Camas examiner hears gas station arguments

“The Department of Health submitted an email noting that there is confusion about which map applies under the City’s code,” Turner told a crowd who had shown up to the original Nov. 14 appeal hearing. “They said there are a number of maps that show critical recharge aquifer areas and other groundwater resource areas that may be within the scope of the City’s ordinance for critical recharge areas. Depending on how the CARAs are defined, it could preclude the use of a gas station on this site.”

On Dec. 12, Camas Development Director Alan Peters testified that the City does maintain a map of its CARAs on the City website and that, although the City is in the midst of a comprehensive plan update and could update its CARA map, the map used to determine this particular project’s viability did not show it to be in an area that would preclude gas stations.

“The environmental impacts within the Troutdale Aquifer System, we believe, can be addressed within the SEPA,” Peters told Turner on Dec. 12. “We do not recommend a ban of gas stations within critical aquifer recharge areas.”

Peters added that the City could require the applicant “do a study of containment underground storage tanks and the like to address any adverse aquifer impacts.”

The City’s legal counsel, Shawn MacPherson, added that the City relied on current maps to review the project and that state law dictates that “during a project review is not the time to address land-use planning.”

“That’s not to say you don’t address specific environmental impacts,” MacPherson said. “The City believes there can be sufficient mitigation measures to address those impacts.”

Camas Planning Manager Robert Maul told Turner that the proposed development, which would include a 4,100-square-foot convenience store with eight gas pumps, a car wash and 20 parking spaces on a 0.97-acre site off Northeast 13th Street, is a permitted use in the City’s business park zone under current Camas zoning standards.

Maul said City staff reviewed a variety of possible adverse impacts the project could cause — to the environment, the surrounding neighborhood, to nearby wetlands and critical areas, and to traffic near the 13th-Friberg intersection.

“The City staff made findings that (the project) can comply and that impacts will be addressed through City requirements or guidance from state agencies,” Maul said.

Neighbors say project is not a good fit for area

Opponents of the proposed gas station began to voice their concerns at Camas City Council meetings in February 2024, and said they were concerned the project would have negative health and environmental impacts. An index of exhibits turned in before the original Nov. 14 hearing listed more than 20 public comments – the majority of which opposed several aspects of the proposed gas station project.

“What a nightmare project it is for this location,” Ruth and William Small, who live on Northeast 16th Street, just a few blocks away from the project site, told The Post-Record this week. “There are so many Camas laws, rules and codes being overlooked, ignored or given variances for this 13th Street gas station, that it appears to us that if you have the means to acquire enough variances, you can do whatever you want to in the city of Camas.”

The Smalls added that they are very concerned about the project’s potential impacts on the area’s groundwater.

“There (are) 50-plus private wells surrounding this project that could be contaminated,” the Smalls stated in a Dec. 19 email, “not to mention the fact that – according to the county map we see – this project is sitting on top of the largest aquifer in Clark County.”

During the Dec. 12 hearing, Camas residents Karin and Randy Nosrati, who also live close to the proposed gas station site, presented the bulk of the opponents’ arguments against the development and noted several environmental, traffic, noise and safety concerns.

In November, Karin Nosrati presented findings from a professional traffic operations engineer at V-Naught Traffic Solutions, LLC, which said the applicant’s traffic study “did not follow the guidelines that the city of Camas has outlined” and “ appears to have missed several key elements.”

The opponent’s traffic engineer consultant argued that the traffic study conducted for the applicant by Charbonneau Engineering, LLC, did not include a 24-hour count as required by the city of Camas; that the data “did not directly account for traffic demand related to the nearby high school;’ did not “clearly include speed data, including 85th percentile speeds used in other analyses;” and that the analysis “only assumed one vehicle in the peak hours entering and exiting the gas station.”

The opponents’ traffic engineering consultant also stated that the traffic study used by the city to determine if the project meets city code requirements, included crash data that “did not specifically relate the development with any crash trends in the area or their potential mitigation” and said the “roadway configuration” used in the traffic impact study “ignored the eastbound bike lane.”

Randy Nosrati has told city officials he and his family are “seriously concerned” about the project’s impact on nearby traffic and safety.

“We have experienced traffic increase(s) year over year and don’t need reports to confirm it,” Randy Nosrati told the City in a March 4, 2024 email. “We know for the fact that the majority of the vehicles drive faster than speed limit, in some instances 55 (to) 60 (miles per hour). We have observed, helped victims of accidents in the intersection more than two times per year, (and) we had one car drive through the fence into our backyard.

“We are seriously concerned about (the) higher risk of traffic accidents introduced due to attracting vehicles to the gas station, dangerous left turn into the gas station, unprepared left turns into the gas station, stopping … for oncoming traffic to move into the gas station while vehicles are driving up the hill westbound, coming around the corner at above speed limit endangering safety of our family,” Randy Nosrati stated in his email to the City. “I don’t want to have a vehicle drive through my backyard, over my children, when we are enjoying an afternoon outdoors or simply doing a bit of yard work. Aside from (the) risk of damage to our property, our life and safety is at risk.”

During the Dec. 12 hearing, Karin Nosrati argued that the car wash attached to the project is not an accepted use in Camas’ business park zones.

In a rebuttal to the City’s staff report, Karin Nosrati pointed out that a car wash is not listed in the City’s table of accepted uses in a business park zone and that the only car wash in Camas is located in a community commercial zone. She also argued that chemicals used in the car wash could be sources of potential water contamination.

City staff said during the hearing that they consider the car wash to be “an accessory” to the gas station, and therefore an allowed use in the business park zone.

“We agree that the car wash is an accessory use and is more prevalent with modern gas stations,” Peters, the city’s development director, told Turner during the Dec. 12 hearing, adding that the City can use some discretion to “consider whether it is compatible with other uses … and a car wash is compatible with a gas station.”

Khan, the applicant, later said car wash chemicals “are water-soluble these days” and his stormwater engineering consultant described how water from the car wash would be “an isolated system that does not get routed to the stormwater system (but rather) gets routed to the sanitary sewer, (where) it then gets treated by the City.”

Karin Nosrati also argued that the proposed site sits within a “sole-source aquifer” — defined by the Environmental Protection Agency as an aquifer that “supplies at least 50% of the drinking water for its service area” and that has “no reasonably available alternative drinking water sources should the aquifer become contaminated.”

“It clearly states in the Camas municipal code that (a) sole-source aquifer is in the CARA designation,” Karin Nosrati told Turner. “If we go further into the city code … the uses prohibited from CARA (include) fuel and gas stations and underground storage tanks with hazardous substances or hazardous materials. We believe, by issuing (this) permit, the city of Camas did not follow its own codes.”

She pointed out in an earlier letter to the City that, not only is remediating contaminated groundwater “overwhelmingly expensive,” but that the state’s Growth Management Act “requires protection of public groundwater drinking supplies so that contamination events and their associated costs can be prevented.”

The applicant’s attorney later said they have hired a geohydrologist — a groundwater scientist — “who is prepared to work with the City” and conduct a study on the site’s hydrogeologic conditions.

MacPherson, the City’s attorney, said the City contends the site is not shown in the City’s 2012 CARA map to be in a CARA or in a sole-source aquifer area.

“That is the map the City’s consultants came up with for their 2012 water plan and is (what the City is using to interpret) its regulations,” MacPherson said. “It sounds like they’re on the cusp of looking at critical areas regulations (for the City’s comprehensive plan update), and may update their maps, but there are a lot of things that go into that determination, a lot of science … none of which has been analyzed by the City at this point.”

Karin Nosrati, who was representing dozens of other concerned neighbors during the Dec. 12 hearing, summarized the opponents’ objections to the project.

“We believe there is no reason, no permission, to place … a fuel station in this area. We believe the (City’s SEPA determination of non-significance to the environment) did not address chemicals from the car wash and land within 300 feet (which includes a wetland), and, therefore, it is not complete,” she said. “We believe that the traffic situation will aggravate many Camas residents in the process of getting home. And we believe (the project does not meet) City requirements, that the left-turn lane will not leave room for a bike lane … we believe this is an arterial (road) to move Camas citizens to and from their homes and, right now, there is no stoppage in that area. Tanker trucks will have to negotiate going into the (proposed) left-turn lane or into the current eastbound traffic and we believe this (presents) a major risk for head-on collisions.”

Applicant says environmental fears unfounded, that ‘technology has come a long, long way’

Khan, who lives in Camas, testified that he had been in the gas station-development business for 30 years and had never experienced any sort of leak at one of his station developments.

“Some of the misinformation may stem from 30 or 40 years ago, when there were some superfund sites,” Khan told Turner during the Dec. 12 hearing. “But technology has come a long, long way — for the tank monitoring, venting equipment installed by specialized contractors — our tanks have to comply with the latest standards. These are double-walled tanks, monitored 24-7 with electronic monitors that (alert to any) leak of pressure or presence of liquids.”

In addition to the double-walled fuel tanks, he said the piping that brings the gasoline and diesel fuels from the underground tanks to the gas pumps to the vehicle also are double-walled and meant to protect from leaks or spillage.

“In my 30 years (as a developer), I’ve never experienced a (fuel) leak or loss,” he said. “I want to point out that the technology these days has vapor recovery. At the fuel pumps, we have vapor recovery to prevent (toxic gases) from getting into the atmosphere.”

The fueling equipment that runs from the pump to vehicles also has “break-away” technology to prevent fuel leaks if someone accidentally drives away with the fuel line still attached to their vehicle, he added.

“In the old days, tanks were made of steel and steel corroded,” Kahn pointed out. “Now, new technology mandates double-wall construction and, in many cases, fiberglass coating, which is corrosion-resistant.”

Turner said he would likely issue a decision on the appeals two weeks after the Dec. 12 hearing, but that the winter holidays may impact that schedule.