhere in any of the info I read. So I assume this retail establishment will be selling the usual cigarettes, liquor and Lottery tickets.

Given the number of drug using transients in the area this is not a good idea.

If it were just selling food items it would be different.

Michael Hilber
Santa Rosa, CA 95407 which is just off south Wright Road.

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] 4-9-25 Please no more gas stations here
FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 2:49 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform.

Please vote NO on the proposed gas station on N. Wright Rd.

Please support the permanent banning of new gas stations in Sonoma County. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Wendy Millstine
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
SantaRosaPlanningCommissionCityHall, 100SantaRosaAve,SantaRosa, CA, 95404Viaemail: [email protected] November 8, 2024
Subject: 874NorthWright RoadGasStation(File#PRJ21-033)
Dear Chair WeeksandCommissioners:

Thereisnoneedfor another gasolinestationinSantaRosa. Therearealreadymorethantenoperatinggasolinestationswithinafive-mileradiusof thisproject siteandover 40intotal inandnear SantaRosa.

CONGASandthecoalitionof co-signersurgethePlanningCommissionto(1) DenytheaddendumtotheElmTreeStationMitigatedNegativeDeclarationand(2) DenytheConditional UsePermit.

At least fiveof theseconditionshavenot beenmet:

Distancebetweenservicestationsites: AccordingtothetheStaff Report, page7, theproposedgasstationisrequiredtocomplywiththesesiterequirementsof Code§20-42.150:

AstheStaff Report onpage7notes:

LUL-A: Foster acompact rather thanascattereddevelopment patterninorder toreducetravel, energy,land, andmaterialsconsumptionwhilepromotinggreenhousegasemissionreductionscitywide.

LUL-I-3: …ensurethat neighborhoodcentersdonot createunacceptabletrafficor nuisancesfor residentsduetothehoursandnatureof their operation, andaredesignedtofacilitatewalkingandbicycling.

UD-C-4: WorkwithCalTranstobeautifyHighway101andHighway12.

UD-C-5: WorkwiththeCountyof Sonomatoretainandimprovethescenicqualitiesof Highway101andHighway12, includingtheplantingof treesinthebackof developmentsandalongtheedgeoftheCalTransrights-of-way.

CoalitionOpposingNewGasStations
⧫ (707)238-2298
⧫ [email protected] www.con-gas.org
5 UD-C-7: Install plantedmediansonwideregional/arterial streetstomakethemmorepedestrianfriendly.

RegardingCondition3, Proximitytoexistingandfutureuses: Sincetheneighboringparcel totheeast iszonedfor futureresidential development, theproject isincompatiblewithfuturelanduse.

For all thesereasons, it isnecessaryfor thepublicinterest, health, safety, andwelfarethat theCommissionreject thisproject.

Santa Rosa Planning Commission City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404 Via email: [email protected] April 7, 2025
Dear Chair Weeks and Commissioners:

SAFE Cities at Stand.earth works with local government leaders and advocates to pass policies that

help

transition

communities

clean,

renewable

energy,

including

policies

prohibit

new

gas

stations.

urge

you

reject

the

Addendum

the

Mitigated

Negative

Declaration

(MND)

and

deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

(CUP)

for

the

development

gas

station

with

extended

hours

operation,

two

general

retail

land

uses

across

two

buildings,

one

apartment

and

small

park

874

Wright

Road.

We applaud the vision and action of the City of Santa Rosa, the County of Sonoma, and cities across

Sonoma

County

prohibiting

new

gas

stations.

We understand that the permit for this project was deemed complete before the City’s ordinance was

adopted,

but

that

does

not

mean

the

Planning

Commission

must

should

approve

it.

There

need

for

another

gasoline

station

the

City.

Within

five-mile

radius

this

proposed

project

there

are

than

10 gas

stations

operation.

near

the

City

Santa

Rosa

there

are

40. The Commission should deny the permit on the same grounds on which the Commission and Santa

Rosa

City

Council

based

the

citywide

prohibition

new

gas

stations.

SAFE Cities at Stand.earth urges the Planning Commission to reject the addendum and to deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit.

Thank you for your attention,
Anne

Pernick

SAFE

Cities

Senior

Advisor,

Stand.earth

I’d like to turn to the question of wetlands and groundwater pollution. Here is a photo showing the accumulation of water in one area on the site.

Thank you and sincerely,
Holly J. Pierce
[email protected]

Meanwhile, The Hustle reports that convenience store sales only account for about 30% of a gas station's revenue, but often account for 70% of total profits.

Maybe what is needed is a convenience store at this location. Just don’t allow this gas station which is next to another fueling station which is not allowed under the zoning regulations.

It occurred to me that you may not be aware that the rally and news conference took place, so I'm emailing to share some of the results with you.

Here are two photos, below, one facing Highway 12, one facing the wetland at 874 N. Wright Rd.

Photo credit: Karen Preuss
Photo credit: Karen Preuss
I hope you found this information helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions about the rally and news conference on March 25.

Sincerely,
Jeff Rooney
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa Planning Commission 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Via email: [email protected] April 9, 2025 Subject: Gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road, and gas stations in general – A Healthcare Professionals’ Perspective Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners: We, the undersigned local healthcare professionals, write to express our dismay that the City of Santa

Rosa

entertaining

the

notion

permitting

new

gas

station

874

North

Wright

Road,

just

within

Santa

Rosa

city

limits.

As healthcare professionals committed to safeguarding public health, we are writing to express our

deep

concerns

regarding

the

negative

health

impacts

associated

with

gasoline

stations

general,

and

this

particular

proposal,

specifically.

There are several highly toxic chemicals in gasoline. These harmful compounds, which can escape

into

the

air,

include:

benzene,

toluene,

ethyl

benzene,

and

xylene

(BTEX).

these,

benzene

the

gasoline

constituent

most

harmful

human

health.

Adverse

health

effects

benzene

include
cancer (including leukemia), anemia, increased susceptibility to infections, and low

birthweight

babies. When babies are born at low birthweight they have higher risks for a range

complications.

In addition to exposure via air, there is the potential for groundwater contamination from leaking underground

storage

tanks

and

dispensing

operations.

According

the

California

State

Water

Resources

Control

Board,

Nov

2024,

there

were

37,749

leaking

storage

tanks

California.

The

hazards

posed

these

leaking

vessels

can

contaminate

drinking

water

supplies

and

disproportionately

impact

vulnerable

populations,

including

children,

the

elderly,

and

individuals

with

respiratory

conditions.

Wright

Charter

Elementary

School

just

2700

feet

away

from

the

site.

Residents and workers near gasoline stations are at a higher risk of inhaling these harmful vapors,

particularly

when

fuel

being

transferred

dispensed.

Additionally,

particulate

matter
1 and

volatile

organic

compounds
2 released

from

gasoline

stations

contribute

air

pollution,

exacerbating

respiratory

diseases

such

asthma

and

chronic

obstructive

pulmonary

disease.

Underground fuel storage tanks pose a significant risk of soil and groundwater contamination due

potential

leaks

and

spills.

The

risks

are

real.

Contaminated

groundwater

can

impact

local

drinking

water

sources,

leading

long-term

negative

health

effects

the

community.

The

environmental

burden

such

contamination,

including

remediation,

extremely

costly

and

difficult

accomplish.

The

location

the

proposed

gas

station

near

residential

community

where

many

residents

rely

wells

for

their

drinking

water.

These

would

threatened

leaking

underground

storage

tanks.

2 https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-are-volatile-organic-compounds-vocs#

1 https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics# It has come to our attention that the environmental review upon which your decision will be based

was

completed

2013

–

twelve

years

ago.

Much

has

been

learned

over

the

past

twelve

years

about

the

human

health

impacts

exposure

gasoline

and

diesel.

Instead

calling

for

new

environmental

preview,

call

you

simply

reject

the

proposal.

California

transition

away

from

using

dangerous

fossil

fuels

toward

much

cleaner

and

safer

electrification.

Approving

new

gas

station

2025

unhealthy

deviation

from

this

positive

path

healthier

forms

transportation.

believe

that

the

people

Santa

Rosa

are

committed

climate

healthy

choices

are

and

given

the

concerns

noted

above,

urge

the

Commission

deny

the

Conditional

Use

Permit

for

the

gas

station

874

North

Wright

Road.

Thank you for your attention and scrutiny on this proposal. We hope that you will make a decision

based

the

public’s

health.

Sincerely,
Barbara Sattler, RN, DrPH, FAAN, Professor Emeritus, School of Nursing and Health Professionals,

University

San

Francisco

Jacob Wilbur, MDiv, Hospice Chaplain
Mary Wyman, Family Nurse Practitioner and Public Health Nurse Margaretha D. Fledderus, RN, MSN, retired FNP, Oncology CNS.

the

fuel

stations

was

about

5.5 times

the

standard

limit.

Ahmad Allahabady1 ID , Zabihollah Yousefi2 ID , Reza Ali Mohammadpour Tahamtan3 ID , Zohre

Payandeh

Sharif.

Measurement

BTEX

(benzene,

toluene,

ethylbenzene

and

xylene)

concentration

gas

stations

Ahmad

Allahabady1

Zabihollah

Yousefi2*

Reza

Ali

Mohammadpour

Tahamtan3

Zohre

Payandeh

Sharif
2) Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) showed the highest concentrations

ranging

from

2 to

15 μ
g/m
3 ,

ten

times

higher

than

those

the

community

air. Jia, C., Fu, X., Chauhan, B. et al. Exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at gas stations:

probabilistic

analysis.

Air

Qual

Atmos

Health

15 ,

465–477

(2022).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-021-01124-5 3) The health of gas station workers is affected by exposure to BTEX and gasoline vapor emissions.

According

the

result

this

study,

BTEX

compounds

cause

genotoxic

changes,

chromosomal

and

genetic

abnormalities.

(This

can

result

number

cancers,

birth

defects,

and

other

health

risks) 4) Overall, residence within close proximity to a petrol station, especially one with more intense

refueling

activity,

was

associated

with

increased

risk

childhood

leukemia, Malavolti, M., Malagoli, C., Filippini, T. et al. Residential proximity to petrol stations and risk of childhood

leukemia.

Eur

Epidemiol

38 ,

771–782

(2023).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-023-01009-0

meters.

This

probably

the

most

useful

new

publication

found

for

the

health

professionals'

letter.

Outlook
[EXTERNAL] Gas Station Proposal at 874 N Wright Rd - Letter of OPPOSITION from Sonoma County Healthcare Professionals
FromBarbara Sattler <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 12:02 PM
T o_PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> CcMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Pardo, Aaron <[email protected]> 2 attachments (285 KB)
Health Risk Lit. post 2022 - gas stations.pdf; Healthcare Professionals Letter - SR Planning Commission.pdf; Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners,
On behalf of the undersigned healthcare professionals based in Sonoma County, I submit this letter of opposition (See Attachment) to the gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing the letter and/or if you have any questions. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Barbara Sattler, RN, DrPH, FAAN
Professor Emeritus
School of Nursing and Health Professions
University of San Francisco
Barbara Sattler, RN, DrPH, FAAN
Professor Emeritus
School of Nursing and Health Professions
University of San Francisco
[email protected]
O: (415) 422-6101
C: (410) 371-6965
Leadership Council
California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice
Member
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
"The best way to predict the future is to design it."
― Buckminster Fuller
From: info bikepartners.net
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Cc: McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe; Stapp, Mark; Rogers, Natalie; Pardo, Aaron Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas Station Proposal at 874 N Wright Rd - Letter of OPPOSITION from Bicycling Community Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:11:47 AM
Attachments: Outlook-qqv3pw5d.png
Letter from bicycling community to SR Planning Commission re 874NWR.pdf Subject: Gas Station Proposal at 874 N Wright Rd - Letter of OPPOSITION from Bicycling Community
Dear Santa Rosa Planning Commissioners,
On behalf of hundreds if not thousands of cycling enthusiasts in Sonoma County, I submit this letter of opposition to the gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa, signed by key Sonoma County-based bicycling advocacy organizations. Please let me know if you have any difficulty accessing the letter and/or if you have any questions.

Respectfully,
Geoffrey Smith
Attachment:

Santa Rosa Planning Commission
100

Santa

Rosa

Avenue

Santa

Rosa,

95404
Via Email: [email protected]
April 8, 2025
Subject: 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal – Adjacent to the Joe Rodota Trail –

OPPOSE

–

Dear Planning Commission Members,
We, the undersigned leaders and members of Santa Rosa’s bicycling community, write to express

our

strong

opposition

the

proposed

gas

station

adjacent

the

Joe

Rodota

Trail

874

North

Wright

Road.

It is our understanding that the developer believes that bicyclists will like having a gas station along

the

trail

place

stop,

rest,

and

maybe

grab

snack.

write

make

clear

that

not

want

gas

station

anywhere

near

the

trail
,

regardless

the

amenities

might

provide.

The Joe Rodota Trail is a treasured multi-use trail that is an essential corridor for cyclists, pedestrians,

and

outdoor

enthusiasts

who

rely

for

recreation,

commuting,

and

safe,

car-free

environment.

The

addition

new

gas

station

this

location

threatens

the

integrity,

safety,

and

environmental

quality

the

trail

and

contradicts

the

city’s

commitment

sustainability

and

active

transportation.

The Joe Rodota Trail serves as a vital connection for cyclists traveling between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol,

reducing

vehicle

congestion

and

promoting

alternative

zero-emission

means

transportation.

gas

station

this

location

would

increase

traffic

hazards

with

cars

frequently

turning

and

out

the

station,

creating

dangerous

interactions

between

vehicles

and

vulnerable

trail

users.

This

not

only

endangers

bicyclists

but

also

discourages

active

transportation,

counteracting

efforts

reduce

greenhouse

gas

emissions

and

improve

air

quality.

Additionally, gas stations pose environmental risks, including potential fuel spills, increased air pollution,

and

groundwater

contamination.

The

placement

such

facility

community-focused

trail

undermines

efforts

promote

clean,

healthful

outdoor

spaces.

climate

concerns

become

urgent,

our

city

should

prioritizing

investments

sustainable

infrastructure,

such

bicycle

lanes

and

public

transit,

rather

than

expanding

fossil

fuel

infrastructure.

Santa Rosa has made strides in fostering a bicycle-friendly community, and approving this gas station

would

step

backward.

urge

you

reject

this

proposal

and

instead

consider

developments

that

align

with

the

city’s

climate

goals

and

support

the

well-being

all

residents.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We appreciate your commitment to making Santa Rosa

safer,

healthier,

and

sustainable

place

for

all.

cc: ● Conor McKay, Senior Planner ● Gabe Osburn, Director of Planning & Economic Development ● Mark Stapp, Mayor, City of Santa Rosa, ● Natalie Rogers, Councilmember, District 7 ● Aaron Pardo, Planning Commissioner, District 7 April 8, 2025
Santa Rosa Planning Commission
City Hall, 100 Santa Rosa Ave, Santa Rosa, CA, 95404
Via email: [email protected]

Subject: 874 North Wright Road Gas Station (File # PRJ21-033) Dear Commissioners:

I am a life-long resident of Sonoma County, an environmentalist (Sierra Club Redwood Chapter, Sonoma County Conservation Action, Climate Action Healdsburg, etc.) and retired attorney.

I hope will you stand with consensus science and the local and state public policies that protect the public interest, welfare and safety. Enforce the laws combating climate change.

Addendum. The Addendum is incomplete in its Alternative analysis.

Addendum, pages 38, 42, notes the Project has the capacity to expand its electric charging stations, which could reduce future GHGs.

Firstly, the “type” and “intensity” of use is NOT the same: gas pumps produce GHGs, electric chargers do not.

In conclusion, the Addendum is inadequate in its Alternatives analysis, and a Supplemental MND should be prepared that addresses a fossil free alternative to gas pumps.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,
Janis Watkins

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment: Agenda item 11.1: OPPOSE Conditional Use Permit FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 9:49 AM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform. Learn more about the Online Permitting System here, and more information will be coming soon! From: Eris Weaver <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:53 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment: Agenda item 11.1: OPPOSE Condi�onal Use Permit Dear Commissioners:

Eris Weaver, Executive Director
Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
[email protected]
707-545-0153 office • 707-338-8589 cell
www.bikesonoma.org
Book time to meet with me
Find out how to
WIN THIS EBIKE!
From: Eris Weaver
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Comment: Agenda item 11.1: OPPOSE Conditional Use Permit Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 11:57:27 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Commissioners:

On behalf of the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, I’m adding our voices to the groundswell of opposition to the proposed gas station on Wright Road.

As other commenters have already stated,
The City has already passed a ban on new gas stations.

The City has declared a Climate Emergency and enacted a Climate Plan.

The City and the State are moving away from fossil fuels toward more sustainable transportation options.

Eris Weaver, Executive Director
Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition
[email protected]
707-545-0153 office • 707-338-8589 cell
www.bikesonoma.org

Book time to meet with me
Find out how to
WIN THIS EBIKE!

Outlook
FW: [EXTERNAL] 874 North Wright Road Gas Station Proposal – Risk of Contamination to residential water wells – OPPOSE –
FromJones, Jessica <[email protected]>
DateWed 4/9/2025 5:04 PM
T oMcKay, Conor <[email protected]>
Jessica Jones |Deputy Director - Planning
Planning and Economic Development Department |100 Santa Rosa Avenue, Room 3 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-3253 | Mobile (707) 292-0963 | [email protected] Coming March 2025, the Planning, Building, and Engineering Divisions of the City of Santa Rosa's Planning and Economic Development Department will fully transition to an online application submittal process through the Accela Citizen Access platform.

Here are some things we learned recently about how gasoline contaminates water:

When this matter comes before you, please take the health and well-being of the local residential community into consideration and reject the proposal.

Sincerely,
Jacob Wilbur (he, him, his)
Ariel Muirhead (she/her)
From: DONALD TURGEON <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 9:27:01 AM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Cc: woodyhas�ngs <woodyhas�[email protected]>; jennyb <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Not another gas sta�on
Dear Commissioners:

I have no more talking points that could shed light on this issue. The only thing I would say is that if you vote to approve a permit for another gas station, your judgment will be questioned at all levels. Good luck.

Mike Turgeon
[email protected]
707-569-4043
1 of 1 6/18/2025, 12:00 PM

Santa Rosa City CouncilAugust 19, 2025

Santa Rosa City Council
August 19, 2025