Design review board approves Elm Tree Station at 874 North Wright Road over public health and trail concerns

The Santa Rosa Design Review and Preservation Board voted 4–1 to approve design review for the Elm Tree Station project at 874 North Wright Road, a mixed convenience market and fueling site that includes six gasoline pumps, four electric vehicle charging stations, a roughly 3,500‑square‑foot general retail market with a residential unit above, and a 432‑square‑foot second retail building with a publicly accessible, privately maintained park‑style amenity.

The vote followed staff presentations that the City Council had already approved the land use — a conditional use permit and an addendum to the earlier initial study/mitigated negative declaration — and that the board’s current role was limited to the site and building design. Senior Planner Connor McKay told the board staff recommended approval and also disclosed a public‑notice issue: the DRPB email address was misconfigured so two members of the public attempting to comment had their messages bounce, a matter staff reviewed with IT before proceeding.

Why it matters: the project is subject to local design review after a long entitlement history, and the council’s August approval came after a 2022 city ordinance banning new gas stations grandfathered projects already in process. Opponents told the board they feared long‑term groundwater and air quality impacts from underground fuel storage tanks, neighborhood traffic and conflicts with the Joe Rodota Trail, while supporters and project designers emphasized trail access, a market that could serve trail users and neighbors, and landscape buffering.

Project details and design review scope Connor McKay described the site plan: Lot 1 contains the larger market building facing the Joe Rodota Trail with the single residential unit above; Lot 2 contains a smaller retail structure and a park‑like amenity area with picnic seating and bicycle parking. The applicant’s architectural presentation by Randy Figueroa (Tierney Figueroa Architects) showed stucco‑finished interlocking forms, a terracotta/brown accent color and mill‑finish aluminum storefronts and sunshades. Landscape architect Don McNair described bioretention features and a 48‑inch box Quercus lobata (valley oak) proposed to replace an elm that had decayed.

What opponents told the board Multiple public speakers raised substantive concerns about environmental and safety risks. Janice Carmen said tree removal and prior site disturbance had damaged neighborhood streets and driveways and urged attention to pollutant exposure for vulnerable populations near the trail. Woody Hastings, who identified himself as coordinator of a local coalition opposing new gas stations, told the board he was concerned gasoline sales are declining and urged consideration of above‑ground fuel storage as an alternative to underground tanks to reduce long‑term contamination risk. Jenny Blaker and other commenters cited well water near the site, wetland/flooding conditions, and cycling‑community objections to the trail‑interface design.

Staff and technical responses Staff emphasized the limited scope of the board’s review — design, not land use — and noted the council had adopted an addendum re‑evaluating environmental topics raised by opponents. Engineering staff and the city’s deputy director of engineering services said grading, drainage and a stormwater low‑impact development report had been prepared and routed to Sonoma Water for review. Cleve Journey (Deputy Director, Engineering Development Services) told the board the submitted LID report addressed surface flooding concerns; staff also said the project will implement geotechnical recommendations listed in the adopted CEQA addendum.

On underground tanks, Assistant Fire Marshal Mike Johnson said the tanks proposed meet current listed standards and are engineered to be installed near groundwater when required, including anchoring based on geotechnical recommendations; he said even stricter standards are expected in coming years. Multiple board members pressed about the dated 2012/2013 geotechnical study included with the original IS/MND; staff and the applicant pointed to the addendum prepared for this iteration and to mitigation in the project conditions requiring implementation of geotechnical recommendations.

Other technical items and clarifications - Staff confirmed a traffic study was prepared for the IS/MND and updated for the current project; the city’s traffic engineer was available remotely for questions. - The project was described as not proposing alcohol or tobacco sales at this time; classification of the larger retail space was described by staff as general retail under the zoning code definitions. - One board member noted civil and drainage plans were not included in the public packet even though the applicant said civil improvement drawings had been prepared and updated; staff confirmed civil plans exist but were not posted in the packet.

Board deliberations and decision Board members debated whether the submittal package and design information were sufficiently complete, citing missing civil plans in the packet, a lighting analysis for the canopy and site, long‑term material durability near fuel operations, and consistency with specific Planned Development (PD‑435) conditions. One board member moved to deny the application as incomplete; other members discussed alternatives including continuance and amendments. After deliberation the board adopted the staff resolution approving the design review (file DR21‑069 / PRJ21‑033) on a 4–1 vote. The meeting minutes record four ayes and one nay; the negative vote was recorded by a single board member while the remaining members voted in favor.

What happens next The board noted the decision is appealable to the city within 10 calendar days. Project approvals do not substitute for subsequent building permit and plan‑check reviews, which the applicant still must complete. Staff and the applicant indicated they will continue coordinating civil and construction documents, landscape and lighting details, and will respond to board feedback on colors, landscape maturation and trail interface details.

Quotations - "It was inadvertently configured to be an internal only, security, so it could not receive emails from outside of the Santa Rosa network," — Connor McKay, senior planner, on the public‑comment email bounce. - "Gasoline sales are in decline," — Woody Hastings, coalition coordinator, urging consideration of above‑ground storage to reduce long‑term contamination risk. - "They are designed to be placed in those situations," — Mike Johnson, assistant fire marshal, on underground tanks meeting listed standards for installation near groundwater.

Ending The board approved the design review but also recorded significant public concern about groundwater, air quality and trail safety that staff and the applicant will need to continue addressing in plan submissions and implementation. The decision is appealable within 10 calendar days of the meeting; building and civil permit reviews remain required before construction can begin.