Gas station opponents will soon have their day in court

A group of Clark County residents suing the city of Camas over a proposed gas station development near Union High School will soon have their day in court.

Clark County Superior Court Judge Camara Banfield is scheduled to preside over a hearing on the land-use lawsuit July 15.

City planners and a Camas hearings examiner have already approved plans to build a gas station, convenience store and car wash at the corner of Northeast 13th and Northwest Friberg-Strunk streets, about a half-mile from Union High School.

Neighborhood opponents are asking the city to reverse its approval. They worry that the project could contaminate the area’s watershed and nearby water wells, increase traffic, and endanger drivers, pedestrians and others traveling through the area.

‘We feel so blindsided’

Karin and Randy Nosrati have lived in their quiet Clark County neighborhood on the edge of the city of Camas for more than 20 years. They raised their children there and considered themselves a part of the Camas community.

“We have a Camas ZIP code and Camas water,” Karin Nosrati said. “We always felt like we were a part of Camas.”

But after months of fighting the city of Camas over the proposed gas station complex, the Nosratis and many of their neighbors in Clark County’s Morning Meadows, Katie’s Hill and Evergreen Tract Acres neighborhoods feel a sense of betrayal from the city they’ve called home for decades.

“We feel so blindsided,” Karin Nosrati said, “like a stepchild being pushed around.”

The Nosratis and six other neighbors sued the city of Camas over the proposed gas station in January.

In the weeks that followed, the opponents pooled their money — between $14,000 and $16,000 so far, Karin Nosrati said — to hire Bryan Telegin, a Seattle-area environmental and land-use attorney, and narrowed the scope of their lawsuit.

Environmental concerns

While the neighbors say they’re still concerned that the gas station complex would snarl traffic, the main issue addressed in their legal battle has more to do with what lies below the proposed development.

“We believe the proposed project will result in negative impacts for the Lacamas Lake watershed, the environmentally sensitive areas within Lacamas Prairie and Lacamas Creek, and will jeopardize the safe drinking water supply of over 30 immediate neighbors who are on individual wells for their drinking water,” Karin Nosrati stated in the group’s GoFundMe campaign.

The gas station opponents argue that because the land sits on a sole-source critical aquifer recharge area, defined by the state as an area where geologic conditions “create a high potential for contamination of groundwater resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of groundwater,” a fueling center is a prohibited use.

Neighborhood opponents argued their points before Camas Hearings Examiner Joe Turner during a five-hour public hearing in December.

On Dec. 30, Turner ruled that “increased traffic generated by this development will not create a significant hazard,” called the neighbors’ environmental concerns “speculative,” said the same risks exist at all gas stations and ruled “there is no evidence in the record that (underground fuel-storage) failures actually occurred or that this project poses a higher risk of such failures or a higher than usual risk of impact if such failures occurred.”

Less than three weeks later, the neighbors filed suit against the city, as well as gas station developer Taz Khan and one of the engineering consultants.

‘The gas station must be denied’

Telegin filed an opening statement on behalf of the gas station opponents May 2 in Superior Court. In it, he argues that the proposed development is not allowed under city code because “it meets the definition of a sole source aquifer and (critical aquifer recharge area) under the plain language of the city’s municipal code as it has been mapped as such by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” He also notes that the project site “is located within 75 feet of a known drinking water well and in close proximity to 21 other wells, thereby triggering the requirement for the submission of a critical areas report to evaluate whether the site would overlap any wellhead protection areas.” He adds that “because the gas station must be denied, so too must the car wash be denied as an ‘accessory use.’”

The defendants, including the city of Camas, have until May 30 to submit their response.