Santa Rosa Planning Commission Regular Meeting – April 10, 2025

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission met on April 10, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. to consider a single public hearing item: the Elm Tree Station project, a Conditional Use Permit for a gas station, two retail spaces, one apartment unit, and an outdoor amenity at 874 N. Wright Road. After extensive public testimony and deliberation, the commission voted unanimously (6-0, with one recusal) to deny the project, citing inconsistencies with the General Plan, zoning code, and inability to make required findings that the project would not be injurious to public health, safety, or welfare. The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Jennifer Lapuerta (during non-agenda public comment) expressed concerns about emergency evacuation infrastructure not keeping pace with new housing developments in southwest Santa Rosa.
• Woody Hastings (co-coordinator of the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations, CONGAS) urged denial of the addendum and CUP, citing a letter from 22 organizations and a petition with 230 signatures, and argued the project would constitute a nuisance.
• Caitlin Rekowskie opposed the project due to congestion at the Highway 12/N. Wright Road intersection, evacuation fears during fires, and questioned the term "fresh food market."
• Matt Calloway (Sonoma County Conservation Action) argued that every new gas station deepens fossil fuel dependency and opposes climate emergency declarations.
• Tyler Krueger cited health risks (childhood asthma, heart disease, dementia) from proximity to gas stations, noted EPA classification as potential brownfield sites, and warned of groundwater contamination.
• Jennifer Lapuerta (retired environmental health specialist) spoke about her experience cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks, argued the gas station ban should apply, and called for leaving trees to sequester carbon.
• Denis Knowles (Community Advisory Board, District 4) opposed the project due to traffic, environmental contamination, proximity to another fueling station, and conflict with the city's climate emergency resolution.
• Wendy Cropnick cited discretionary decision-making, wetland concerns, and inadequacy of the addendum regarding current traffic and climate extremes.
• Rebecca Rydlebock (resident of Miles Avenue, less than 0.75 miles from site) objected on behalf of neighbors, calling the proposal "lipstick on a pig" and stating the neighborhood needs the amenities without the gas station.
• Laurel Chambers (public health professional, Vintage Oaks) highlighted safety hazards for children walking/biking to Wright Charter School, air and water pollution, and the site's ranking in the 96th percentile for groundwater threats in CalEnviroScreen.
• Aria Muirhead (healthcare worker, Chico Avenue resident) opposed due to groundwater contamination risks (noting shallow wells), cited research that 10 gallons of petroleum can contaminate 12 million gallons of water, and noted the area's 96th percentile groundwater threat score.
• Wayne Yamaguishi (30-year resident) argued traffic data is outdated, noting a half-mile backup at 7:30-8 a.m. and a 12-car accident with one fatality in August 2024 at the Highway 12 intersection.
• Jack James (District 5 resident, cyclist on Joe Rodota Trail) argued that Blue Star Gas, which sells "auto gas" (propane for vehicles), meets the definition of a service station, violating the 500-foot separation requirement.
• Alexa Forrester (Bikeable Santa Rosa) stated firm opposition, citing safety risks for cyclists and noting that gas stations generate high turnover traffic; suggested converting to a community market without fuel.
• Jenny Blaker cited a nearby abandoned gas station site that remained undeveloped for 36 years (21 years of remediation), average cleanup cost of $154,000, and listed conflicts with the General Plan (e.g., GHG reductions, discouraging auto travel, protecting groundwater recharge).
• Ana Glossen (likely "Anika Lawson" per transcript) (nanny who uses the trail with a toddler) said the trail is unsafe now and a gas station would not improve it; called a one-bedroom apartment over a gas station unlivable, and said the park is unnecessary given existing parks.
• Michael Hilbur (nearby homeowner) noted clay layer (2 ft down) and high water table (8 ft), arguing underground tanks would be in groundwater; raised concerns about attracting methamphetamine users, citing issues at a Chevron on Stony Point.
• Marla Charbonneau (Cotati) applauded Santa Rosa's gas station ban, noted California's 80% of smog from vehicles, 9,000 new leaks annually in the U.S., and a $1.7 million settlement for improper hazardous waste handling at 14 Northern California gas stations (including 2 in Sonoma County) in 2023.
• Kate Steen (retired environmental health and safety specialist) warned of explosion risk from Blue Star's large propane tanks if a fire at the gas station reached them; said the project would turn natural land into a brownfield; cited General Plan vision statement on sustainability.
• June Rushares highlighted the April 9 CONGAS letter documenting failures of the addendum on groundwater threats and traffic; argued the CUP requires five findings that cannot be made; noted the resolution should explicitly prohibit liquor sales without a CUP modification.
• Steven Pierce (Sebastopol) emphasized risk vs. reward: gas station profit margins ~1%, peak gasoline sales in Santa Rosa was 2016, and the area's zip code (95472) has the highest concentration of electric cars in the county (~8% of passenger vehicles).

All 21 public speakers (including the applicant's representative who was redirected) expressed opposition to the project.

Discussion Items

• Project Presentation: Senior Planner Conor McKay presented the Elm Tree Station project, which included 6 gas pumps with 4 EV charging stations, two retail buildings (3,448 sq ft and 432 sq ft), one 900 sq ft apartment, and a park with Joe Rodota Trail connection. Noted corrections: no extended hours of operation; the project is exempt from the 2022 gas station ban because it was deemed complete before the ban. Staff recommended approval of the addendum and CUP.
• Applicant Presentation: Jean Kapolchak (land use consultant) presented project history: originally denied in 2008, approved in 2013, entitlements expired, resubmitted in 2018/2021. Project is consistent with General Plan and zoning. Addendum addressed changes in circumstances (gas station ban, health risk assessment) and new information (updated air quality, GHG, VMT, traffic, wildfire).
• Commissioner Deliberation: All six voting commissioners stated they could not make the required findings for approval. Commissioner Cisco (motion maker for the addendum) said the city council's own findings in the gas station ban ordinance (EPA classification, contaminants, threat to public health) prevented finding the project would not be injurious. Vice Chair Duggan cited inconsistency with General Plan goals for scenic entryways (Highway 12), prohibition of convenience store in PD 0435, setback issue for residential unit, and proximity to Blue Star Gas (within 500 ft). Commissioner Carter noted risks from underground storage not adequately addressed. Commissioner Pardo said the project conflicts with the broader gas station ban. Commissioner Horton highlighted the city's climate emergency resolution. Chair Weeks cited the studies referenced in the gas station ban ordinance.
• The commission first voted on the motion to adopt the addendum (Resolution 1), which failed 0-6 (1 recusal). Then, after a recess to draft a denial resolution, they voted on a motion to deny the CUP (Resolution PC-RES-2025-007), which passed 6-0 (1 recusal).

Key Outcomes

• Motion to adopt the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Resolution 1): Failed 0-6 (Commissioner Sanders recused).
• Motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit (Resolution PC-RES-2025-007): Carried 6-0 (Commissioner Sanders recused). The resolution found the project inconsistent with zoning code (convenience store prohibited by PD 0435, residential unit too close to gas station per 20-42.150A2), inconsistent with General Plan (scenic entryway policies), incompatible with the Joe Rodota Trail, and that granting the permit would be injurious to public health, safety, and welfare due to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, groundwater contamination risks, and failure to comply with CEQA (the addendum did not adequately analyze new information on traffic, water quality, GHG, and air quality). The decision is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days.