Late Correspondence (Uploaded 08-20-2025) — Santa Rosa City Council, August 19, 2025

From: Lisa Lamb
To: City Council Public Comments; Planning Shared; Rogers, Natalie Subject: [EXTERNAL] 874 Wright Rd gas station
Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 8:34:02 PM
Good evening,
I am writing to urge you to deny the appeal for this gas station project and uphold the April 10 Planning Commission decision. In the last several years, our county and city have felt the impacts of disasters fueled by climate change. Building new infrastructure for last century's technology is sprinting full speed in the wrong direction.

I want my children to have a better life and a future full of hope and light, not stronger and more dangerous floods, wildfires, and power outages. Investing in fossil fuel infrastructure only prolongs our dependence on fossil fuels, which are creating climate chaos around the world and in our community.

It is my sincere hope that we will move past our devastating reliance on decayed dead plants and animals to
fuel our lives, especially since oil and gas constitute finite resources that poison our communities while it destabilizes our planet. If we want any hope of a livable planet, we have to start building a better world now, and that means investing in the infrastructure of the future rather than the past. We need our grid to be powered by renewables, expand battery storage, create more microgrids, and we need to electrify everything- especially transportation.

While I appreciate that this project does include some electric car charging stations, it is first and foremost a gas station. People don't want to drive to a gas station to charge their cars.

People want to charge their electric cars at work, at home, or in a parking lot near a grocery store, a restaurant, a mall, a movie theater, a park, the beach, place of worship, etc. They want to charge where it is convenient, fun, and interesting rather than at a gas station, unless they have
no other choice.

Aside from the climate impacts, many of our aquifers are already impacted by leaking underground or aboveground storage tanks. A quick browse on Geotracker will confirm how many active and closed cleanup sites there are in our city, and this gas station would only add to the potential for more pollution in our
community. I have issued hundreds of permits for
borings, monitoring wells, soil vapor extraction wells, sparge wells, etc., and I have seen how difficult and expensive it can be to remediate cleanup sites. Frankly, there are plenty of gas stations in Santa Rosa already, and we just don't need the extra risk or the extra traffic from
this project.

Thank you for considering my input and perspective.

Sincerely,
Lisa Lamb
District 7
From: Debora Hammond
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed gas station on North Wright Rd Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 8:37:58 PM
Dear Santa Rosa City Council members,
I am writing to urge you to uphold the April 10 decision of the Planning Commission.

The area where this proposed gas station would be located is an environmentally sensitive area, and the potential damage from the storage of gasoline, as well as the burden of additional traffic, is reason alone to deny permission.

The proposal violates a number of City ordinances as has been pointed out in the report from the planning commission. To overturn their unanimous decision would constitute a violation of the public trust.

As we struggle with the increasing challenges of climate change, it makes no sense to continue to support the growth of the fossil fuel industry. Please honor your decision and the desire of the majority of Sonoma County residents to halt the development of new gas stations.

Sincerely,
Debora Hammond
Professor Emerita, SSU
From: Heather K
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] no new gas stations
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 6:35:16 AM
Mayor Stapp and the Santa Rosa City Council,
I am distressed to read the news that you may be overturning the Planning Commission's decision to deny a permit to build a new gas station at the corner of North Wright Road and Highway 12.

A new gas station is unnecessary - there are 24 gas stations within a 5 mile radius of the proposed location,
and it is unhealthy for the neighborhood. Dangerous compounds like benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene are released during fueling and from underground tanks. Studies show these compounds degrade the air quality near gas stations. This location is adjacent to the Joe Rodota Trail where hundreds of people walk, jog, skate, and bike regularly.

Additionally, our neighborhood already has two well established family run markets. We do not need a mini-mart competing with local businesses in an area where we need more local business, not outside competition.

As a 15 year resident of the neighborhood, I urge you to side with the planning committee and remind you that the project is inconsistent with Santa Rosa's land-use policies and climate action goals. Please do not approve the Elm Tree Station!
Sincerely,
Heather Kristensen

From: [email protected]
To: City Council Public Comments; PLANCOM - Planning Commission Subject: [EXTERNAL] Petitions in opposition to proposed gas station at 874 N Wright Rd Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:35:48 AM
Attachments: Petitions - 8-19-25 Update-compressed.pdf
Dear Mayor Stapp and Santa Rosa City Council,
I am a volunteer who helped collect signatures in opposition to the proposed gas station at 874 N. Wright Rd. Attached are about 50 pages of petitions with over 350 names on the petitions in all. Please
abide by the will of the community and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the permits for this project.

I want to emphasize how much I appreciate your time and service to our community. I believe in the integrity of the council and its commitment to protecting what makes Santa Rosa special. I know that these decisions are not easy and that they often come with complexities - legal, financial, political. But I trust that the council does not shy away from hard choices when the stakes are high. I trust in your ability to rise above these pressures and lead with vision - not fear. You have the opportunity to show that Santa Rosa does not compromise its values - even under pressure.

Thank you,
Marla Charbonneau

August 18, 2025

To: Santa Rosa City Council

Below are scans of petitions gathered by community volunteers beginning in March 2025.

Over 350 people added their names to this statement of opposition to the gas station proposal at 874 N. Wright Rd.

For questions or additional information contact [email protected] 707-238-2298 www.con-gas.org
1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

11 12

13 14

15 16

17 18

19 20

21 22

23 24

25 26

27 28

29 30

33 36

45 48

49 Additional signers:

Shirley Johnston
[email protected] 95492
Brent Anderson [email protected] 95492
Patricia Stilliner [email protected] 95404
Marla Charbonneau [email protected] 94931
Pamela Fender [email protected] 94928

51 From: June Brashares
To: City Council Public Comments
Cc: Rogers, Natalie; Okrepkie, Jeff; Banuelos, Caroline; Fleming, Victoria; MacDonald, Dianna; Alvarez, Eddie; Stapp, Mark; Planning Shared; Osburn, Gabe; City Clerk; Crocker, Ashle Subject: [EXTERNAL] Agenda Item 16.1 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE ELM TREE STATION

PROJECT
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:45:32 AM
Attachments: Agenda Item 16.1 Aug 19, 2025 – June Brashares letter.pdf Re: Agenda Item 16.1 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL

OF THE ELM TREE STATION PROJECT
Please find attached my letter regarding the proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

Please let me know if you have any trouble opening the attachment.

Thank you,
June Brashares
August 19, 2025

Santa Rosa City Council:

City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Email (c/o): [email protected]

Subject: Agenda Item 16.1, Council Meeting August 19, 2025 – 874 N. Wright Rd. Gas Station (CUP21-100) – Deny the Appeal

Dear Mayor Stapp, Vice Mayor Alvarez, and Councilmembers,

I have been tracking this gas station issue for several years now. I attended the April 10, 2025 Planning Commission Public Hearing on this matter and also attended earlier administrative meetings in 2019.

I’ve read the relevant documents in the file, and have fully reviewed the Planning Commission’s findings from the April 10 hearing, and I am in agreement with their finding that the gas station proposal does not meet the requirements for approval.

Many good points have been presented in public testimony and letters from the public that affirm the Planning Commission’s April 10 findings and that I agree with. The following are supplemental points I would like you to be aware of and to include in the record for the gas station proposal at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa.

1. Convenience Store Prohibited by Zoning District PD 0435 The project is in PD 0435 which expressly prohibits “convenience markets.” Santa Rosa Zoning Code (§20-70.020) defines a convenience store as “A type of general retail store which carries a range of merchandise oriented to convenience and/or travelers' shopping needs.” The applicant attempts to rebrand the proposed retail component of the project as a “community grocery store” to avoid the clear zoning prohibition.

However, the project’s own filings rely on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for Convenience Store/Gas Station uses, confirming that the use falls squarely within this prohibited category. Multiple project documents—including traffic, health risk, and environmental reports—consistently classify the use as a convenience store/convenience market with gas pumps. The Third Addendum to the Traffic Impact Study (Attachment 6, July 2022) states: "Gas stations and their associated market/restaurants are inherently convenience-based uses." In the staff report for the 2013 determinations, the proposed store was described as 3,600 sq ft and the applicant’s existing market was shown selling fresh food products as evidence of what to expect. The current staff report describes the store as 3,448 sq ft.

The applicant’s other stores currently operating in the county illustrate the true nature of the business: they are typical convenience markets selling alcohol, tobacco, and packaged snacks—not grocery stores with local fresh fruit, vegetables and healthy food. This point was made during the Planning Commission Hearing on April 10, 2025, by speaker Jenny Blaker.1 Other speakers also addressed the convenience store in their comments including Anika Lawson.2

In short, the proposed market is a convenience store by definition, by project documentation, and by practice—and PD 0435 explicitly prohibits it. Approval of this use would conflict directly with the zoning code.

2. On-Site Residential Unit inconsistent with Zoning Code Section 20-42.150(A)(2) The proposed residential unit above the gas station market is inconsistent with Santa Rosa City Code Section 20-42.150(A)(2)3 which prohibits a gas station from adjoining residential uses. If it is claimed to be a mixed use project, the Santa Rosa Code states that residential units in combination with any other non-residential land use are subject to the mixed use standards in Section 20-42.090 that mandate internal compatibility between uses4.

A gas station and a dwelling unit are inherently incompatible. Placing a residential unit in close proximity above fueling operations creates unavoidable toxic exposure.5 Studies show significant health risks from petroleum vapor intrusion into nearby or attached 5 Benzene releases from gasoline stations - Implications for human health https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/benzene-releases-gasoline-station s-implications-human-health.html
4 20-42.090 states:
“1. The design shall provide for internal compatibility between the different uses.

2. Potential noise, hours of operation, odors, glare, pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts on residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix of residential and nonresidential uses on the same site.” 3 Zoning Code Section 20-42.150(A)(2) states: "The site shall not adjoin an existing R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoning district or single-family or two-family residential use at the time the vehicle services use is established, except a nonconforming single-family or two-family residential use, or a single-family or two-family residential use in a commercial zone."
2 (See Testimony of Anika Lawson at the April 10, 2025 Planning Commission video at approximately 1:27:45.) 1 (See Testimony of Jenny Blaker at the April 10, 2025 Planning Commission video at approximately 1:26:15.) buildings.6 Recent epidemiological research links residential proximity to gas stations with increased childhood leukemia risk,7 with recommended setbacks now well over 300 meters.

The applicant’s reliance on 2013 staff or commission findings is outdated and rebutted by new health and environmental data. What may have been overlooked a decade ago cannot be justified today.

In short: City code prohibits residential units at incompatible mixed-use sites, and locating housing above a gas station is the very definition of incompatible. Approval would effectively sanction exposing a resident to chronic toxic pollution—an irresponsible and unlawful outcome.

3. Blue Star Gas
CONGAS has submitted letters documenting that Blue Star Gas (BSG) offers auto-gas vehicle fueling and meets the definition of a gas station. At the April 10 hearing, speaker Jack James and others provided testimony about BSG being a gas station.8

Commissioners appeared to agree that BSG is a gas station, but decided to specifically remove the section about it from the 1st draft of the Resolution. They did not use it as a basis of the findings to deny the project, having already many other findings requiring denial of the CUP . Despite it not being in the Resolution findings, the applicant continues to bring up their strawman argument about BSG.

The appellant claims BSG is not a legal gas station because BSG is adjacent to a parcel where there is a residential use. There is a house on the parcel to the south of BSG.

However, both BSG and the parcel to the south are within PD 0435, and the PD 0453 map9 shows both parcels to be zoned C-2-PD (General Commercial Planned Development). The exemption in Section 20-42.150(A)(2) allows the BSG gas station to adjoin the residential use since it’s “a nonconforming single-family or two-family residential use, or a single-family or two-family residential use in a commercial zone”.

9https://santa-rosa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7513033&GUID=B5D9E271-2F15-487C-B7AE-0699EA0C BE8A Attachment 23 - PD 0435, page 3.
8 (See Testimony of Jack James at the April 10, 2025 Planning Commission video at approximately 1:16:15.) 7 Residential proximity to petrol stations and risk of childhood leukemia https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10275799/
6 Petroleum Vapor Intrusion, US EPA https://www.epa.gov/ust/petroleum-vapor-intrusion

4. Project inconsistent with PD 0435 Design Criteria

The PD 0435 guideline for Design Criteria and Site Planning states that driveway approaches shall be minimized, shared driveways encouraged, and parking lots shall be interconnected among parcels.10 The project is not compliant. The design does not enable a shared driveway with the adjoining BSG. In addition, the project has an extra egress driveway beyond what is necessary for accessing and exiting the site. The project’s site plan has two access driveways: the north for egress only and the south for both ingress and egress. Also the project isn’t designed to have any interconnected parking lot with BSG’s parking lot. BSG has its parking lot and driveway at the north end of its parcel, adjacent to the project, so it would have been possible for the project to be designed to share a driveway or interconnect the parking lot with BSG’s parking lot.

5. Inconsistencies with Santa Rosa’s General Plan
The proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road is inconsistent with the General Plan’s requirements for scenic city entry corridors. While the developer claims the site is not on a designated scenic road, the community correctly points out that Fulton Road is a designated entry corridor. The General Plan requires that such corridors be aesthetically appealing, welcoming, and consistent with Santa Rosa’s community character. The proposal conflicts with this vision. A gas station and convenience store, with associated lighting, signage, and traffic, do not contribute to an attractive or scenic entryway.

The developer claims the site has minimal visibility from Highway 12. The 2013 staff report contradicts that and states “The project will also attract a regional clientele due to its visible location adjacent to Highway 12.” In addition, there are requirements that must be maintained as a condition of approval regarding limiting the vegetation to preserve site lines for traffic visibility for safety. This will necessarily reduce landscaping and screening, making the gas station more visible and further undermining the corridor’s intended character.

In short, the project undermines the aesthetic, scenic, and design objectives of the General Plan for designated entry corridors, and approval would represent a direct inconsistency with adopted city policy.

10 Attachment 23 - PD 0435, pages 5 - 6.

6. Basing a denial of the CUP not on the 2022 Gas Station Ordinance, but on the findings of the 2022 Ordinance
Although the proposed gas station was exempted from Santa Rosa’s 2022 Gas Station Prohibition Ordinance, that exemption was procedural only—allowing the project to continue through the permitting process because a permit application was already on file. The exemption does not mean the project is consistent with City policy or that it must be approved.

For the project to be “evaluated on its own merits” it has to prove by its own merit that it meets the health, safety, public welfare and other standards required for approval. The project has some characteristics that make it impossible to meet those standards, and just because those characteristics are common to all gas stations, it does not enable the project to be exempt from meeting the required standards.

The 2022 ordinance was adopted after extensive findings that new gas stations are incompatible with Santa Rosa’s climate, health, and land use goals. Those findings remain true and relevant about all gas stations, even if they were made during the process of adopting the ordinance.

Similar findings have been made by other governing bodies. In March 2023, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors made a finding that “Gasoline stations pose significant local impacts on public health and the environment, including toxic/carcinogenic air contamination, surface water runoff, leaking underground storage tanks, and more.” The County’s and the City’s findings remain directly relevant to the 874 North Wright Road proposal. On its merits, the project suffers from the very problems the ordinances sought to prevent: public health risks, more fossil fuel infrastructure, and land-use incompatibility.

In short: being exempt from the city ordinance does not insulate the project from the requirements necessary to obtain a CUP . Council has clear grounds to deny the CUP based on the same health, safety, environmental, and policy findings that led to the citywide ban.

7. Inadequacy of the 2013 MND and 2024 Addendum Under CEQA The 2024 Addendum to the 2013 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is an inadequate CEQA tool because it relies on a deficient original document and fails to address changed circumstances.

In the Staff report for the 2013 MND, on page 369, the Geotechnical Scope of work specifically states “Our scope of work did not include an evaluation of any potential hazardous waste contamination of the soil or groundwater at the site.” The MND had no serious evaluation or study done of potential hazardous waste contamination of the soil or groundwater.

The Geotechnical study noted the site had expansive soils and nearby earthquake faults, which would indicate a dangerous risk for underground storage tanks, but that was not examined adequately.

The Geotechnical report stated its study was conducted for a project that is “2 one-story buildings and fueling canopy and pavement.” Given that the project has a two-story building, this brings into question the technical study’s validity for the actual conditions on site, and the study’s recommendations related to conditions of approval.

The applicants reliance on the 2013 MND and claim that staff independently reviewed and accepted these reports is undermined by such errors and others having not been caught or addressed by staff.

The 2013 MND was deficient as there was also not adequate public engagement to provide sufficient scrutiny of the MND prior to its approval. The Oct 2013 Staff report states: “a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for a 30-day public review from September 9, 2013 through October 8, 2013. As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration...On October 12, 2011 a Neighborhood Meeting was held. The only attendant at the Neighborhood Meeting was a representative from the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition, who did not specify a position on the project.” Only two letters and one email were received. The report noted “The correspondence identifies concerns regarding the project.”
The MND Addendum was also deficient: in the area of traffic, it relied on outdated traffic data and never conducted a new, site-specific study of conditions at the North Wright Road/Highway 12 intersection. No updated existing conditions scenario, no peak-hour traffic counts, nor operational analysis were conducted. There was no new collision history obtained or analysis of collision rates, such as the analysis done in the 2013 report that used data from 2006–2011.11 Therefore, the latest collision data was from 2011, though the Addendum was done in 2024. This was despite there having been collisions including at least one fatality in the area in recent years, and the project adds significant driveways and vehicle trips that increase congestion as well as hazards for other motorists, and for pedestrians and bicyclists on Wright Road and the Joe Rodota Trail.

The project’s traffic assumptions shifted—moving from a conservative 50% pass-by rate in 2013 to a much higher 70% rate—undermining the credibility of the analysis.

In the Addendum, the Health Risk Assessment on page 16 cited that BAAQMD’s Permitted Stationary Sources 2020 GIS map website12 was used as a tool to identify the location of nearby stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazards impacts. It stated that. “No sources within the project’s 1,000-foot influence area were identified using this tool.” However, BAAQMD’s website currently shows it has a 2022 CEQA Permitted Stationary Sources Dataset which identifies 2 stationary sources within the 1,000-foot influence area. The sources are at 3965 Occidental Road and 1098 Fulton Road.

8. A new Gas Station at 874 North Wright Road Is Not Needed The proposed gas station at 874 North Wright Road is unnecessary given the large number of existing fueling stations in close proximity. There are already 12 gas stations within a 3-mile radius of the site, providing more than adequate service to the area. For example, the closest stations are a Chevron 1.6 miles east and an Arco 1.8 miles north. If going in another direction, there’s another Chevron 2.9 miles west. Even traveling south, the Valero on Highway 116 is only 5.9 miles away.

More broadly, the City of Santa Rosa’s 2022 analysis found that there are 44 operating gas stations within city limits, with several more not far outside city limits. That is already more than sufficient capacity for local residents and travelers, particularly as the City and State transition toward electric vehicles and reduced gasoline dependence.

According to California Energy Commission data, gasoline sales in California have been steadily declining since 2016. This trend is driven by multiple, lasting factors: improved fuel efficiency in gas-powered cars, the rise of plug-in hybrid vehicles, the fact that nearly 12https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=845658c19eae4594b9f4b805fb9d89a3 11https://santa-rosa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7513033&GUID=B5D9E271-2F15-487C-B7AE-0699EA0 CBE8A Attachment 5 (report from 2013) page 4 “Collision rates were calculated based on records available from the California Highway Patrol as published in their Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) reports.

The most current five-year period available is July 2006 through June 2011.” 30% of new car sales in California are now pure battery-electric vehicles, and lifestyle changes such as remote work that reduce commuting.

Given these trends, building a new gas station in 2025 is a poor decision both economically and environmentally. From a business perspective, declining fuel demand means new gas stations will face shrinking customer bases and diminished profitability.

From a local government perspective, approving a new station creates a high risk of abandonment and eventual closure within a decade. When that happens, Santa Rosa would be left with a contaminated toxic site, requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars in clean-up costs—a burden that often falls on taxpayers.

This concludes my comments. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

June Brashares,
Sonoma County 95472

From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Opposition to proposed gas station at Wright Rd & Highway 12 Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:32:40 AM

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:31 AM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Jeff Okrepkie <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]> Cc: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Opposition to proposed gas station at Wright Rd & Highway 12

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

I am writing to urge you to reject the appeal of the unanimous decision by the Planning Commission to deny a permit for the proposed gas station at Wright Road and Highway

12. I live within a mile of this site and I am vehemently opposed to any gas station (posing as a fresh food market) on the wetlands where I live.

We have seen increasingly high
flooding in this area in recent years and it is virtually a certainty that a gas station will contaminate our wetlands.

We have spent vast resources and time rehabilitating the Laguna de Santa Rosa nearby. A gas station is simply not compatible with our restored wetlands.

Moreover, another gas station (or even food market) is completely unnecessary. There are multiple gas stations within a few miles of this site; one just down the road on Highway 12. There are multiple locally-owned food markets within a few miles of this site, most actually fresh food markets unlike what is proposed here.

Finally, this is already an incredibly busy intersection. Those of us who live in the area know that it can take a long time to get through the intersection during busy commute hours. Highway 12 is inundated with cars in both directions, not only during commute hours, but most of the day weekdays and weekends.

A gas station/mini-market will only
exacerbate the traffic problems we already face.

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission made the right call. Don’t bow to the pressure to undo the Commission’s fine work. Thank you.

(I would be there in person tonight to oppose this untenable proposal but I just had surgery and cannot drive.)

Nancy Pemberton
Santa Rosa, CA. 95401

From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] "NO" to Gas Stations in wetlands - and overturning the Planning Commission"s unanimous decision
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:33:01 AM

From: Angela Ford <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:46 AM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>
Cc: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject:
[EXTERNAL] "NO" to Gas Stations in wetlands - and overturning the Planning Commission's unanimous decision

Dear Santa Rosa City councilmembers,
HOLD FIRM - say "NO!"
Santa Rosa Mayor Stapp's attempting to push you to overturn the Planning Commission's unanimous decision to deny the gas station permit for a gas station in a wetland (at Wright Rd. and Hwy. 12) by the Rodota Trail where there are 12 gas stations within 3 miles - in the middle of a full blown climate crisis. The water table at this site is very high and contamination is guaranteed.

Thank you!
Angela Ford

From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Deny gas station permit @ Wright Rd & Hwy 12 Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:33:16 AM

From: Wayne Gibb <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:26 AM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Deny gas station permit @ Wright Rd & Hwy 12

Hello,

I write to urge denial of a gas station permit at Wright Rd & Hwy 12 for the following reasons:

a. It's in a wetland by the Rodota Trail where there are already 12 gas stations within 3 miles. The water table at this site is very high and contamination is all but guaranteed; b. The City of Santa Rosa has defined this wetland as sensitive and has already forced nearby residents to abandon their septic systems and connect to the City's sewer system (an excellent idea!).
c
. We're in the middle of a full-blown climate crisis, and we need to de-emphasize using fossil fuels. We don't need more places to buy gas.

Please join Santa Rosa's Planning Commission in denying this permit.

Thank you for your consideration.

Wayne Gibb
Forestville, California
From: City Council Public Comments
To: [email protected] Subject: [Phish Alert] [EXTERNAL] No to development at 874 North Wright Rd Date: Friday, August 15, 2025 9:01:29 AM
Attachments: KB4UserComments.json
The following information was sent by the user who reported this email.

Reporter: Manis, Dina <[email protected]>
Disposition: Phish
User Comments:

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
4993 B. Occidental Rd. Santa Rosa, 95401
From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Gas station
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:05:31 PM
Madeline Brown (she/her) | Administrative Analyst
Planning and Economic Development |100 Santa Rosa Ave. | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-4646 | Cell (707) 495-8146 | [email protected]

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!
-----Original Message-----
From: Molly Martin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:39 AM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Gas station
Dear Councilors,
Please uphold the planning commission’s decision to NOT build a new gas station on the sensitive wetland at Wright Road.

Molly Martin
Santa Rosa

From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] No gas station on the wetland you protected earlier Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:06:44 PM

From: Linda Sartor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:46 AM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>
Cc: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject:
[EXTERNAL] No gas station on the wetland you protected earlier

Please do not vote to overturn the Planning Commission's unanimous decision to deny the gas station permit for a gas station in the wetland at Wright Rd. and Hwy. 12, where there are already 12 gas stations within 3 miles. The water table at this site is very high and it seems that contamination is guaranteed.

Though the developers are defining it as a fresh food market, my understanding is that it is a standard convenience store with a gas pump and a propane tank for selling propane.

The City has earlier defined the
wetland as sensitive and has forced residents to abandon their septic systems and be connected to the City's sewer.

Thank you for that.

Linda Sartor
From: Danielle
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed new gas station
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:38:05 PM
Hello council members,
I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the new gas station planned at the intersection of Fulton Rd. and HWY 12. How is the city council even considering granting the appeal when the planning commission banned the construction of new stations in 2022? This project is inconsistent with the city's climate action guidelines. In an era when the climate crisis is threatening our very existence, adding a new gas station to Santa Rosa is madness. There is no need to build another station when so many already exist in our city and many residents are transitioning to electric vehicles. This project is not needed nor wanted.

Danielle Lemaitre
From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Don"t Overturn an Important Environmental Protection Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:39:02 PM

From: Abby Bogomolny <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]> Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Don't Overturn an Important Environmental Protection

Dear Members of the Santa Rosa City Council,

I strongly oppose the overturning of the Planning Commission's unanimous decision to deny the gas station permit for a gas station in a wetland (at Wright Rd. and Hwy. 12) by the Rodota Trail. It is puzzling to approve this when there are 12 gas stations within 3 miles and we are in the middle of a climate crisis.

The water table at this site is very high and contamination of wildlife and the water table from petroleum products is guaranteed.

How does this make sense?

Why would the gas station and mini mart (it will not be a full blow grocery store) be approved in a sensitive area? If the developer wants to open a grocery store alone that would be different. If the developer wants a grocery store, nix the gas station.

Thank you for your work.

Abby Lynn Bogomolny

"Love takes off the masks we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within." —James Baldwin

I acknowledge that my city is located on the traditional territory and homelands of the Pomo People,
and honor with gratitude the land, wildlife, and people who have respected and cared for it throughout the generations.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This message is private and confidential. If you've received it in error, kindly delete it.

From: Lorie Obal
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 25-0503 Elm Tree Station Appeal
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1:06:42 PM
Please deny approval for the Gas station project at 874 N Wright Road. This will only create more problems along the already troubled Joe Rodota Trail.

I regularly use the trail and breathe a sigh of relief after I run the gauntlet of garbage and broken glass on the trail near Stony Point. People regularly raid business dumpsters adjacent to the trail at Stony Point and drag piles of garbage onto the trail.

The resulting smell and
mess are disgusting. This project will create another garbage dumping source on the trail. This will also attract more rats and I don’t want our tax dollars wasted on another $10K cleanup.

It is unfortunate, but food sources along the trail attract homeless encampments and serve to enable rather than help the homeless who will be more disinclined to accept services if they can scavenge what they need along the trails. This business will create a public nuisance requiring more law enforcement, cleanup services, etc. It will make yet another section of the trail unusable for families with children.

The sidewalk section of the trail that passes this location will also become more hazardous as cyclists will have to dodge cars entering and leaving the business where there is currently no such hazard.

This is as bad a location for this type of business as was the ill-fated golf driving range along Hwy 12. Please don’t permit something that is going to end up causing more waste of taxpayer dollars.

Sincerely,
Lorie Obal
From: Laura
To: City Council Public Comments
Cc: Rogers, Natalie; Okrepkie, Jeff; Banuelos, Caroline; Fleming, Victoria; MacDonald, Dianna; Alvarez, Eddie; Stapp, Mark; Planning Shared; McKay, Conor; Osburn, Gabe; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Agenda Item 16.1 Elm Tree Station - 874 North Wright Road (Convenience Store and Gas Station)
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1:45:27 PM
Attachments: Agenda Item 16.1 Elm Tree Station - letter from L Gonzalez.pdf Please find attached my letter regarding Agenda Item 16.1 Elm Tree Station - 874 North Wright Road
Sincerely,
Laura Gonzalez
District 7
August 19, 2025
Mayor Stapp and City Council
Santa Rosa City Council:

City of Santa Rosa
100 Santa Rosa Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Email (c/o): [email protected]
Subject: 874 North Wright Road Convenience Store and Gas Station Dear Mayor Stapp and
Councilmembers,
I am writing to oppose the construction of a gas station and a convenience store at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa. The developer claims that the mini-mart at the gas station will be a “small grocery store” that will sell fresh fruits and vegetables. This is hard to believe. Especially given the fact that this particular developer has stores all over the County that don’t sell fresh food. It appears they are calling it a “small grocery store” to try to get around the zoning code that prohibits convenience stores at that location.

The October 2013 Planning Dept Staff Report for the proposed project stated: “The defining characteristic of a small grocery store, as opposed to a convenience store, is that the store primarily sells food, including canned and frozen foods, fresh fruits and vegetables, fresh and prepared meats, fish and poultry.”
The 2013 document
included photos of a
market owned and
operated by the applicant
to show the coolers and
products available inside
MD stores at that time.
(See photo at right ->
& photos on next 2
pages)
These are the black and
white photos from pages
5, 6, and 7 of the Elm
Tree Station Proposal
Statement.1
1 Planning Department Staff Report of October 24, 2013, pages 30–33 (Elm Tree Station Proposal Statement pages 5-7) at:
https://santa-rosa.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3842102&GUID=E4C4B7EF-8513-477C-AD31-57D3FE236 24E&Options=&Search=

3 4

We don’t need more stores like this in our neighborhood. As mentioned, the MD store in the color photos is less than a mile north of the proposed project site. There’s another MD store less than 2 miles east of the proposed site.

We have many stores in the area around 874 Wright Road. Here’s a listing of some of them and their distance from the proposed project:
● .4 mile away - Stop N Save, 1078 S Wright Rd, 95407
● .4 mile away - La Famiglia Market & Deli, 3931 Sebastopol Rd, 95407 ● .9 mile away - M D Liquor & Food, 2446 W 3rd St, 95401 ● 1.2 miles - Quick Pick Market & Deli, 925 Corporate Center Pkwy J, 95407 ● 1.6 miles - Foodmaxx, 2055 Sebastopol Rd, 95407
● 1.8 miles - M D Liquor & Food, 1930 Sebastopol Rd, 95407 ● 1.8 miles - Oliver's Market - Stony Point, 461 Stony Point Rd, 95401 And the above list is just within a couple miles. There are over a dozen in a 3 mile radius. All these store options and MD’s current offerings negate one of the “selling points” of the project - fresh produce and other food. (Not to mention Food Maxx has a better selection and lower prices.)
If the MD owners are truly committed to “delivering something beneficial for this community”, I encourage them to sell fresh food in their nearby stores now, and not saddle us with a toxic-emitting gas station.

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

Laura Gonzalez
Santa Rosa
District 7
5 From: Ani Fowler
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Denial of the Elm Tree Station Project Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:09:26 PM
Dear Members of the Santa Rosa City Council,
My name is Ani Fowler. I am a recent graduate of UC Berkeley and a current student at the SRJC with hopes to work in water treatment for the city of Santa Rosa as a way to give back to my community.

I have grown up in Sonoma County for most of my life and went to school in Sebastopol and Santa Rosa. I've used Highway 12 countless times to get to and from school and have always appreciated
the open landscape and peaceful surroundings. This has been my home. I recently heard about the plans to construct a gas station at the intersection of North Wright Road/Fulton and Highway 12 with six gas pumps and four electric charging stations in addition to a
convenience store and residential unit. I am completely perplexed by this, not only because that area already experiences congestion just from regular traffic, but also because Santa Rosa alone already has more than 40 gas stations. Why are we putting money into another one when we could be investing in our infrastructure, schools, more sustainable
projects, etc.?
I see that the construction of the gas station would also include park-like amenities, benches, and picnic area, and a bike path. Why not just construct these things alone rather than add them to another gas station proposal?

I am writing because I cannot attend in person for today's hearing since my class conflicts with the agenda time slot. However, I want to state that I STRONGLY stand against the approval of this construction. We have much more pressing and important matters at hand, and another gas station, especially
in this area, is the last thing we should be funding.

As a member of this community, I urge you to deny the applicant's appeal for this permit! Thank you for your time,
Ani Fowler
From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO on a Gas Station in wetland at Hwy 12 & Wright Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:16:49 PM
Madeline Brown (she/her) | Administrative Analyst
Planning and Economic Development |100 Santa Rosa Ave. | Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Tel. (707) 543-4646 | Cell (707) 495-8146 | [email protected]

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!
-----Original Message-----
From: Gwynn O'Gara <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1:15 PM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]> Cc: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Vote NO on a Gas Station in wetland at Hwy 12 & Wright Please vote against this. Our health and environment don’t need another gas station where the water table is high and there are 12 gas stations within 3 miles.

Thank you,
Gwynn O'Gara
From: Jenny Blaker
To: City Council Public Comments; Stapp, Mark; Alvarez, Eddie; Rogers, Natalie; Fleming, Victoria; Okrepkie, Jeff; MacDonald, Dianna; Banuelos, Caroline; Osburn, Gabe; McKay, Conor; Planning Shared Subject: [EXTERNAL] Pls deny 874 N Wright Rd. Conflicts with General Plan Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 2:36:27 PM
Dear Mayor Stapp, Vice Mayor Alvarez, and Council members I urge you to support the well-considered and rational unanimous decision by the Planning Commission to reject the CUP and MND Addendum for the development of a gas station at 874 North Wright Road.

Overturning the PC’s decision and approving a new gas station at this location would, among other things, contravene the 2035 Santa Rosa General Plan (per a previous letter to the Planning Commission) and also the 2050 General Plan, adopted in June 2025, which I have just been reviewing.

I applaud the General Plan’s thoughtful, forward-thinking approach to improve the health of the whole community. It recognizes the reality and impacts of the climate crisis, and moves the City towards equity, environmental justice and resiliency. However, as pointed out by health professionals and many concerned neighbors and constituents, a new gas station is unnecessary and would pose environmental risks for contamination of air, water, and soil that would directly threaten the health of the local community.

Policy 2-1.1 and its Actions emphasize protecting community health and quality of life:

Policy 2-1.1: Encourage development that supports community health and quality of life and fosters complete neighborhoods in both established and emerging neighborhoods.

Action 2-1.2: Work with developers to ensure new development respects the integrity and character of surrounding uses, especially when nonresidential uses are proposed adjacent to residential areas.

Greenhouse gases, reducing automobile use, supporting active transportation:

The GP recognizes that “in Santa Rosa, 58 percent of GHG emissions (2019) are generated by the transportation sector” and focuses on “opportunities for the city to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emissions” with a heavy emphasis on discouraging traffic by automobile in favor of better public transportation and support for safe, connected, low stress, active transportation for all ages and abilities, including Safe Routes to Schools. In fact, we have heard a great deal of concern from the bicycling community, and from parents of children attending Wright Charter School, and others, that the addition of a gas station on N.

Wright Road, with increased egress and ingress of vehicles, would only exacerbate the existing problems with traffic and road safety. Building a new gas station now will ensure continuous greenhouse gas emissions from this location for at least the next 40 years, contrary to the City’s policies:

Policy 2-2.3: Maintain close land use/transportation relationships to promote multi-modal transportation and discourage travel by automobile in all private development, capital improvement projects, and area plans.

Action 3-1.5: Develop a process that invests in and prioritizes non-automobile modes of transportation in capital improvement projects to reduce VMT and GHGs, prioritizing, in order: 1. Active transportation modes, including walking, bicycling, and rolling. 2. Public transportation, including inter-city and regional systems. 3. Other shared vehicles such as carpool, vanpool, and rideshare/transportation network companies.

Action 3-1.7: Prioritize transportation alternatives such as active and public transportation, that reduce demand on existing facilities in lieu of widening roadways and further impacting the natural environment.

Policy 3-1.3: Promote land use, development, and transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that reduce VMT and dependence on single occupancy vehicle trips Policy 3-2.2: Continue to expand and improve the active transportation network toward completing a safe, continuous, convenient, and attractive network of designated routes that connect all neighborhoods and that is equitably accessible for all ages and abilities.

Action 3-2.6: Ensure that major arterials have active transportation infrastructure that accommodates all road users and does not present a barrier to regional travel for any mode.

Action 3-2.11: Support pedestrians and bicyclists by incorporating their needs and interests into regular planning activities for all City projects, including, at a minimum, any project on the Capital Improvements Project list.A
Action 3-2.12: Identify and analyze arterial corridors and improve them by preparing and implementing corridor plans to address all transportation modes, specifically active transportation, focusing on separated or protected facilities for all ages and abilities.

Action 3-2.15: Ensure that the needs of seniors, children, people with disabilities, and those using strollers are addressed through sufficient and continuous sidewalks, crosswalks, and reasonable crossing distances.

Action 3-2.17: Support Safe Routes to Schools programs to ensure all students can safely travel to and from school using any mode of transportation, with emphasis on active modes.

Action 3-2.21: Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian pathways in areas that connect to, or enhance, regional active transportation facilities such as the Joe Rodota Trail and Santa Rosa Creek Trail.

Action 3-2.29: Reduce neighborhood traffic in all areas of the city by ensuring arterial and collector streets can accommodate all modes of transportation.

Action 3-2.30: Improve the safety and efficiency of arterial and collector streets by revising the Street Design and Construction Standards to: • Reduce the number of driveways and intersections to limit conflict points.

Policy 3-4.1: Ensure that new development does not impede efficient, safe, and free-flowing circulation for all traffic modes.

The GP emphasizes protecting waterways, wetlands, natural areas. As you know, this is an undeveloped site with designated seasonal wetlands in an area that floods in winter.

Sinking two large fuel tanks into a wetland area and developing a gas station adjacent to land zoned for multi-density housing is contrary to these efforts.

Policy 3-5.3: Conserve and protect creeks, wetlands, vernal pools, wildlife ecosystems, rare plant habitats, and waterways from development.

Policy 3-5.4: Use existing (and/or restore historical) natural features and ecosystem processes for conservation, preservation, or sustainable management of open space, including, but not limited to, aquatic or terrestrial vegetated open space, systems that provide clean water, conserve ecosystem values and functions, and provide a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife.

Action 3-5.5: Explore options that help to conserve wetlands and rare plants, riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, and essential habitat for special status species Action 3-5.10: Continue to implement existing regulations and procedures, including subdivision guidelines, zoning, design review, and environmental law, to conserve wetlands and rare plants, riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, and essential habitat for special-status species. (EIR)
Action 3-6.24: Work with regional partners on strategic land protection and stewardship actions that increase carbon sequestration, minimize conversion to land uses that have a lower capacity to sequester carbon, and preserve contiguous open space areas to better protect ecosystems that are under pressure from a changing climate, allowing greater mobility of species.

Policy 3-7.1: Significantly reduce communitywide and municipal GHG emissions, achieving at least an 85 percent reduction of GHG emissions from community sources below 1990 levels by no later than 2045 with a commitment to accelerate reductions, as feasible, in support of the City’s and State’s carbon neutrality goals.

The Planning Commission addressed the aesthetics and visual quality based on the 2035 General Plan. While this is subjective, most people wouldn’t imagine that a gas station could be considered a visual enhancement to a major route into the city. The GP 2050 states:

Policy 4-1.3: Enhance and strengthen the visual quality of major entry routes into the city and major corridors that link neighborhoods with downtown.

Then, there are the safety hazards of situating underground storage tanks in a geologically sensitive area:

Policy 5-1.1: New development, redevelopment, and major remodels shall avoid or adequately mitigate seismic and geologic hazards. (EIR) And the hazards of gasoline storage tanks, pipes and pumps, plus deliveries by tanker to fill the tanks, with potential impacts to the local residents:

Policy 5-4.1: Reduce the potential for hazardous materials exposure to community members, visitors, and employees.

Goal 5-4: Protect all community members and businesses from hazardous materials exposures and releases.

Why risk creating a new hazard site now, that has the potential to be in use for 40 years and then become a contaminated brownfield site in need of expense clean up and remediation, which would be a major liability for the city?
Action 5-4.1: Continue to coordinate with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board on remediation, cleanup, and risk evaluation prior to changes in site use in areas where hazardous materials and petroleum products have impacted soil or groundwater.

Policy 5-4.2: Minimize risks to human health from hazardous materials.

Policy 5-4.3: Ensure adequate capacity and safeguards on routes used to transport hazardous materials to prevent or minimize impacts from accidental release.

Action 5-4.3: Continue to restrict future siting of businesses—including hazardous waste repositories, incinerators, or other hazardous waste disposal facilities—that use, store, process, or dispose of large quantities of hazardous materials or wastes in areas subject to seismic fault rupture or significant ground shaking.

Action 5-4.5: Inventory brownfield sites and identify necessary measures to remediate hazards. (Why create a new need for this now?)
Policy 5-5.4: Prioritize projects and strategies that mitigate hazards and increase community resilience.

Similarly, the GP addresses issue of groundwater contamination after the fact, but why create new sources of groundwater contamination which we know will occur since leaks and spills at gas stations always do occur?
Policy 5-9.6: Identify and work with partners to address impacts from groundwater threats and solid waste.

Action 5-9.39: Consult with appropriate regional, State, and federal agencies to monitor water quality and address local sources of groundwater and soil contamination, including underground storage tanks, septic tanks, and industrial uses, as necessary, to achieve State and federal water quality standards.

Many health professionals and others have pointed out the dangers to human health from contamination of air and water from gasoline.

Policy 6-1.1: Promote efforts to improve community health outcomes and ensure that City investments support community health goals.

According to the American Lung Association, “Gas-powered vehicles are a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gases that drive climate change… Burning gasoline and diesel fuel contributes
particulate matter, smog-forming nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, as well as carbon dioxide, into the air. These pollutants can cause asthma flare-ups, lung cancer, heart and lung damage and even premature death…” So how does permitting a new gas station square with this Action in the GP?:

Action 6-1.3: Collaborate with health service organizations, including Sonoma County Health and Human Services, to identify environmental risk factors for asthma, especially in Equity Priority Areas and areas where more than 10 percent of adults have asthma.

Action 6-1.4: Integrate health, equity, and sustainability considerations into City decision making across all sectors and policy areas.

Policy 6-2.4: Address conditions contributing to risk of asthma and adverse air quality.

Lastly, please listen to the community, as laid out in the GP!:

Policy 6-3.1: Ensure meaningful public engagement processes and events that make it possible for everyone—including Equity Priority Populations and in Equity Priority Areas, to participate and influence outcomes.

Policy 6-3.2: Inform, engage, and collaborate with residents, organizations, the private sector, and public agencies to develop and implement plans and projects that improve community health.

Please make the right and ethical decision this evening, bearing in mind the long-term implications of your decision for the future health of the community and the next generation.

Jenny Blaker
From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] COUNCIL MEETING 8 19 / 16.1** PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION

DENIAL OF THE ELM TREE STATION PROJECT
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:35:48 PM

From: Richard Canini <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 1:38 PM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>
Cc: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject:
[EXTERNAL] COUNCIL MEETING 8 19 / 16.1** PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL OF PLANNING

COMMISSION DENIAL OF THE ELM TREE STATION PROJECT

Greetings,
Please Deny the Appeal.

This land seem like a good candidate for
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open
Space District
Yours for our mother earth, Richard
From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] PLEASE DO NOT overturn the Planning Commission"s unanimous decision to deny the gas station permit for a gas station in a wetland! Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:39:04 PM

From: Revelle Mast <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:35 PM
To: Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Okrepkie, Jeff <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject:
[EXTERNAL] PLEASE DO NOT overturn the Planning Commission's unanimous decision to deny the gas station permit for a gas station in a wetland!

Dear Santa Rosa officials,

URGENT: the planning commission had it right.

Please oppose the gas station “fresh food market” by the Rodota Trail where there are 12 gas stations within 3 miles - in the middle of a full blown climate crisis. The water table at this site is very high and contamination is guaranteed.

The developers are defining it as a fresh food market, though it is your standard convenience store with 6 gas pumps and a propane facility next door. Out of one side of its mouth, the City has defined the wetland as sensitive and has forced residents to abandon their septic systems and be connected to the City's sewer system (that's good). Out of the other side of its mouth, the wetland isn't sensitive to gasoline and propane. Say what?

Here's a photo of the site:

Thank you for the work you do,

Revelle Mast
She/they
EIT, Community Organizer
From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Elm Tree SAtation
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:39:17 PM

From: KATHY POOLER <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:38 PM
To: Stapp, Mark <[email protected]>; Alvarez, Eddie <[email protected]>; MacDonald, Dianna <[email protected]>; Fleming, Victoria <[email protected]>; Banuelos, Caroline <[email protected]>; Rogers, Natalie <[email protected]> Cc: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject:
[EXTERNAL] Elm Tree SAtation

Dear Major and City Council Members, and Planning Commission,

I am a Santa Rosa resident. I live near the intersection of Stony Pt and Sebastopol Road at 961Kenmore Lane.

I am very concerned and am strongly opposed to a gas staton complex on the corner of Highway 12 and Wright Rd, referred to as the Elm Tree Station proposal.

1. Traffic issues: Highway 12 going towards Sebastopol from Stony Point is already heavily impacted with traffic. It is frequently bumper to bumper and It often comes to a standstill. I was rear-ended when the person behind me didn't realize that the traffic had stopped.

There was a fatality at that intersection last year. I go west on Highway 12 frequently and avoid part of Highway 12 by taking Sebastopol Road to Wright Road to access Highway 12. If the station gets approved, that would mean I would have to navigate that intersection on a regular basis. Having a a gas station at that very busy intersection would create a traffic nightmare! People on bikes and walking are crossing Wright Road there from the Rodota Trail, putting them at risk as well.

2. Environmental impact: This gas station would be in sensitive environmental area of the Laguna, which is habitat for wildlife. Due to the reported high water table in that area, the risk of contamination of the ground water is very high!

3. Santa Rosa had voted to ban any further gas stations, but this project, which was previously unanimously denied by the Planning Commission, is being allowed to pursue approval of this project due to a technicality that it was originally submitted before the ban was approved. That is not a good enough reason!

4. There is no need for a gas station and convenience store in that location. There are 12 gas stations within 3 miles of that intersection, and many convenience stores and markets.

PLEASE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT!!!

Thank you,

Kathy Pooler
From: Elise Sokolay
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Elm Tree Station project
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:57:31 PM
I am appalled that the city would reconsider allowing another gas station within the city limits.

There are already two gas stations within a couple of miles in two directions, let alone gas stations in Sebastopol.

I thought dirty energy was on its way out. Obviously, we still need gas stations, but I don't think we need any new ones.

Elise Sokolay
Monte Rio resident.

From: Conniemadden
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] No New Gas Stations!
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:17:44 PM
Honorable City Council members,
Please vote AGAINST approval of a new unneeded gas station in our city! We know you are committed to reducing cO2 emissions and they are caused by burning fossil fuels! We need to prepare for harsh climate conditions to come -
By ending support for fossil fuel companies! Thank you. -Connie Madden &
Wayne Morgenthaler
Co-owners, Oasis Community Farm
Sent from my iPhone
From: Brown, Madeline
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] No gas station PLEASE
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:46:35 PM

From: patty hiller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:32 PM
To: _PLANCOM - Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject:
[EXTERNAL] No gas station PLEASE

Please do not allow a gas station to be built on our wetlands. It is a recipe for disaster and we already have enough of those.

Thank you,
Patty Hiller
From: Shan Magnuson
To: CityCouncilListPublic
Subject: [EXTERNAL] PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THE WRIGHT RD GAS STATION Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 6:35:02 PM
Dear Members of the Santa Rosa City Council,
Please do not approve the Wright Rd. gas station!
This is not the time to be increasing fossil fuel use in Santa Rosa.

In April 2025, I joined environmental and health advocates celebrating the rejection by Santa Rosa Planning Commission of the proposal for a new gas station at 874 North Wright Road in Santa Rosa (at Hwy 12/Fulton/Wright).

However, at the last moment the developer submitted an appeal to the Santa Rosa City Council.

So once again, the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations and many other organizations and individuals that are part of and support the coalition are urging our City Council to uphold the well-considered decision of the Planning Commission and reject the proposal.

This proposal has been in the works on and off since 2007, rejected, appealed, rejected; approved in 2013 but never built; came back in 2024 and after two postponed Planning Commission Hearings, rejected once again by the Commission on April 10.

The proposal is based on an outdated 2013 environmental report. Much new information has come to light since then about the serious health impacts of gasoline, both from toxic vapors and from leaking storage tanks, and the inevitable leaks and spills which contaminate surface water, soil and groundwater. Many local residents who are on wells are rightly concerned about impacts to the quality of their water supply.

In addition, increased traffic on an already busy and congested road is a concern. The site is in a seasonal wetland that floods in winter, is adjacent to the Joe Rodota trail, adjacent to land zoned for multi-family housing and adjacent to the Blue Star Gas facility which would place two highly flammable facilities right next to each other.

Many thanks to you all for your service and commitment to keeping Santa Rosa healthy and sustainable.

Shan Magnuson

Santa Rosa City CouncilAugust 19, 2025

Santa Rosa City Council
August 19, 2025