A controversial gas station in Redwood Valley is due for another round before the Board of Supervisors next month, as county staff considers a last-minute traffic study submitted by the applicant.
Mahmood Alam, of Faizan Corporation, first won approval for a gas station in Redwood Valley at the bottom of the grade in 2016. Delays led into the pandemic and the expiration of the original permit. In late 2023, he applied again, for a 10-pump station with a convenience store in the strip mall on the east side of Highway 101. He and his supporters say the area is in need of an ‘anchor tenant’ who will revitalize economic activity. But the Redwood Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) and other neighbors say there are enough gas stations in the town, as well as the county; that approving a gas station will not support the county’s goals of meeting the environmental crisis; and that Alam has racked up violations that make them leery of his businesses.
The Planning Commission denied the new permit on January fifth. The next day, Alam’s attorney appealed it, and on March 26, it came before the Board of Supervisors.
County Counsel recommended that the board continue the item so that Caltrans and the county’s Department of Transportation could analyze Alam’s latest traffic study. His consultant, Dalene Whitlock of West Trans, sought to debunk an earlier Caltrans analysis projecting that the station would engender 5,300 trips per day. Whitlock said that, based on the activity at another gas station also owned by Alam, trips would be under a thousand.
The board voted unanimously to delegate Supervisors Glenn McGourty and Ted Williams to gather more information about more traffic at more gas stations to inform their telegraphed refusal next month.
However, Caltrans appears to be standing firm on its insistence that Alam pay to close the median just to the north of the proposed station. That’s to prevent collisions the agency fears would result from southbound travelers turning left off the freeway to get into the business. Alam says he won’t build the station if he also has to build the median, which a local contractor said would cost $2 million. A letter from his attorney implies that Caltrans is in the wrong, trying to stick his client with the bill for a median closure that was well underway before plans for the gas station were revived.
In spite of the convoluted minutiae of the now years’-long saga, Dolly Riley, chair of the Redwood Valley MAC, says she and other neighbors are committed to their opposition. “There may be a lot of money behind this gas station, but there’s a lot of passion among the people of Redwood Valley,” she informed the board. “So we can continue to kick this can down the road, but we have the passion to continue talking about it.”
Former Sheriff Tom Allman said that, although the Coyote Valley tribal station and another station are nearby, the proposed station is the one that will provide a strategic advantage to first responders in need of a fill-up. “I remember, and I hope that you remember, when we’ve had emergencies in this county, and we’ve run out of fuel,” he said. “We’ve absolutely run out of fuel…This is an opportunity to have a state-of-the-art facility in Redwood Valley, a very strategic location, where we are going to improve public safety. We’re going to improve the south edge of the ridge, we’re going to have travelers stop there, we’re actually going to improve our sales tax by not having them stop in Lake County, Highway 20, northbound traffic is going to be spending their sales tax here, hooray.”
Alam owns gas stations all over the region. Last year, his company, Faizan Corporation, was ordered to pay $500,000 for 64 environmental and business practice violations in seven counties, including Mendocino. And in 2019, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a cleanup and abatement order for groundwater contamination and improper disposal of hazardous waste at the Express Mart on Gobbi Street in Ukiah. Alam says the fines were “100% housekeeping stuff,” such as poor reporting on the part of tenants. He also said he was cleared of environmental damage on Gobbi Street. Under questioning from Supervisor Maureen Mulheren, who was on the city council at the time, he said he had a disagreement with an environmental health inspector over what kind of testing was required in the vicinity of a city well. Pollutants were found in the groundwater, but not the city well.
“I spent millions of dollars, cleaning up the environment, rather than polluting it,” he declared, assuring the board that environmental health can back him up if anyone tries to prove otherwise.
But supervisors continued to be skeptical of the 170-page West Trans traffic analysis, which relied on data about trips to one of Alam’s other gas stations. Williams questioned Whitlock, the consultant hired by Alam. “Do you compare it to one other business, owned by the same entity?” he asked.
“Not normally,” she conceded.
“So something not normal has been submitted here, because we didn’t like the answer the Planning Commission gave,” Williams concluded. “Everything else aside, just looking at the research method here, I don’t think it has a lot of credibility. Sample size of one?”
Supervisor Dan Gjerde also found the single source inadequate. He suggested using traffic to the two existing gas stations in Redwood Valley as comparisons. He noted that, “The Chevron on Lake Mendocino Drive, visible from Highway 101, easily accessible from Highway 101. It’s the second closest gas station to the proposed station, as well as Coyote (Valley tribal casino), which is the closest gas station to the proposed station. It seems to me that trip traffics for those two gas stations should at least be considered in determining what is the appropriate trip traffic that this project would generate.”
Alam objected to the suggestion that the Chevron gas he planned to sell be compared to the product at the Coyote Valley casino, which was hotly defended by other community members. “I consider Chevron as the Nieman Marcus or Nordstrom,” he said. “Nordstrom customer’s not going to go to Wal-Mart. Neither the Wal-Mart customer’s going to go to Nordstrom. So with respect, I consider the casino is a Wal-Mart. That’s generic gas, so there is no comparison.”
With Alam’s attorney dropping references to the anticipated reasoning of a judge, and county counsel advising a ‘defensible record,’ the board voted to thoroughly document their denial of the project, which they plan to vote on at their meeting on May 7.
Anyone contemplating building something or starting a business in Mendocino County should first check in with a psychiatrist. To either be talked out of it or to get meds before proceeding. The instinctive, knee-jerk opposition to economic development is why Mendocino County is sinking into the economic abyss.
Unless you want to build some tax payer funded no income tweeker, immigrant housing.
It would be one thing if the company didn’t have multiple instances of environmental violations. But we’ve had enough of those with the weed growers. We don’t need to add fuel to that fire. Remember that this is a nice place to live, not a wasteland. If you wanna live in a garbage dump, move to the coastline of Bangladesh.
All good points but you left out the wine growers they have gotten away with environmental murder through the decades and most people just turn a blind eye and kiss their Asses!
Oh, and I neglected to mention the ongoing destruction of Native American artifacts and cultural sites that the vineyard people are responsible for.
Ted is all about property rights, until now for some reason
Redwood Valley does not need another gas station.
Okay Lori so please enlighten us then and tells us simple folks what R V really does need?
How about another winery or tasting room? Or perhaps an additional commercial sized weed processing facility? Maybe Big Daddy can come in and undercut whatever grower supply stores that are still operating there. Maybe they already have as I have not been there in ten years.I will take a wild guess that a cannabis dispensary tattoo shop or massage parlor would be welcome.Be careful with the winery situation or your little piece of paradise will be overrun by trucks etc day and night and end up being destroyed just like Hopland was.Thanks ironically to a very prominent Redwood Valley family that I would not dare mention by name.
It looks like a lot of the comments here, are ill informed. The Fazian Corporation is a wealthy statewide corporation that has been given every opportunity to make its case with high paid lawyers threatening lawsuits and a host of outside paid consultants – and at every step of the way the people living near the proposed station have made a more compelling case based on hard facts that the station would undermine their health and well being. Corporations aren’t people, their owners desire to make a profit shouldn’t be more important than the health and well being of people in our community. Fazian has a horrible record operating its gas stations in compliance with the same health & safety requirements that every other properly run gas station in our community does. Why should they get special treatment? This isn’t about being anti-business, its about being pro community.
With 2 out of the 5 Northern California refineries stopping gas production in favor of bio-diesel, that’s going to affect supply and prices more than anything. Of the remainder, Chevron has the oldest and dirtiest refinery of the three and routinely shuts down for ever more frequent maintenance periods. “Neiman Marcus gas”? Excuse me while I fall down laughing. Gas is inherently a BULK commodity. The “branding” stops when it leaves the refinery, but resumes when the Jobbers offload the gas into station tanks. They just pick up and deliver anywhere there’s a supply and an order. Unless Faizan would like to address the shortweights and self fabricated compliance stickers on their pumps. Hey- you could have paid 50 cents less per gallon at Costco for the SAME gas, most likely from the same refinery… But it’s “Neiman Marcus” pricing.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information from but for sure you need to research more about chevron and unbranded gas stations (Costco etc), there’s a good reason chevron customers pays as much .50c higher for Chveron gas then Costco to understand this you need to shop at Neiman Marcus and chevron not at Costco.
There was a court decision in March that overturned a decision by the San Diego County BOS to deny approval for a housing development. The court found that the planning staff and commission approved the development, but the BOS relied on the comments of individuals stating their preferences. The court decided that was not evidence in any way equivalent to that of the Planning Commission.
Attorneysat Law
An Association of Sole Practitioners
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors 501 Low Gap Rd
Ukiah, CA 95482 bos@mendocinocounty.gov
RE: Faizan Corporation U_2021-0016, V_2021-0005
Dear Honorable Supervisors:
April 10, 2024
The applicant for the above referenced project Faizan Corporation hereby demands that supervisor Ted Williams recuse himself or that the Board disqualify him from further participation, deliberation and voting at any further hearings regarding this application on the following grounds:
Applicable Law
Land use decisions such as the instant minor use permit application that apply existing standards like zoning ordinances to a specific real property and are determined by facts specific to that parcel are treated as “quasi-judicial” or adjudicatory in nature. Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 C 3d 605, 613-614 While granting or denying the permit application is in the discretion of the Board of Supervisors, California law does set forth procedural due process requirements and other limitations on the decision makers such that they cannot base their decisions on their own personal whim. Specifically, the property owner applying for a use permit is entitled to a fair hearing with unbiased decision makers who do not prejudicially abuse their discretion. A prejudicial abuse of discretion is established if the decision makers do not proceed in a manner required by law, the decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence. California Code of civil Procedure Section 1094.5(b)
A decisionmaker is biased if he has prejudged the specific facts of the case or harbors prejudice for or against any of the parties. A commitment to a certain result by a decision maker (perhaps, even a tentative commitment) can be held to violative of the permit applicant’s
Pg.2
proceduraldueprocessrights.BreakstoneBilliardsv.Cityof Torrance(2000)81Cal.App.4th 1205, 1236
A decision maker also violates the applicant’s due process rights if he considers evidence and information outside of the record. Vollstedt v. City of Stockton (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d. 265, 272-276
An abuse of discretion is established if a court determines that the agencies’ findings are not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 (c) “Substantial evidence” includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated on fact, or an expert opinion supported by fact. “Substantial evidence” is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or err oneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment. The existence of a public controversy over the environmental impacts of a project shall not require the preparation of an environmental impact report if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [See McCann v. City of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal App. 5th 51, 86]
Comments Made By Supervisor Willams at the March 26th Public Hearing
The following comments were made on the record by Supervisor Willliams at the March 26, 2024 public hearing on the above refenced permit application:
2:46:13- This is a discretionary permit from the County. Discretion means we get to evaluate, um, not does it have any benefit. Tom Allman may be right. There may be benefits to the County having more fuel reserves and it’s also true, it may be good if the County were receiving some of the sales tax. But that’s not the test. It’s not are there any benefits? It’s, if we were to issue th- a use permit- under the use – would there be any – uh- cu – could we say there would be no detrimental impact on health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in or passing through the neighborhoods. And Redwood Valley has shown up to tell us that this project would impact their health, safety, peace, and morals and comfort. And I don’t think any further traffic study would convince the people of Redwood Valley that this is a project that they want in their neighborhood.
2:47:09 It’s not right for me, I don’t live in Redwood Valley. It’s not right for me to say we’re going to stick you with this project because the applicant needs a return on his investment. That’s exploiting the people of Redwood Valley. They – through the MAC process. They’ve discussed this time and time again. Their community is not in favor of it. It doesn’t matter if anyone else thinks it’s a good idea. They don’t want it. And I would feel outraged if the County were pushing a project in my district if it were going – a – a gas station of this scale were going in Comptche or Mendocino or uh Gualala or Point Arena or uh – uh Boonville – uh – I would feel the same thing – that we’re exploiting those communities. Having an outside influence and the County condone exploiting a community. And so uh – I’m – I’m gonna stick with the Motion because I think no matter what findings
Pg. 3
255:43
2:59:53 –
3:00:22
3:00:30
come back, it will not change – the – the stance of people in that community has that their health, safety, morals, and comfort would be negatively impacted by this project.
Even if we accept the new information – I still couldn’t find that this doesn’t have a detrimental effect on health and safety, peace, morals and comfort, general welfare, of the people of Redwood Valley. And so we’re spending a lot of County money cycling through. The same people will be in the room. Positions won’t change. “I know how Redwood Valley feels. And I want to support them” So I don’t think we need to get into – uh- is it 10 cars per day or 10,000 cars per day- it doesn’t have much bearing. It adds an additional safety concern but separate from that there’s grounds to not approve the project.
“we don’t have the obligation to find the reason to deny it”
[In response to a question from Supervisor Mulheren asking if he would like to
articulate the “moral and health and safety general welfare”
I think it can be found in the planning commission hearing – there’s plenty of public comments that touches on these points. There’ s a letter from MAC that touches on these points.
“somebody could cobble it together, I could do that, but the bottom line is – I’m – I’m NOT going to approve this. My vote is not to issue a use permit
Discussion
Supervisor Wiiliam’s comments on the record clearly demonstrate that Faizan cannot receive the due process required under California law that the hearing be fair, that the decision makers not be biased or committed to a certain result, and that the decision makers do not abuse their discretion.
This is not a case of the appearance of bias or potential bias. Instead, Supervisor Williams exhibited actual bias on the record. Despite the fact that numerous members of the public including Redwood Valley residents either sent letters to the Board of Supervisors supporting the project or spoke at the hearing in favor of the project, Supervisor Williams has somehow drawn his own conclusion that “Redwood Valley has spoken” against the project or “does not want this project.” Based on this half-baked conclusion, he simply does not want to hear the evidence- even further evidence on the key issue of how much traffic the project will generate. If the scientific studies show that the project will only generate ten trips per day, this evidence will have no bearing on his decision because at least in his mind, the people of Redwood Valley “have spoken” against the project he “knows how Redwood Valley feels.”
Factual findings do not matter to Supervisor Willians either. These are something that someone can “cobble together” later after he has made his decision already on God only knows what basis. He even thinks he does not have to have any reason to justify denying a permit application and apparently has no clue that he is supposed to be acting as a quasi-judicial hearing
Pg. 4
officer following well established law and basing whatever decision he makes on substantial evidence in the record.
Faizan and Mr. Alam who have developed many nice projects in this community and have spent tens of thousands of dollars processing this permit application and a 2016 permit application for a similar project at this site in good faith, deserve to be treated professionally by this Board. Allowing Supervisor Williams to continue to participate in deliberations and vote on this project after making the above-mentioned outrageous comments on the record would be disgraceful and ultimately lead to the Superior Court remanding this matter back to the Board if William’s vote is the deciding vote that denies the application.
For these reasons, Faizan and Mr. Alam respectfully request that Supervisor Williams be disqualified from further participation, deliberation or voting regarding this permit application or that he recuse himself.
cc: H. Alam County Counsel
J. Krog
L. Crowley
Very truly yours,
VANNUCCI MOMSEN MORROW
Let the new development happen it’s good for our city.
Jennifer, I wish there were more residence as you are whom understand economics and developments.