Late Correspondence (Uploaded 08-19-2025) — Santa Rosa City Council, August 19, 2025

From: Holly J Pierce
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Photos Regarding Elm Tree Station Project Date: Thursday, August 14, 2025 11:07:41 AM
Dear Council Members,
Attached is my letter to you in JPEG format regarding the Elm Stree Station project. I'm sending it this way because of the photographs included. I'm hoping you might find them useful in your upcoming deliberations.

Sincerely,
Holly Pierce
District 7

From: Carl T
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Highway 12 - Wright Road Gas Station Date: Thursday, August 14, 2025 1:53:43 PM
Honorable Mayor Stapp
Santa Rosa City Councilmembers
Eddie Alvarez
Dianna MacDonald
Victoria Fleming
Caroline Banuelos
Jeff Okrepkie
Natalie Rogers
As a resident of Sebastopol who travels on Highway 12 several times a week, I am strongly urging you to affirm the Planning Commission's unanimous decision to deny the application to build a gas station at 874 N. Wright Road. The (correct) unanimous decision of the Planning Commission was based on numerous concrete facts, including that the use is inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the Santa Rosa Zoning Code, that it is inconsistent with the General Plan goals and policies, it is imcompatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity (including the Joe Rodota trail), and that it would constitute a nuisance and be injurious and detrimental to the public interest, health and safety.

Conversely, the permit applicant/developer of the project has not offered any compelling reasons to accept the Appeal and approve the Conditional Use Permit.

On September 13,
2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. ORD-2022-10, which amended the Zoning Code to prohibit new gas station land uses. While the permit applicant may qualify for an exemption from this rule, allowing this project to move forward would be a clear violation of the spirit of this ordinance, which was well thought out and intended to prevent this type of development.

Sincerely,
Carl Tennenbaum
Sebastopol
From: McKay, Conor
To: Guasco, Cher
Cc: Manis, Dina; Jones, Jessica; Brown, Madeline
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] letter I sent to the City Council regarding denying the appeal of the gas station at the Aug 19 meeting
Date: Thursday, August 14, 2025 4:05:46 PM
Attachments: image.png
It looks like this may be one of the letters Woody is referring to that was sent in June or July.

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 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: Jan Kahdeman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2025 4:00 PM
To: Planning Shared <[email protected]>; McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] letter I sent to the City Council regarding denying the appeal of the gas station at the Aug 19 meeting

Here is the text of the letter I have sent to each council member, for your records:
> I’m a 43-year resident of West Sonoma County. I’m writing today to express my opposition to a new gas station at the corner of Wright Road and Highway 12 in Santa Rosa. The Santa Rosa Planning Commission recently found the proposed use to be inconsistent with General Plan for many reasons, including its counteracting the City’s Climate Action Plan, which is meant to improve air quality and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Gas stations, with their gasoline and diesel storage tanks, pose inevitable risks to soil and groundwater contamination, especially in a designated wetland.

Land that’s been used as a location for a gas station becomes an environmental hazard when it’s time to reclaim it for another use.

This area is a scenic corridor, and a gas station will not enhance the appearance of the City’s entryway along Highway 12.
>
> The Planning Commission denied the the project 6-0 in their April 10 meeting.

They did so
because they were “unable to find that the project would not be injurious to public health and well- being.”
Nothing has changed. Please uphold their rejection of the project. >
> Sincerely,
>
> Jan Kahdeman
Jan Kahdeman
From: Laura
To: City Council Public Comments
Cc: Planning Shared; McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO on Elm Street Station
Date: Thursday, August 14, 2025 5:22:37 PM
SR Council Members:

How will yet another gas station benefit this working class neighborhood? Newsflash: it won’t.

As a nearby resident, I am opposed to the Elm Tree Station. The project is next to Blue Star Gas and within a less than five minute drive to two other Chevron stations, one on Stony Point Road and one at the entrance to Sebastopol. There are over a dozen other ones within a 5 mile radius.

This is obviously not a “gas station desert.”
The proposed site is next to the Joe Rodota Trail, which has seen enough issues in the past few years, and is close to the Sam Jones Shelter.

There is a small convenience store nearby as well, negating one of the “selling points” of the project - fresh produce and other food. (Not to mention Food Maxx is nearby, with a better selection and lower prices.) And as anyone who’s driven in the area already knows, traffic at Hwy 12 and Fulton Rd/Wright Rd is congested enough as it is.

The fact is Elm Street Station is not needed, and so the permit should be denied.

Laura Gonzalez
Santa Rosa
District 7
From: [email protected]
To: City Council Public Comments; PLANCOM - Planning Commission; McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe Subject: [EXTERNAL] Uphold planning commission"s denial of CUP re: 874 N Wright Rd gas station Date: Thursday, August 14, 2025 7:05:42 PM
Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Rosa City Council,
I’m writing to urge you to uphold the Planning Commission’s recent decision to deny the Conditional Use Permit for a gas station at 874 N Wright Rd.

First, I want to thank and applaud the Council for your earlier, forward-thinking decision to prohibit new gas station development in Santa Rosa. That was a courageous step toward a healthier, more sustainable future, and it reflected the priorities of our community.

This particular appeal from the applicant feels especially troubling because so many residents have already voiced their strong concerns. The location in question is within a seasonal wetland area and along a busy traffic corridor. Adding a gas station there would only increase congestion, elevate the risk of accidents, and compromise environmental protections.

It’s also unnecessary. Within a five-mile radius, there are already numerous gas stations serving local needs. Building another—especially in such a sensitive and high-traffic location— would offer no meaningful benefit to the community while creating significant risks.

I respectfully ask that you stand with the Planning Commission’s decision and with the many residents who have spoken out against this proposal. Please uphold the denial of this permit and continue leading Santa Rosa toward a future that reflects safety, sustainability, and community well-being.

Thank you for your time and for your dedication to our city.

Sincerely,
Marla Charbonneau
Cotati, Ca

From: Wendy Krupnick
To: City Council Public Comments
Cc: Planning Shared; McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No to development at 874 North Wright Rd Date: Thursday, August 14, 2025 8:09:16 PM
Dear Santa Rosa City Council members,
On April 8 of this year I sent the letter below to the City Planning Commission, adding my voice to the chorus of opposition to this completely inappropriate proposal. While I remain committed to the importance of wetlands, when the City posted notice about the flood mapping with request for pubic input, I realized that this site needs to be included in this critical flood mapping assessment.

As you can see from the attached photos, this site floods in winter. With the prediction for more severe storms dropping higher rainfall amounts in short time periods, there must be places for all that water to go. If this site was developed, the water would go into adjacent roads, businesses and homes.

Please deny this appeal and move forward with the actual needs of your constituency - public safety and resiliency to deal with the climate extremes ahead.

Thank you for considering my views.

Wendy Krupnick
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

From: Laurie-Ann Barbour
To: City Council Public Comments
Cc: Planning Shared; McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe; CityCouncilListPublic Subject: [EXTERNAL] No gas station at 874 N. Wright Road Date: Thursday, August 14, 2025 9:37:22 PM
Dear Mayor Stapp, Vice Mayor Alvarez, and Council Members, As a concerned citizen and climate activist, I respectfully urge you to uphold the Planning Commission’s April 10 decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the development of a gas station at 874 N. Wright Road, Santa Rosa and to deny the appeal dated April 18, 2025, filed by the applicant on April 21, 2025.

This gas station is unnecessary and conflicts with current Santa Rosa policies such as the Climate Emergency Resolution and the prohibition on new gas stations. The Planning Commission correctly denied the Conditiional Use Permit, please follow suit and upload their decision. Your constituents, the residents of Santa Rosa, will not benefit from this gas station, in fact may be harmed by it, and do not want it in their community.

Respectfully,
Laurie-Ann Barbour
Cotati, CA
From: Tony Crabb
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please Uphold the Planning Commission’s Decision – No New Gas Station Date: Friday, August 15, 2025 4:46:17 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

I'm writing as a concerned citizen and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists to urge you to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the proposed gas station project currently under appeal.

This project is fundamentally at odds with Santa Rosa’s values and long-term goals:

It violates city zoning and land use plans
It is incompatible with the city’s Climate Emergency Resolution It would increase pollution and traffic near the Joe Rodota Trail, multi-family housing, and sensitive wetlands
It relies on an outdated 2013 environmental review, ignoring recent science about the health risks of gas stations
And most importantly, it is the last gas station proposal in Santa Rosa—denying it is a crucial step toward a fossil fuel-free future
Approving this project would not only compromise public health and environmental safety but also contradict the city’s stated climate commitments.

Please stand with the community and affirm the Planning Commission’s decision to deny this harmful and unnecessary project.

Sincere Regards, Tony Crabb

Tony Crabb
Puma Springs Vineyards
Healdsburg, CA 95448

www.pumasprings.com
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Sunny Galbraith
To: CityCouncilListPublic; Rogers, Natalie; Okrepkie, Jeff; Banuelos, Caroline; Fleming, Victoria; MacDonald, Dianna; Alvarez, Eddie; Stapp, Mark; Planning Shared; McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda item 16.1 for 8/19/25 – Gas Station Proposal at 874 N. Wright Road, Santa Rosa Date: Friday, August 15, 2025 5:34:46 PM
Attachments: SRJC Climate Action Night Postcards.pdf
Dear Santa Rosa City Council,
The attached scan of 41 postcards (also included in body of email below), in opposition to the gas station proposal at 874 N. Wright Rd, were written by Santa Rosa Junior College students at the annual SRJC Climate Action Night on April 24, 2025.

Although most of the postcards say the same thing, it was clear from the students’ enthusiasm and eagerness to write their postcards that there is a lot of sentiment among the SRJC students that another gas station in the midst of a climate crisis that threatens their future is a terrible dea.

We have scanned the postcards (below) and provided them to you for the record for the August 19 Public Hearing in this case.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Sunny Galbraith
SRJC Climate Action Night Coordinator

From: Wayne and Debbi Yamagishi
To: City Council Public Comments
Cc: Planning Shared; McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: sr qtr of appeal
Date: Saturday, August 16, 2025 11:51:40 AM
Attachments: SR Appeal to srcity.docx
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Wayne Yamagishi <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 11:38 AM
Subject: sr qtr of appeal
To: debbi Yamagishi <[email protected]
>
Please add this letter of appeal to the August 19th Santa Rosa City Council public hearing agenda.
--
Debbi Yamagishi

From: Dennis Pocekay
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas station
Date: Sunday, August 17, 2025 9:26:02 PM
Santa Rosa CC members---
Please uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny the permits for a new gas station
at 874 N. Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Dennis Pocekay
Retired Petaluma City Council member
From: panna lossy
To: City Council Public Comments
Cc: Planning Shared; McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No new gas stations
Date: Sunday, August 17, 2025 11:06:19 PM
Dear Santa Rosa City Council
Please uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny the permits for a new gas station at 874 N. Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Approving new gas stations close to residential housing, especially in a low income neighborhood is just WRONG!
Why take the considerable risks of the toxins like
benzene polluting the air and ground water? Especially in 2025 when we are trying to move towards cleaner energy sources and transportation.

No. Just say No.

Courage Over Cynicism!
Panna Lossy, MD
From: Sandra Martensen
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas station on Wright Road
Date: Saturday, August 16, 2025 2:53:31 PM
Please reject the appeal filed on April 21 to permit a gas station at 874 North Wright Road. The most important reasons are that t violates city zoning and land use plans. The 2013 environmental report is outdated.

We do not need any more gas stations.

Sandra Martensen

From: Woody Hastings
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: CONGAS Coalition Letter -- corrected version Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 7:40:52 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Coalition Letter to SR City Council - August 19 2025.pdf Good Morning Dina,
Late Friday we realized we have a small error in our letter. Just an incorrect affiliation for one of our coalition members. A corrected version of the letter is attached. If it is not too late, can you please use the attached version in the late correspondence pdf?
Thank you,
-Woody
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 4:33 PM City Council Public Comments <[email protected]> wrote:

Woody – For future comments like this would you please put the letter into the body of the e-mail or as an attachment?

Due to the uptick in cyber security concerns, my fear is that a link in an email may be categorized a phishing/malicious and not be able to be included in the archives.

Thank you very much,

Dina

From: Woody Hastings <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 8:24 AM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie

<[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council Public Comments <[email protected]>; _CityCouncilListPublic <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]>; Planning Shared <[email protected]>; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]>; McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; Jones, Jessica <[email protected]>; Weeks, Karen <[email protected]>; Duggan, Vicki <[email protected]>; Horton, Miles <[email protected]>; Cisco, Patti <[email protected]>; Carter, Charles <[email protected]>; Pardo, Aaron <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] CONGAS Coalition Letter re Agenda Item 16.1 on 8/19/25 - Gas Station Proposal at 874 N. Wright Rd.

Good Morning Mayor Stapp, Vice Mayor Alvarez, Councilmembers, and City Staff,

Please see the attached CONGAS Coalition Letter in support of the Planning Commission's April 10 decision denying the permit application for a new gas station at 874 North Wright Road. We urge you to affirm the April 10 decision and deny the appeal.

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

Thank you,
Woody Hastings,
Co-coordinator, Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations

From: [email protected]
To: City Council Public Comments; Planning Shared
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Planning Commision Denial of Elm Street Gas Station Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 9:23:28 AM
As a cyclist who uses the Joe Rodota Trail, I am opposed to allowing this gas station to be built. Cyclists and pedestrians going west on the trail must ride or walk south on the east side of N. Wright Road to connect to the trail leading to Sebastopol. Allowing a gas station with entrances from N. Wright Road across this part of the trail is a potential safety concern and has already been denied by the Planning Commision.

Uphold the Planning Commision decision.

Vincent Hoagland
--
Vin Hoagland

From: info bikepartners.net
To: City Council Public Comments; Planning Shared
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Deny Permit for North Wright fueling station Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 9:04:14 AM
Re item 16.1 North Wright gas station
Honorable Members of the City Council and Esteemed Planning Staff:

I strongly urge your denial of the proposed North Wright fueling station permit.

As owner of a bicycle shop in Santa Rosa these past 14 years, focusing on bicycles for daily transportation, I can attest to the need for safe bicycle routes of travel in this community. The Joe Rodota Trail has been an essential transportation link for pedal transportation between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol these many years. Placement of a fueling station at this location on North Wright would seriously jeopardize the safety and aesthetic appeal of this route.

As a bicycle retailer, I have extensive experience dealing with customers who are considering bicycles for transportation. The key impediment to using a bicycle for daily transportation is safety. A Class 1 bike path such as the Joe Rodota Trail should be heralded and protected at all costs. No fueling station please.

Geoffrey Smith
Geoffrey Smith, owner
BikePartners
Folding Bikes and Recumbent Trikes
Www.bikepartners.net
Schedule an Appointment

From: Ariel Muirhead
To: City Council Public Comments
Cc: CityCouncilListPublic; Planning Shared; McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe Subject: [EXTERNAL] August 19 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 16.1 - 874 N. Wright Road Gas Station - Oppose Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 9:35:57 AM
Attachments: Healthcare Professionals Letter - SR Planning Commission - for 8-19-25.pdf Dear Mayor Stapp and Council,
I am writing to share with you the Healthcare Professionals Letter, submitted on April 9, 2025, regarding the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. The letter is signed by 18 Sonoma County–based healthcare professionals, and our position has not changed: we remain strongly opposed to this project.

We urge you to protect the health of the local community and uphold the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision to deny the permit for this project.

Thank you for your leadership and commitment to community well-being.

With community,
~Ariel Muirhead
Santa Rosa
Gas Stations: A Healthcare Professionals’ Perspective

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 is entertaining the notion of permitting a new gas station at 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 in 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). Of these, benzene is the gasoline constituent most harmful to human health. Adverse health effects of 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 of complications.

In addition to exposure via air, there is the potential for groundwater contamination from leaking underground storage tanks and dispensing operations. According to the California State Water Resources Control Board, in Nov 2024, there were 37,749 leaking storage tanks in California. The hazards posed by 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 is 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 is being transferred or dispensed. Additionally, particulate matter 1 and volatile organic compounds2
released from gasoline stations contribute to air pollution, exacerbating respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Underground fuel storage tanks pose a significant risk of soil and groundwater contamination due to potential leaks and spills. The risks are real. Contaminated groundwater can impact local drinking water sources, leading to long-term negative health effects in the community. The environmental burden of such contamination, including remediation, is extremely costly and difficult to accomplish. The location of the proposed gas station is near a residential community where many residents rely on wells for their drinking water. These would be threatened by leaking underground storage tanks.

It has come to our attention that the environmental review upon which your decision will be based was completed in 2013 – twelve years ago. Much has been learned over the past twelve years about the human health impacts of exposure to gasoline and diesel. Instead of calling for a new environmental preview, we call on you to simply reject the proposal. California is on a transition away from using dangerous fossil fuels toward much cleaner and safer electrification. Approving a new gas station in 2025 is an unhealthy deviation from this positive path to healthier forms of transportation. We believe that the people of Santa Rosa are as committed 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#

From: McKay, Conor
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: Fw: [EXTERNAL] Affirm Commissions Denial of Use Permit! Re: Deliberations on Elm Street 874 N. Wright Road Appeal
Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 10:40:23 AM
Attachments: image.png
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 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: Jeff Rooney <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2025 8:38 PM
To: McKay, Conor <[email protected]>; Osburn, Gabe <[email protected]>; Planning Shared <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Affirm Commissions Denial of Use Permit! Re: Deliberations on Elm Street 874 N. Wright Road Appeal

Dear Members of the Santa Rosa City Council,
I am a Santa Rosa resident who lives off Fulton Road not far from the Wright Road and Hwy 12 junction. This happens to be the place where the Santa Rosa Planning Commission on April 10 2025 unanimously denied a permit for
the proposed Elm Street 874 N. Wright Road gas station and store at the southwest facing corner of the junction. I understand that the interested party, Mangal Dhillon, behind the gas station project appealed the commission's decision on April

21. 2025.

I urge you to affirm the commission
's denial of the use permit at your upcoming August 19
City Council meeting!
As someone who travels that route
frequently I would strongly oppose this simply on the
grounds of creating more congestion at an already overloaded eastward turn from my experience. More importantly, from an ecological standpoint and given the City Council's adoption of the Gas Station Prohibition Ordinance (No. ORD 2022-010) let us not waver from that commitment. The last thing we need in this time of climate and environmental crisis is another gas station
in an environmentally sensitive area near The Laguna de Santa Rosa! Respectfully,
Jeff Rooney

From: Jason Holder
To: City Council Public Comments; Osburn, Gabe
Cc: Stapp, Mark; McKay, Conor; Crocker, Ashle
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 16.1 - Elm Street Station: Comments Supporting Denial of Appeal Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 11:21:23 AM
Attachments: Letter to City of Santa Rosa re Gas Station Project - Final 081825.pdf Dear Honorable Members of the City Council, Mayor Stapp, and Director Osburn, On behalf of the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS), please find attached our August 18, 2025 comment letter regarding Agenda Item 16.1, the appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial of CUP21-100 (“Elm Tree Station”).

Our comments explain why the Council should uphold the Planning Commission’s April 10, 2025 decision and reject the appeal. In particular, the letter documents:

Inconsistencies with the Zoning Code and General Plan;
Incompatibility with adjacent residential uses and the Joe Rodota Trail; Significant unresolved public health and groundwater contamination risks; Inadequate CEQA review, especially in light of substantial new scientific information on traffic, air quality, and toxic emissions; and
The City’s own policy commitments under the Climate Action Plan, Climate Emergency Resolution, and Gas Station Prohibition Ordinance.

For these reasons, overturning the Planning Commission’s decision would expose the City to unnecessary legal and environmental risks. We respectfully urge the Council to vote no on the appeal and affirm Resolution No. PC-RES-2025-007 denying the CUP.

Thank you for your consideration. Please direct any questions to me at [email protected]
or (510) 338-3759.

Sincerely,
Jason Holder
--
Jason W. Holder
Holder Law Group
Important: This electronic mail message, including any attached files, is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer; it is confidential and it may contain or constitute information protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work-product privileges. If the person actually receiving this message, or any other reader of this message, is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, you are not authorized to retain, read, copy or disseminate this communication or any part of it. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify Holder Law Group at (510) 338-3759. Thank you

City of Santa Rosa, City Council August 18, 2025
Gabe Osburn, Planning and Economic Development, Director Re: Comments Supporting Denial of Appeal,
re Elm Street Station Project at 874 North Wright Road Page 6

While the applicant and staff presentations highlight “public benefits” such as a privately maintained park, seating areas, and a trail connection, these amenities are located directly adjacent to fueling areas and high-turnover driveways, creating pedestrian and cyclist conflict zones identified in the City’s own Vision Zero Action Plan. Such amenities do not qualify as public benefits when they introduce safety hazards and increase exposure to toxic emissions.

Any claim that the project will serve unmet fueling demand in the area is belied by prior City Council findings on this subject. Specifically, the City Council has already addressed this premise in adopting the 2022 Gas Station Prohibition Ordinance, finding that existing fueling capacity is sufficient and that new fossil fuel infrastructure is contrary to the City’s long-term transportation and climate policy direction.

GHG reductions based on solar-powered pumps and EV chargers would be negligible in the context of the project’s lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from continued gasoline sales.

The presence of EV chargers does not mitigate the lock-in of fossil fuel infrastructure or advance the City toward the Climate Action Plan’s emission reduction targets.

The applicant relies on “pass-by” trip assumptions to downplay traffic and air quality impacts. However, the assumptions are unsupported by independent evidence and ignore that induced and pass-by trips still generate emissions, increase collision risk, and contribute to congestion. CEQA analyses are based on total trip volumes, not only “new” trips.

The Addendum fails to address the Project’s potential to cause traffic safety impacts. As demonstrated in prior comments, the collision history in the project vicinity has worsened since 2013.

Finally, the site’s CalEnviroScreen percentile rankings—combined with local asthma and groundwater threat scores—place it among the City’s most environmentally vulnerable areas under the City’s own Active Transportation Plan Existing Conditions Report. These environmental justice and health vulnerability indicators heighten the public health and safety risks of siting a new fueling station at this location and weigh heavily against approval.

II. Discussion: The Project Poses Significant Risks and Potential Liabilities A. CEQA Compliance Risks
The applicant’s reliance on the 2024 Addendum to the 2013 MND is both legally and factually deficient. The Addendum asserts that the current proposal is “the same project” reviewed in 2013, with only two changes identified: (1) approval of the final parcel division; and (2) removal of a decayed Chinese elm. Those limited changes obscure the central issue:
whether new information of substantial importance has arisen since 2013 requiring further CEQA review. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (a)(3).)
City of Santa Rosa, City Council August 18, 2025
Gabe Osburn, Planning and Economic Development, Director Re: Comments Supporting Denial of Appeal,
re Elm Street Station Project at 874 North Wright Road Page 7

The Addendum itself attaches updated technical studies, but it fails to evaluate them under current CEQA thresholds and regulatory standards. In particular, the revised traffic analysis, air quality and GHG modeling, and Health Risk Assessment constitute significant new information not available at the time the 2013 MND was prepared. CEQA requires subsequent or supplemental review whenever new information shows the project may cause significant environmental effects not previously examined. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v.

San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 949.) An addendum is not an appropriate vehicle where the prior environmental document did not already address the newly emerging issues. (Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. County of Ventura (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 429, 435–436; Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 609.) Despite the substantial body of new information, the Addendum fails to:

1. Address water quality impacts. In spite of the high water table and the proposed use of fuel USTs within a census tract that has high levels of threats to the groundwater;

2. Address traffic safety impacts including local collision history;

3. Model air quality and greenhouse gas emissions under current thresholds and applicable policies; and

4. Address new scientific information on toxic air contaminant emissions from fueling operations or the cumulative contamination risk from locating a new petroleum fueling facility in close proximity to an existing propane fueling station.

The Planning Commission correctly determined that the Addendum does not satisfy CEQA’s requirements. The April 18, 2025 appeal letter ignores multiple categories of significant new information developed since 2013, including:
x New scientific studies showing gas stations emit more benzene and other toxics than previously recognized, with no safe level of exposure;8

8 See, e.g., Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, Gas Stations Vent Far More Toxic Fumes Than Previously Thought, dated October 4, 2018, available at: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/gas- stations-vent-far-more-toxic-fumes-previously-
thought#:~:text=A%20study%20led%20by%20environmental%20health%20scientists,external%20and%20opens% 20in%20a%20new%20window); see also NIH, Benzene emissions from gas station clusters: a new framework for estimating lifetime cancer risk, dated Jan. 7, 2021, available at:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8172828/.

x Advances in scientific understanding of groundwater contamination, vapor intrusion, and climate-related risks from fossil fuel infrastructure; 9 x Multiple recent UST leak and explosion incidents underscoring unexamined public health and environmental hazards; and
x The City’s adoption of Vision Zero commitments to eliminate severe traffic injuries and fatalities by 2030.

Since 2013, CEQA case law has further clarified the necessity of robust analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts.10 Courts have repeatedly invalidated project approvals where agencies relied on stale environmental documents and failed to prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR in light of substantial changes or new information.

The Council cannot lawfully rely on this Addendum to approve the project in the face of such unaddressed changes and risks.

B. Foreseeable Liability for Groundwater Contamination
Gas stations with underground storage tanks (“USTs”) present a well-documented risk of soil and groundwater contamination. EPA estimates that petroleum releases from UST systems remain one of the leading sources of groundwater contamination nationwide, with thousands of new leak cases identified each year.11 The State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) reports that, as of 2024, more than 1,100 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (“LUST”) cleanup cases remained open in California.
12 The appellant does not address the site’s location in a census tract in the 96th percentile for groundwater threat (CalEnviroScreen 4.0) and its proximity to multiple LUST cleanup sites.13

9 See EPA technical guides and acad emic studies on UST risk, especially regarding vapor intrusion and newer regulatory awareness. (See, e.g., EPA, Petroleum Vapor Intrusion website, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ust/petroleum-vapor-intrusion.) The inherent risk of vapor intrusion also supports the Planning Commission’s Finding A (concerning co-locating an on-site apartment) as petrol vapors can get inside the residential unit.
10 See, e.g., Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1167; see also Center for Biological Diversity v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204; see also McCann v. City of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51, 92.
11 See EPA, Petroleum Brownfields website, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ust/petroleum-brownfields; see also EPA, UST website, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ust/learn-about-underground-storage-tanks. 12 See SWRCB, Annual Performance Report website, available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/about us/performance report 2324/cleanup/411 cleanup.html . 13 This issue was raised in written public commen ts and during the Planning Commission meeting. (See CONGAS letter to Planning Commission, dated April 9, 2025, p. 4; see also meeting video at 1:04:30 [public testimony by health professional and nearby resident asserting the project site poses heightened environmental health risks not reflected in the applicant’s Health Risk Assessment].)
City of Santa Rosa, City Council August 18, 2025
Gabe Osburn, Planning and Economic Development, Director Re: Comments Supporting Denial of Appeal,
re Elm Street Station Project at 874 North Wright Road Page 9

The combination of existing contamination sources and a new high-risk facility creates foreseeable liability for the City under nuisance, negligence, and environmental statutes if contamination occurs.

If a release occurs, the City and/or appellant could face:
x Public nuisance claims under Civil Code §§ 3479–3480 for maintaining or permitting a hazardous condition that endangers public health and water supplies;14 x Negligence claims for approving and/or implementing the project despite actual or constructive notice of contamination risks documented in the administrative record; x Property damage and statutory liability under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code, § 13000 et seq.) and the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), including citizen suits under 42 U.S.C. § 6972.

These risks are heightened here given: (1) the site’s location in a census tract rated in the 96th percentile for groundwater threat under CalEnviroScreen 4.0; (2) its proximity to multiple open and recently closed LUST sites; (3) the relatively shallow groundwater table,15 and (4) the documented presence of another fueling facility (Blue Star Gas) within 500 feet.

The combination of multiple high-risk facilities in close proximity to residential uses and sensitive receptors materially increases both the likelihood and potential severity of contamination incidents, fire, explosions, and the City’s liability exposure if the Planning Commission’s decision is reversed and this Project is approved.

C. Inconsistency with the Policies Enacted In the Gas Station Prohibition Ordinance Although the Project was deemed “exempt” from the 2022 Gas Station Prohibition Ordinance (Ordinance 2022-010) because its application was complete before adoption, the ordinance’s legislative findings remain directly relevant and should be given substantial weight in determining whether to grant discretionary approval.

Those findings—incorporated into Santa Rosa City Code § 20-42.150—explicitly recognize that new gas stations present ongoing risks of groundwater contamination, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, and are inconsistent with the City’s climate action and sustainability objectives. For example, in 2022, when adopting the Gas Station Prohibition Ordinance, the Council recognized that “the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified gas stations and fuel storage locations as uses that may

14 See, e.g., Vedder v. County of Imperial (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 654, 661 [rejecting governmental immunity defense against public nuisance claim].
15 During the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Vicki Duggan expressed concern regarding the groundwater beneath the Project site between 7 - 12 feet BGS “which puts the tanks not only atop a seasonal wetland but within the water table, which is problematic.” (See meeting video at approximately 1:58:00.) City of Santa Rosa, City Council August 18, 2025
Gabe Osburn, Planning and Economic Development, Director Re: Comments Supporting Denial of Appeal,
re Elm Street Station Project at 874 North Wright Road Page 10 result in a brownfield site which are properties where the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse thereof may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant” and determined that: “businesses that support the use of fossil fuels 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.” 16 By approving this CUP, the Council would not only disregard the legislative policy judgment it adopted in 2022 but would also create an inconsistent and undermining precedent.

The applicant’s April 18, 2025 appeal letter does not address these findings or explain why the Council should disregard its own express determination that additional gas stations are “contrary to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare” (Santa Rosa Ord. No. 2022-016, § 2).

III. Conclusion and Recommendation
The Planning Commission’s denial is well-supported by substantial evidence and prior City Council findings. The determinations protect the City from foreseeable environmental, public health, and legal risks. Approval of the appeal would:

1. Contravene the City’s requirements for conditional use permits and with applicable zoning and General Plan standards;

2. Create significant CEQA vulnerability; and

3. Invite liability for foreseeable contamination impacts.

Therefore, the legally sound and environmentally responsible course is to uphold Resolution No. PC-RES-2025-007 and deny the appeal. On behalf of CONGAS, we respectfully request that the Council take this action to safeguard community health, protect the environment, and ensure the City’s compliance with applicable legal mandates.

Please address any questions and provide all future notices to the undersigned at [email protected] and to CONGAS at [email protected]. 16 Ord. 2022-010, p. 3 [Finding A].

Very Truly Yours,
Jason Holder
cc: (Via e-mail only)
Mark Stapp, Mayor ([email protected])
Conor McKay, Senior Planner ([email protected])
Ashle Crocker, Deputy City Attorney ([email protected]) Client contacts

From:

To:

Cc:

Eileen Bill
QtyCouncillistPublic
Eileen Bill
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Gas Station
Monday, August 18, 2025 4:59:21 PM Date:

Dear Santa Rosa City Council Members,
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 Planning Commission has denied the pe1n1it and I hope you will do the same!
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! Keep the air cleaner for the sunounding homes, the users of the Joe Rodota Trail and the wetlands.

Please protect our fine City and stop any further development or plans for such a station.

Thanks ve1y much!

Santa Rosa City CouncilAugust 19, 2025

Santa Rosa City Council
August 19, 2025