Sacramento City Council
January 18, 2022

5PM City Council [Updated 1/18/2022 @ 12:50 p.m.]
Meeting Time: 01-18-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council [Updated 1/18/2022 @
12:50 p.m.]
01-18-22
17:00
34 77 4 67 1
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment

5PM City Council [Updated 1/18/2022 @ 12:50 p.m.]
01-18-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral

4. (Pass for Publication) Ordinance Listing 2666 Montgomery Way, 2701 Montgomery Way, 2730 Montgomery Way, 2751 Montgomery Way, and 2770 Montgomery Way as Landmarks on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (M21-008) File ID: 2021-01391 1 1 0 0

5. (Pass for Publication) Ordinance Listing 1121 40th Street as a Landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (M21-009) File ID: 2021-01398
1 1 0 0

14. Purchase and Sale Agreement: City Property Located at 3625 Fong Ranch Road File ID: 2021-01381
1 0 0 1

16. Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (Noticed 11/24/2021 & 12/23/2021) {Continued from 01/04/2022} File ID:
2021-01331
72 2 67 0
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda 2 0 0 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 4. (Pass for Publication) Ordinance Listing 2666 Montgomery Way, 2701 Montgomery Way, 2730 Montgomery Way, 2751 Montgomery Way, and 2770 Montgomery Way as Landmarks on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (M21-008) File ID: 2021-01391
Overall Sentiment
William Burg
Location: M__ndo_b
Submitted At: 2:16pm 01-18-22
The Board of Directors of Preservation Sacramento wishes to express their support for listing of these properties in the Sacramento Register and hope that it will lead to eventual establishment of a historic district on Montgomery Way.

Agenda Item: eComments for 5. (Pass for Publication) Ordinance Listing 1121 40th Street as a Landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (M21-009) File ID: 2021-01398 Overall Sentiment
William Burg
Location: M__ndo_b
Submitted At: 2:18pm 01-18-22
The board of directors of Preservation Sacramento wishes to express their support for the listing of 1121 40th Street as a landmark on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources.

Agenda Item: eComments for 14. Purchase and Sale Agreement: City Property Located at 3625 Fong Ranch Road File ID:
2021-01381
Overall Sentiment
Dustin Parciasepe
Location:

Submitted At: 4:23pm 01-18-22
Why is the City footing the bill for affordable housing on the tax payers dime to increase the profits margins for Anton DevCo.

Where is the Community Workforce & Training Agreement(CWTA), the City agreed to and made commitment so that it insures: Local hire, Area standard Wages, Healthcare benefits, and Certified Training to our aspiring labor force. Will the workers who build it be able to afford to live there working for the wages that Anton DevCo pays without having to use public assistance from the tax payers? I as a resident and carpenter living within the City of Sacramento since 2010 have worked and built schools and hospitals, etc. I have had to travel outside of Sacramento due to the struggle to find work that pays the area standard wages within my own city.

Please consider why is the Community Workforce & Training Agreement being ignored, and how does that affect the Public Interest & Core Values of my City I call home. --Dustin Parciasepe
Agenda Item: eComments for 16. Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (Noticed 11/24/2021 & 12/23/2021) {Continued from 01/04/2022} File ID: 2021-01331 Overall Sentiment
Shannon Smith-Crowley
Location:

Submitted At: 7:45pm 01-18-22
It took decades to get the brownfield completely remediated. Gas tanks tend to leak. Why would we put in a potential hazard, especially when not needed given the plethora of local gas stations? This also goes against the City’s ordinance to not place certain businesses, such as gas stations within close proximity to light rail stations.

Laurie Litman
Location:

Submitted At: 7:06pm 01-18-22
We are in a CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!! The city council knows this, has acknowledged this, but we're still waiting for the council to take action. We are looking at increasingly catastrophic wildfires, rising sea level, droughts, food insecurity, and many more terrifying consequences of the climate crisis caused by burning fossil fuels. Why add more fossil fuel infrastructure when the council is currently trying to cut emissions? We are asking you to care about our future and that of our children and grandchildren. Say NO to this fuel center, to all new fossil fuel infrastructure. We're in a CLIMATE EMERGENCY , we must stop digging! Katie Thomas
Location:

Submitted At: 6:44pm 01-18-22
We’ve been here before. The same issues apply. The development was presented as a transit friendly community. It sits next a lite rail station. Climate Change is a serious and increasing threat to the planet. Fossil fuel is the main cause. There are plenty of gas stations in the area already. Thank you, Katie Thomas Dennis Sorge
Location:

Submitted At: 5:16pm 01-18-22
We live on the 24th Street and are already taking the brunt of the traffic since the opening of Crocker Village. We oppose the gas station. There are already plenty of gas stations available as it currently stands. Additionally, in our twenty years of living in Curtis Park we have never had to wait for an open pump at any time of day. Please strike this plan down once and for all.

Kathe Barnett
Location:

Submitted At: 5:14pm 01-18-22
In addition to not being environmentally friendly, we have sufficient fuel stations in the area.

A gas station is not consistent with a historical neighborhood like Curtis Park.

If you must put in a station, make it electric.

Margret Heede
Location:

Submitted At: 5:12pm 01-18-22
Mayor and Council members,
I vigorously am Pro the Gas and Electric Charging Stations as it has met all the requirements from the Planning Commission to the 8 judges who agreed and the State Supreme Ct.

I have a 40 year resident of Curtis Park and have twice served on the board and supported our neighborhood through our many fundraisers. There are many residents I know who feel the same but are reticent about speaking up because of the Neighborhood Association.

There will be 8 pumps and not all will be in use except for Peak Hours. This saves wait time and Greenhouse Gases also. The almost
3,000 residents of Crocker Village will be gasing up inside instead of driving out side to get g corner it will be an asset
As a neighbor who worked for State Toxic Waste and specializes in Toxics said it is more dangerous for kids to be playing on your driveway than it is to have a gas station a mile away.

Please vote Y es!
the Neighborhood Ass they feel wary of speaking out,
Kate Van Buren
Location:

Submitted At: 5:00pm 01-18-22
My family lives on 24th St. and we strongly oppose the fuel center. Our plans as a city must take in sustainability and long term growth as guideposts. A massive fuel center does not fit in with our neighborhood, and will only bring toxic materials onto a development that was just cleaned of those remnants. Please vote no on the fuel center. Regards, Kate Van Buren
Patrick Van Buren
Location:

Submitted At: 4:56pm 01-18-22
I strongly oppose the Curtis Park Village fuel center. There's currently 22 gas stations within the area to choose from, which is more than adequate to accommodate demand. Think about the diminished quality of life for nearby residents as a result of increased traffic, noise, and pollution, in addition to the negative shopping experience as patrons attempt to maneuver the parking lot while cars line up to refuel.

Ross Colburn
Location:

Submitted At: 4:54pm 01-18-22
I am the homeowner at 2356 Marshall Way and I vehemently oppose the fuel station. The proposed project is fraught with procedural and substantive CEQA flaws. In addition, the fuel station will increase traffic and will make an already dangerous intersection at 24 st. and Marshall Way (where the roundabout is located) even more dangerous. There are a plethora of gas stations already within the vicinity, and the proposed gas station is inconsistent with the traditional and transit oriented designated neighborhood, particularly in light of the existing light rail station on Freeport. This project has CEQA violations. I am an attorney at the Office of Legal Counsel for the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control and I work on many environmental issues. This proposed project will result in significant litigation for violations of CEQA and inconsistencies with the City's general plan.

Dave Backus
Location:

Submitted At: 4:51pm 01-18-22
I am against putting a gasoline fuel center in the Curtis Park Village - what we need is charging stations - we have plenty of gas stations near by, it's now even a good location as it is not an easy in and out and will just create congestion in a rather small shopping area - we could use are charging stations - that's the direction we should be going - putting in gas stations instead of charging stations is like investing in typewriters instead of computers back in the 70's and 80's. Let's be smart and look past today to the future - Dave Backus 2264 Portola Way
Taylor Buck
Location:

Submitted At: 4:46pm 01-18-22
I oppose the proposed Safeway fuel center. As a Curtis Park resident, I believe the community’s walking and bike safety features must be preserved and the proposed gas station will increase traffic unnecessarily. Moreover, the Curtis Park/Crocker Village community is bordered by and has easy access to urban corridors like Broadway and Freeport Blvd which already have ample gas stations. We do not need another while the city should be investing in more vehicle electrification.

Rick Codina
Location:

Submitted At: 4:09pm 01-18-22
The city needs to put a moratorium on new gas stations within our urban boundaries as we move to a carbon-free future. Petaluma has instituted such a ban in response to another Safeway attempt to install a gas station.

Kirk Vyverberg
Location:

Submitted At: 3:21pm 01-18-22
The Land Park Community Association opposes the addition of a regional multi-tank gas station developed within a Transportation Oriented Design (TOD) district within the Greater Land Park community. As supported in the original plans for the Crocker Village development as a pedestrian-oriented walkable community, the Council’s original deliberation was correct in voting against the Safeway gas station addition. This CUP application runs counter to the Sustainability principles and strategies of the General Plan and the needs of the local neighborhood as expressed in the letters from the Sierra-Curtis Neighborood Association. The LPCA stand in solidarity with their postion.

Debra Banks
Location:

Submitted At: 1:04pm 01-18-22
The Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates opposes the proposed Safeway fuel center in Crocker Park Village.

Increasing traffic in and around the area due to a multi-pump gas station is unacceptable when the City is working to reduce vehicle miles traveled and lower GHGs. Clearly this gas station is at odds with all of the findings of the Mayors' Commission on Climate Change. Our organization is committed to supporting bicycling and walking as a means for making short trips with kids, for daily needs and recreation. The bike/ped bridge cost the city millions of dollars, and with the increase in traffic and speeding vehicles, fewer students and community members would use this important infrastructure. We urge you to support pedestrians, cyclists and transit-oriented development over cars. Please take action to deny the CUP .

Steven Blackledge
Location:

Submitted At: 1:00pm 01-18-22
Please oppose this gas station. California and automakers are transitioning away from the combustion engine and to clean cars. Why incur the risks and harms -- leaking underground storage tanks, snarled traffic, air pollution -- for a 20th century technology?
Bernadette Del Chiaro
Location:

Submitted At: 12:58pm 01-18-22
California and Sacramento both have zero carbon goals. We can't get to those goals if we keep kicking the carbon can down the road. We should be building that future now, building Curtis Park Village without fossil fuels and fossil-fuel based fueling stations. Thank you. Bernadette Dan Whalen
Location:

Submitted At: 12:37pm 01-18-22
This is a classic example of a developer trying to outmaneuver public sentiment—which is strongly opposed to this fueling station. This gas station was not in the original approved development plans and has been pulled from its original hearing in what appears to be an attempt to dilute the strong opposition to this gas station. I live near the proposed site and every single neighbor I have spoken to is strongly opposed. The other comments on this proposal illustrate the myriad reasons why this gas station would cause irreparable harm to our community.

The community does not want or need this fueling station.

Mark Swanson
Location:

Submitted At: 11:47am 01-18-22
Please see my prior statement of opposition. The gas station will result in unacceptable increases in traffic on Crocker Drive and in and around the Safeway parking lot and in air pollution in the neighborhood not just from the pumps and diesel trucks but also from the idling vehicles waiting in line to pump gas. It will also encourage drivers from the region to drive past many gas stations in order to access the incentives from the Safeway gas station which also would result in increased air pollution in the region. This proposal was not a subject of the many public hearings which we and many others attended over several years. It is clear that the applicant knew that opposition to the gas station would have jeopardized his application so left it out of the original proposal with the intent to add it later when he mistakenly assumed that there would be less opposition. An affirmative vote would be an insult to all who attended the public hearings in good faith.

Melissa Damiano
Location:

Submitted At: 10:13am 01-18-22
City Council,
We wanted to formally submit our objection to the re-proposed Safeway gas station in Crocker Village. We are local Sacramentians and moved to Crocker Village a year ago. The traffic on Crocker Drive/ 24th is already an issue with speeding drivers. We’ve witnessed cars crossing over into the opposite lane to pass cars traveling at the speed limit, accidents at the roundabout and almost been hit several times while crossing the street while walking home from the grocery store. The increased traffic that will result from the addition of the gas station will only exacerbate these issues. This proposal was already denied previously and we respectfully ask that you continue on that track. We are also a members of SCNA and support their thoughtful thoughtful opposition.

Thank you,
Joseph and Melissa Damiano
Muriel Strand
Location: 95820, Sacramento
Submitted At: 10:00am 01-18-22
I have lived near the intersection of Norton Way and 18th Avenue, southeast of the proposed gas station, for over 30 years. I do not see the need for additional opportunities to purchase gasoline in this area. There are existing stations with plenty of pumps, 1) on Freeport just south of Sutterville near Sac City College, 2) on the SE corner of Franklin & Sutterville, 3) on the SE corner of 12th Ave & 34th St., 4&5) on Broadway at 21st St and 24th St, and 6) on Franklin near 26th Ave. All of these are more easily accessible to drivers than this proposed station would apparently be located.

I have never noticed any difficulty or significant delay in buying gas in this neighborhood, so I am skeptical that there is a need for this new station.

We do not need more support for our fossil fuel addiction.

I recommend that Council inquire as to steps that might be taken in the event this proposed gas station loses money and is removed.

Lara Johnson
Location:

Submitted At: 9:54am 01-18-22
I oppose a gas station at Crocker Village and implore City Council to require Petrovich Development Company to adhere to its original Village plans, which did NOT include a suburban style Costco-sized mega fueling station in this transit-oriented urban infill project. I congratulate Safeway for joining our community at Crocker Village without a gas station, note its bustling success, and recall the developer threatening everything from Oak Park job losses to installation of a rendering plant when categorically insisting in 2015 that Safeway would not locate without a gas station. Do not reward developer’s bait-and-switch tactics or community-dividing lies. Infrastructure put in place now will impact residents of our neighborhoods for decades to come. Please keep Crocker Village’s future open for green, sustainable development, transit-oriented funding opportunities, and forward-looking businesses whose interests align with the people who live here. Do not approve this CUP .

Mary Snider
Location:

Submitted At: 8:42am 01-18-22
I am a resident of Curtis Park and vigorously oppose the approval of the proposed 16-pump fuel center at Safeway Crocker Village. Such approval is in direct conflict with California’s goal of reducing the reliance on fossil fuels. If Safeway wants to attract more customers with energy needs coinciding with shopping, perhaps consider installing Tesla/EV charging stations. EV owners have more time to spend shopping while their vehicles charge up than gas customers who fill up and leave, The parking lot at this location cannot withstand the amount of traffic that would be attracted to discount gas prices. There exist serious site barriers within the lot, tight turns and congestion. Please do not approve this submission. Thank you for your consideration.

Kathleen Ave
Location:

Submitted At: 8:38am 01-18-22
Very disappointing to see staff report and recommendation rolled forward from 2015 while the world we live in and our understanding of it have changed significantly. The City has declared a Climate Emergency and convened a broad-based Mayors Commission effort to address it - new fossil infrastructure is inconsistent with appropriate climate policy that demands urgent progress. The developer's bad faith, 11th hour departure from a plan billed as "transit oriented" was appalling then and even more so now when it will only dig us into a deeper hole and exacerbate climate injustice. Any remaining space should be used for high density affordable housing for very low income residents. The City needs to stop supporting "business as usual" and reject projects that are not socially and environmentally regenerative (see www.living-future.org). PLEASE ALSO SEE COMMENTS OPPOSING THIS PROJECT THAT WERE SUBMITTED WHEN THE ITEM WAS SCHEDULED 12/7/21 and 1/4/22.

Mary Louise Flint
Location:

Submitted At: 9:24pm 01-17-22
I am opposed to the fuel center at the Safeway at Crocker Village. It is completely unnecessary and will be a source of pollution for years to come. There are plenty of gas stations in our neighborhood and we are all trying to transition to other sources of energy. I live less than 4 blocks from the Safeway in Curtis Park.

Thank you.

Mallory Matthews
Location:

Submitted At: 8:35pm 01-17-22
I stand with my neighbors in strongly OPPOSING the building of a Curtis Park fuel center. Building this fuel center will promote continued fossil fuel use in a state that is working to increase EV and lower our dependency on oil.

The fuel station will undoubtably increase traffic and congestion in an area that provides green space and safe streets to the college next door and neighborhoods surrounding. We should be voting to promote walking, biking, safe green space for the Curtis Park and surrounding community and alternative renewable energy rather than putting in another unnecessary fuel center that goes in direct contrast to all this stands for. Thank you for your consideration.

Boomer Davis
Location:

Submitted At: 6:16pm 01-17-22
Mayor Steinberg and Councilmembers:

As a regular shopper at the Curtis Park Village, I applaud the efforts of council and economic development negotiators who encouraged Safeway to open their store without a fuel center. This is a neighborhood shopping center surrounded on two sides by housing and one side by City College. The design aesthetic currently in use fits nicely with the townhouses and surrounding area. The grocery store with restaurant/retail neighbors is both walkable and driveable as it is.

Adding a fuel center impedes pedestrian use, adds to vehicle miles driven, and harms local air quality at nearby residences and athletic fields. There are already plenty of gas stations nearby on both Freeport and Franklin, major thoroughfares zoned for such uses. Further, a fuel center is a low-margin business whose value to the community is only marginal tax revenue. Far better to find other uses of the site which will provide jobs and services in addition to tax dollars. Vote no!
Sheyenne Forbes
Location:

Submitted At: 6:06pm 01-17-22
There’s no shortage of gas stations now, we need to move away from fossil fuels and toward zero emissions options including walking, biking, and public transit. This station will create too much pollution for decades to come.

Jassy Grewal
Location:

Submitted At: 5:52pm 01-17-22
I oppose the development of a fuel center in Crocker Village. I live less than a mile from the proposed development and would prefer better biking and walking paths to that center from Sacramento City College and/or electric charging stations.

Kevin Flash
Location:

Submitted At: 5:21pm 01-17-22
As a resident of this community and as an employee of Sacramento City College I strongly oppose the fuel center and request city council to support initiatives and infrastructure promoting public transportation and cycling and to oppose initiatives that facilitate and encourage the consumption of gasoline and other pollutants.

Kevin Flanagan
Location:

Submitted At: 3:52pm 01-17-22
I urge the council to vote no on the appeal to allow a gas station at Crocker Village. This is not needed and contrary to city policies for transit-oriented development (TOD). The developer promoted this project as TOD and a walking and biking destination. Further, the developer benefitted from subsidies and tax breaks based on TOD, walk-, and bike features. If this moves forward it sets a terrible precedent for bait and switch all under the eye of this council.

Please deny the appeal. Thank you.

Monica Hernandez
Location: 95817, Medical Center, Sacramento
Submitted At: 3:40pm 01-17-22
As a Curtis Park resident who walks and bikes to Crocker Village, I urge our representative Rick Jennings, and the full council to vote no on this appeal.

The council voted against this in 2015, and if anything has changed since then, it is the city's it stronger policies for transit- and pedestrian-oriented development and climate solutions.

There are currently 22 gas stations within a two-mile radius. Adding 16 pumps to Crocker Village is not necessary and will induce burdensome traffic, increase greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce the safety of people walking or riding bikes.

Please deny the permit and keep Crocker Village the transit-oriented development it was sold to neighbors as.

Thank you!
Muriel Rosenberg
Location:

Submitted At: 2:33pm 01-17-22
I oppose the Fuel Center in Crocker Village. VOTE NO!
Dennis Gunvalson
Location:

Submitted At: 1:45pm 01-17-22
Please vote no again on the Fuel Center. Y our previous vote was correct. The reasons to reject the proposal in the past are similar today, The number of gas stations need to be reduced, not increased. The future is electric cars and your approval of this fuel center would be totally contradicting the City’s goals relating to clean air and climate change.

John Mathews
Location:

Submitted At: 1:32pm 01-17-22
I oppose the regional Fuel Center.

The Project Description in the March 2009 DEIR stated this development would be a mixed-use urban infill project with "neighborhood serving retail and commercial development areas". Neighborhood businesses is what the surrounding community supported and expected. This regional Fuel Center will attract drivers from a much greater Sacramento area. Hundreds and hundreds of more cars per day rushing down residential streets, past parks, pedestrians and bicyclists, to buy gas is not "neighborhood serving".

John Mathews
Curtis Park
Brenna Rizan
Location:

Submitted At: 12:49pm 01-17-22
I oppose the building of an unnecessary and disruptive fuel center at the south west corner of Crocker Village.

Since Buchannan St will be "exit only" traffic increases for the fuel center will overlay pedestrian access. Already bicycle access in CPV has been degraded by re-designing the community park to EXCLUDE a bike path. Page 62 illustrates the truck delivery path. Due to congestion it would be inadvisable for a tanker to use W. Pacific Bypass (See Google Maps) forcing the tanker to go through the shopping center. This Development was purportedly based on SACOG "Blueprint" (pg 121), to integrate land use and transportation planning to curb sprawl, cut down on vehicle emission and congestion in order to improve the quality of life for residents of the region however the primary principle, "Developments should encourage people to walk, bike, use public transit or carpool to their destinations" is seemingly erased. District 5 bought into the ORIGINAL plan, not this bait and switch.

Jason Matthews
Location:

Submitted At: 12:43pm 01-17-22
Within a 2-mile radius, gas stations are already ubiquitous — there's no shortage. Crocker Village just cleaned up years of toxic waste from the rail yards; and therefore, adding a gas station goes against Sacramento’s aggressive sustainability plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. We should be focused on enabling foot-traffic and public transit options. If anything we should be adding EV infrastructure, not another gas station.

Michel Rizan
Location:

Submitted At: 12:38pm 01-17-22
There is no need for another gas station. There are many a short distance away. I am gravely concerned about the location which is at the foot of the Sutterville Road bridge going over the railroad tracks. If a heavy vehicle were to run off of Suttterville through the wood and metal guardrail onto the gas station 20+ feet below there could be a major disaster. The site is sandwiched between the Safeway building and the Sutterville embankment making it difficult to access for fire fighting. If a disaster were to happen it could compromise the integrity of the bridge, shutting down Sutterville road, light rial, and freight rail traffic making it even more difficult to ship goods.

There would be many negative effects including increase traffic, less walkability, loss of future funding for public transit projects, Sacramento moving backwards environmentally, and possibly a major shut down of important infrastructure. The positive would be making a rich man richer.

Wendy Saunders
Location:

Submitted At: 12:27pm 01-17-22
I am writing to express my opposition to this proposal again. I won't reiterate the comments I submitted when this item was previously scheduled for Council, but again, ask you to, in faith with the policy positions of the Council on climate change, respect for a long-established neighborhood, and the demonstrable lack of need for a Costco- sized fueling center at this location, reject the proposal once and for all.

Stephen Cipot
Location:

Submitted At: 12:11pm 01-17-22
There are enough gas stations in the area. It will bring noise, traffic, and more homeless to the area. They are not environmentally friendly and we should be focusing on more carbon neutral endeavors in the area.

Kathy Sananikone
Location:

Submitted At: 12:10pm 01-17-22
I strongly oppose the fuel center at Curtis Park Village. We already have more than enough gas stations to fill this need and adding one more in a location that would only cause more congestion makes no sense. It's not about "not in our backyard" mentality, but a fuel center in a difficult to get to location when there are several easily accessible ones is unnecessary. We don't need more gas stations, but smarter, more affordable transportation solutions.

Mary Helen Adams
Location:

Submitted At: 12:09pm 01-17-22
I am strongly opposed to the fuel station. There are a number of fuel stations in the area. It’s not necessary. It’s not needed. Instead of building a fuel station that the vast majority of the community opposes, we should be looking at more environmentally friendly options. Please vote against the fuel station.

Mary Helen Adams
Location:

Submitted At: 12:09pm 01-17-22
I am strongly opposed to the fuel station. There are a number of fuel stations in the area. It’s not necessary. It’s not needed. Instead of building a fuel station that the vast majority of the community opposes, we should be looking at more environmentally friendly options. Please vote against the fuel station.

Obadiah Bartholomy
Location:

Submitted At: 11:31am 01-17-22
I am strongly opposed to the addition of a gas station at Crocker Village. This Transit Oriented Development that supports walking and biking will be undermined by the addition of a backward looking gas station. The City’s climate emergency declaration and Mayors Climate Commission call for getting off of fossil fuels by 2045.

Automakers are committing to going all-electric. We are going to have plenty of other gas station sites to decommission, clean up, and convert to regenerative uses without adding one more in a neighborhood that should be an example of where the city id trying to move to. Don’t take a step backwards on your progress to a carbon free future. Put housing in that can benefit from the light rail station, not a fueling station that undermines it.

Obadiah Bartholomy
Stephen Saffold
Location:

Submitted At: 11:12am 01-17-22
Please consider RT bus line’s serving Curtis Park and safe bike lanes instead of another gas station Alex Crawford
Location:

Submitted At: 11:08am 01-17-22
I live on Coleman Way in Curtis Park, and I oppose this gas station. It would seriously harm our quality of life in Curtis Park. I have not met one resident of Curtis Park who actually wants it.

Eric Whalen
Location:

Submitted At: 10:46am 01-17-22
We strongly oppose the proposed 16 pump gas station in Curtis Park Village. It is unnecessary; there are over twenty gas stations within a 2 mile radius. It will create enormous traffic congestion; the proposed location has severely limited ingress and egress options that will clog traffic through the entire neighborhood and pose health and safety issues for bicyclists and pedestrians. A new gas station will create environmental damage to land water and air; underground tanks will inevitably leak, contaminating land and water, which taxpayers have already spend millions to clean up once. The gas station will worsen air quality issues and increase vehicle miles driven - the exact opposite goals of the city's Climate Action Plan. The list of reasons to REJECT the gas station goes on and on.

Finally, I hope the 100+ comments opposing the gas station from last week will be seriously considered by the council.

Ted Frink
Location:

Submitted At: 10:40am 01-17-22
As a scientist for the State for 29 years, and 2 decades of environmental consulting prior to that in CA, this proposed fuel station is completely unnecessary & environmentally damaging. A fuel station in a neighborhood is completely contradictory to our climate change problems and City planning objectives in current climate/transportation plans. This warrants rejection of the proposed fuel center: (1) GCC has worsened, blanketing CA in deadly smoke, as extreme heat, wildfires & drought impact public health & water supply. (2) It’s wrong to rely on gasoline when the auto industry is refocused on EVs. The 23 gas stations currently within 2 miles will absolutely satisfy a dwindling reliance on fossil fuels. (3) The State and many businesses now allow employees Telework – reducing commuter car use.

Sacramento should prioritize carbon neutral electrification (currently lead by SMUD 2030 goals), not damaging ICE tech. Fed&State TOD funds risk retraction due to non-TOD actions like this.

Bill Westerfield
Location:

Submitted At: 9:48am 01-17-22
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village.

We need another gas station in the neighborhood like we need more traffic on Sutterville Road! Curtis Park Village, a misnomer if ever I've heard it, has already caused cynicism among residents about the Planning Department and the City Council. The "village" is a suburban sprawl development that was jammed down our throats by a corrupt council woman and a spineless Planning Dept. and City Council. Please show some backbone and REJECT yet another gas station in this congested neighborhood. The residents don't need it and don't want it!
Bill Westerfield
9th Avenue
Georgann Eberhardt
Location:

Submitted At: 7:06am 01-17-22
I oppose the approval of a gas station in Crocker Village. We need to promote electric vehicles not provide more places for gasoline vehicles to fuel up. We have plenty of gas stations near Curtis Park Village.

Georgann Eberhardt, long time resident of Curtis Park
Jim Adams
Location:

Submitted At: 10:57pm 01-16-22
It is time for Sacramento to take a stand against gas powered vehicles; voting against this blatant effort to increase profitability will help to ensure a cleaner environment for all.

Dale Steele
Location:

Submitted At: 7:36pm 01-16-22
I am a long-time Sacramento resident in midtown. I urge the council to again reject the proposed fuel center. This type of proposal is not what the city needs in the climate emergency we face and has already been rejected by the council. The proposed gas station would increase air quality impacts and vehicle miles traveled instead of reductions as called for in the city's Climate Action Plan. The developer should instead work to improve transit and active mobility opportunities and provide additional electric vehicle chargers, especially ones available for multi-unit dwellings, instead of a fuel center. These alternatives would also be a big improvement over the developer's current proposal. Please vote no on the proposed fuel center.

Mike Cipriano
Location:

Submitted At: 4:20pm 01-16-22
Don't see the need for a gas station in this location with so many already in the area. Put in some EV chargers instead.

Tom Monahan
Location:

Submitted At: 3:09pm 01-16-22
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. Much has happened in the six years since the 2015 Planning Department report, which now warrant rejection of the proposed fuel center: (1) Climate change has gotten worse, blanketing Sacramento in deadly smoke, as extreme heat, wildfires and a 2+ year drought have threatened our wellbeing and our water supply. (2) The proposal relies on fossil fuels when the automobile industry is increasingly oriented towards clean-air electric vehicles. The 23 gas stations currently within 2 miles of the site are enough to satisfy a dwindling reliance on fossil fuels. (3) The pandemic has caused the State and many businesses to require or allow employees to work from home – thus reducing the need for area commuter car use.

Sacramento should be looking to the future, not towards service to the dying dinosaur breed of gas-guzzlers already on our streets.

Tom Monahan, Portola Way
Donna Barnes
Location:

Submitted At: 12:57pm 01-16-22
Wow, look at all those opposed to having a gas station near a college and a park! Y ou don't live is this city alone, Oak Park citizens benefit from the Safeway being there. In case you didn't notice Oak Park is a food desert. Oh yeah, not in my backyard. Do you really know what you are voting and speaking against? The city was willing to take hard earn money to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure "you are safe". Until this Developer spend his money not yours to clean up that "brown field" you were living next in a toxin dump. Do your homework and don't let a political leader walk you into a gas chamber. The tax dollars the city council has already spent and continues to lose is not worth it. So, you don't like this developer, really didn't hear from you dedicated Curtis Park citizens when Buzz Oates and the other old heads controlled this city. Get over yourself or how about parking your cars since you contribute to the "toxins" in other neighborhoods! Cheri Davis
Location:

Submitted At: 5:39pm 01-15-22
The City Council should vote AGAINST this fuel center, as it did in 2015. The fuel center was a horrible idea in 2015 and an even worse one now. 1) We have less than a decade to take DECISIVE ACTION to fight climate change, cutting our use of fossil fuels and moving to clean, renewable technology. Approving a new gas station would take us backward, and send a powerful message that Sacramento pays lip service to its Climate Action Plan. 2) Our neighborhood is located within a 2 mile radius of 23 gas stations; there's not a reason in the world to approve a new one; 3) Our neighborhood is currently known for being pedestrain and bicycle friendly. Fuel tankers exiting east through the parking lot and gas customers exiting west onto 10th Ave would add unnecessary health and safety risks; 4) The City received public funding for the pedestrian bridge by claiming Crocker Village was a Transit Oriented Development, making this gas station an inconsistent use.

Please vote NO to the fuel center!
Kate Davies
Location:

Submitted At: 3:36pm 01-15-22
A gas station is the last thing we need here. There is a widespread cultural push for clean fuel, and Mr. Petrovich needs to understand that. As a 17 year old student at CKM, I remind you that it is my generation having to clean up this absolute mess. Imagine the change we could make if we started making eco friendly choices today.

Gerre Buehler
Location:

Submitted At: 3:10pm 01-15-22
I oppose the applicants request to add a Safeway Fuel Center to Curtis Park Village. We have 20+ gas stations within a 2 mile radius of Curtis Park. That's more than enough for this neighborhood.

Diana Sunseri
Location:

Submitted At: 2:12pm 01-15-22
Please vote NO on allowing the gas station. It feels like we JUST cleaned up the once-polluted railyard that is now Crocker Village. And now you are considering allowing the addition of a large gas station when 1) other gas stations are a few blocks away and 2) gas-powered cars are being phased out because of looming environmental disaster? Let's do everything we can to stop contributing to the problem. Vote no. - Diana Sunseri, Curtis Park neighborhood
Andrea Rosen
Location:

Submitted At: 12:33pm 01-15-22
This site cannot support a regional mega-fuel center as proposed. It violates the City's General Plan, the smart growth intent of CPV and a CUP should NOT be granted. Safeway has always been welcome with out FUEL center. This use is hazardous the health, safety and general welfare the neighborhood and the shopping public.

DENY without DELAY .

Mimi Budd
Location:

Submitted At: 11:39am 01-15-22
Please vote "no" to disapprove the Curtis Park Village Fuel Center application. A large fuel center is the antithesis of the promise we were made of an infill project that would emphasize light rail, bicycle travel, and walkability rather than cars. As a society, we are beginning to address the negative impact of climate change and the internal combustion engine on our environment. Y ou and our City government have made changes in the law recently to support that approach. Approving a large fuel center that attracts gas burning cars to a space too small to accommodate the traffic that will result is a step backwards. Also, please see the opposition emails in the attachments to Nancy McKeever's comments. These comments were made when the hearing was first announced on December 7, then later on January 4th when the hearing was delayed to January 18th. Thank you for your consideration. Mimi Budd Curtis Park resident Francisco Prieto
Location:

Submitted At: 7:32pm 01-14-22
Opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. Multiple gas stations exist within a very short distance of
this site. The entrance to Hwy 99 at 12th avenue is already inadequate to handle current traffic during significant parts of rush hour. Adding more traffic from another gas station would worsen this, with negative implications for all of 12th Ave. and Franklin Blvd. Why not encourage the developer to consider instead an EV charging station(s)? With the additional time usually needed for most EV's to charge, this might also encourage commerce at the center.
brenda fotos
Location:

Submitted At: 6:00pm 01-14-22
We are opposed to the gasoline station, please vote no. We don't need another station and building it is inconsistent with Sacramento's climate change plan. Raley's has several electric charging stations. How about corp America follow Raley's leadership?? The traffic on Sutterville is horrendous. Folks from all over the area will travel to get this small discount from Safeway, therefore, impacting Sutterville. Do better Safeway and the developer. Brenda and Cary Fotos
Erin Hauge
Location:

Submitted At: 1:41pm 01-14-22
Please vote against a 16-pump gas station in Crocker Village at Safeway.

1. There are over 20 gas stations nearby that are on main streets and not within residential neighborhoods.

2. After lengthy review and public input, the plan approved by your Council for developing this reclaimed brownfield into a pedestrian and transit-oriented neighborhood did not include a gas station.

3. The gas station proposal is an add-on after the original plan was approved without a gas station.

4. The increased traffic into and out of a gas station will seriously degrade the quality of the surrounding residential neighborhood.

5. Speeders are already a problem and a danger on Crocker Drive/24th Street and in the Curtis Park neighborhood.

6. Another gas station is a move in the wrong direction when we are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I request again that you vote against building a gas station in the Crocker Village shopping center.

Thank you for your consideration.

Liz Hanson
Location:

Submitted At: 1:32pm 01-14-22
Hello City Council,
As a long time downtown Sacramento resident and someone who regularly walks through the new Crocker Village development, I am strongly opposed to this proposed fuel center. As has been pointed out by many, there are already way more than enough gas stations in the immediate vicinity (which are also more conveniently located on major roads). A fuel center in Crocker Village would be worse than a waste of space. It would be counterproductive to the cohesion of the new neighborhood which should be a model of transit friendly walkability.

If this fuel station is approved, it will make Crocker village no better than any other drive up strip mall with some houses around it. We need to support walkability and transit in our community but approving a fuel station would impose a toxic dead zone for cars only right in the middle of the otherwise lovely new neighborhood. Please don't let this happen!
Best,
-Liz
Terrie Kerth
Location:

Submitted At: 12:45pm 01-14-22
We do not need a large gas station. There are plenty of gas stations in this neighborhood already.

Jordan Lang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:22am 01-14-22
I urge the City Council to reject the application to construct a freeway-style fueling center in the Curtis Village shopping area. This area is located at a light rail station and should be restricted to residences and businesses that are consistent with the transit-oriented neighborhood at this location. In addition such a large fueling center would attempt to attract customers from the region in clear violation with the neighborhood characteristics and long-term direction.

Marc Grossman
Location:

Submitted At: 7:06pm 01-13-22
The fuel center was never part of the original proposal. There is a gut of gas stations within a short distance. The Safeway supermarket is doing just fine without it. Raley's never developed a gas station. There is no justification for this proposal.
—Marc Grossman, 3541 East Curtis Drive, Sacramento, CA 95818 Debra Johnson
Location:

Submitted At: 6:58pm 01-13-22
Placing a large fossil fuel dispensary next to a light rail station is ridiculous.

The reasons Mr. Petrovich cited originally for needing the fueling station all proved to be falsehoods. He should not be "rewarded" at this time by a change in the original decision. As a Curtis Park resident of over 30 years, I will be extremely disappointed if the City Council allows this unnecessary fuel station.

Harold Thomas
Location:

Submitted At: 6:07pm 01-13-22
I am more than surprised that with climate change and west coast "heat domes" on our minds, that this council and staff would even consider a new large carbon fuels center in a new large subdivision. What about the City Climate Action Plan, what about decarbonization promises by 2030 or even 2045, what about common sense and honesty. Business as usual has to end sooner than you realize or want. Vote down this ill considered proposal and after the vote is taken find out why your staff can't get on a program designed for our families and cities future decades. Thank you s/ Harold M. Thomas
Jason Silva
Location:

Submitted At: 6:01pm 01-13-22
As we move farther from fossil fuels and rely on alternative transportation, this challenge to an already settled issue is now becoming absurd. This transit oriented development and neighborhood deserves to lead by doing right and again denying this backwards development appeal. A discount station brings traffic, exhaust from outside our region and the supermarket is doing well as intended. I look for the City Council to promote a clean energy development direction and deny this appeal.

Jason Silva - 4th Avenue
Nancy McKeever
Location:

Submitted At: 5:56pm 01-13-22
After exhaustive assessment, the Council in 2015, applying 2015 policy, in a 7 to 2 vote did not grant the requested CUP . The reasons were many and clearly stated in the Council findings. These reasons are even more compelling today. Compiling eComments from both Dec 7th and Jan 4, you find 145 in opposition and only 6 supporting. Clearly, granting the CUP will meet only very narrow non-public needs and result in an unfair competitive disadvantage to the Raleys market on Freeport as detailed in many of the attached comments. Fuel tankers exiting east through the parking lot and gas customers exiting west onto 10th Ave, past the pedestrian bridge and senior housing, both add unnecessary health and safety risks. This site is unlike ANY Safeway fuel center, all located directly on major arterials and near intersections as shown in the photos I sent to you on Jan 1 via email. This is for a good reason. Please honor the progress toward sustainability and do not grant the CUP .

Bruce Pierini
Location:

Submitted At: 5:20pm 01-13-22
We’ve lived in Curtis Park since 1987 and we. are adamantly opposed to this unnecessary regional fuel center.

All one need do is look at the very small area planned to accommodate this 16 pump regional center to visualize how dangerously crowded the parking lot will become for both pedestrians and cars stuck in long lines waiting to get their tiny discount on gas if they’ve purchased $1000 worth of groceries. I hope the City Council will continue its leadership efforts to reduce global warming by saying no to the 23rd gas station within 2 miles! Thank you.

Agenda Item: eComments for Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
Crystal Sanchez
Location:

Submitted At: 7:32pm 01-18-22
Stop the sweeps immediately . Y ou are taking survival gear ,trailers,cars and displacing people into tents if they even have that with small children. DCR is not out providing resources. We have major outbreaks of covid in all of our shelters and our encampments. By continuing to move the unhoused community you are placing the greater community at risk. Tents are not made to be shelter. They are made for family camping trips.They are not waterproof windproof nor do they provide safety. We need housing now access to testing in remote locations, and adequate rehabilitative and wraparound services. We need tenant protections for those in the hotels as people are being kicked out for no reason at all hours of the night with no accountability or transparency. Y ou wouldn't treat your family the way that you treat our unhoused neighbors knock it off!

LAURA ASHLEY
Location:

Submitted At: 2:46pm 01-18-22
Please read attached letter. Thank you.

January 18, 2022

Mayor Steinberg and members of the city council,
I know that city council does not want to hear anything about your spending priorities, but as elected officials it is your job to listen.

The lack of spending the millions of dollars allocated for this city is what I am referring to. Maybe you have spent some on the homeless but the spending is always temporary shelter and outrageous costs for cleanup and sweeping camps. It is NOT a solution. Why on earth would you spend that much money and then allow the sweeps that took away the only homes and the only property the homeless have at the very start of the winter season just before Christmas. Morally and ethically wrong, and it even feels criminal to me. The sweeps continue still with the majority of homeless being unvaccinated at a time when the virus counts have surpassed this time last year.

There are many warehouses FOR SALE in the $3 million dollar range with 25,000 sq. ft. in them. On Lexington and on Commerce Circle. With the amount of money you have wasted it could have been spent on something more permanent. You spent money to LEASE a warehouse on Railroad Drive only to have it close down. You rented the space under the freeway only to kick everyone out of there.

Homelessness will never completely end, but you might get a grip on it with something the city owns.

It could be ran by volunteers, intern students studying social work, and even residents that would be required to contribute in different ways. Don’t explain away how complex this issue is. It is not. There are 11,000+ men, women and children living outdoors trying to sleep in 39 degree weather or through storms that collapse their tents IF they still have one.

I believe that not ONE MORE CENT should be spent on beautifying neighborhoods, building improvements, waterfronts, parks, etc. as long as there are people living outdoors with NO ALTERNATIVES!
The money given to this city for the homeless and housing situation should NOT be spent on planning, or services, until there is housing first. Services come second, and HOUSING FIRST. We the people all know what you can do in one day if it is important to YOU. Make the 11,000+ men, women, and children without shelter your number one priority today.

Laura Ashley
December 7th Council Hearing eComments – Crocker Village Fuel Center CUP Request.

Agenda Item: eComments for 12. Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (Noticed 11/24/2021) File ID:
2021-01331
32 Comments Submitted, 30 OPPOSE, 2 SUPPORT
Overall Sentiment: Support 9%, Oppose 90%,

James Spangler
Location:

Submitted At: 9:58am 12-07-21
As a near future resident of Curtis Park, I am in support of the planned Curtis Park Fuel Center. I also own an EV and hope they plan to install charging units as well. Thanks, Jim Spangler

Dee R.

Location:

Submitted At: 9:50am 12-07-21
This area of the city DOES NOT need a new, Costco sized gas station and it's associated long lines of idling cars. For an infill development that's supposed to be walkable and light rail adjacent, it is unnecessary. The parking lot at this development is already awkward, and encouraging dozens if not hundreds of additional cars per hour to line up for gas is only going to increase frustrations and traffic hazards. With the push for electric vehicles to replace traditional fossil fuels to combat climate change, adding this new gas station is a step backward. Why not an EV charging area? So much money was spent remediating this site from decades of previous environmental damage and turning around and adding more underground gas tanks is the wrong idea.

The shopping center is thriving without the gas station. There are plenty of other gas stations nearby including on Freeport, Sutterville, Broadway, and more. We don't need another one in this community. Please vote NO!

Jeffrey Ang-Olson
Location:

Submitted At: 11:06pm 12-06-21
I strongly oppose development of a gas station in Curtis Park/Crocker Village.

I live about 3 blocks away on 9th
Avenue. My family and I regularly walk and bike to the shops and restaurants in the development, and frequently use the pedestrian bridge to get to Sac City College and Land Park. Now that the development is taking shape, we can see the importance of maintaining a walkable urban design. Even without a gas station, car traffic can be heavy turning from Sutterville onto Crocker Drive, or from Crocker Drive into the shopping center. Adding a gas station will substantially increase this auto traffic, and thereby discourage pedestrian and bike access. Please keep this development the way the community has always wanted it – designed for people, not cars.

Natsuki Fukasawa
Location:

Submitted At: 11:00pm 12-06-21
I am a resident of Curtis Park and oppose the Crocker Village Gas Station. It will further congest already very
congested Sutterville Road. We already have gas stations at Franklin/Sutterville corner, and Sutterville/ Land
Park corner. I support what Julie Dt and Michael Hern wrote in the comments.

Julie Dt
Location:

Submitted At: 8:32pm 12-06-21
I oppose the Curtis Park Village Fuel Center:
• 1. The proposed station would be a regional draw due to perceived value of discounted gas. People will be
diverted from more local stations, increasing vehicle miles travelled. (VMT).

This doesn’t align with Sacramento
city’s goal to reduce VMT per capita 16% by 2035. VMT should be modeled and studied prior to consideration.
• 2. Research from Columbia University/John Hopkins found vent emissions from tested gas stations 10x higher
then previously estimated and at distances up to 500 feet from the vents {Science of the Total Environment,
8/24/21]. Fuel vapor include chemicals such as benzene and long-term exposure is associated with decreased
red blood cells, excessive bleeding, increased infection and cancer risk. Some residences appear to be at the
500 feet mark from the proposed station.
• 3. This site underwent costly environmental clean up & should not be subject to increased
pollution/contamination risk a gas station

Brian Rodgers
Location:

Submitted At: 2:53pm 12-06-21
I am a Curtis Park resident and I support this proposal. Safeway has a great reputation for maintaining safe and
clean gas stations; much more so than the current alternatives. The station will ensure a quality grocer stays long term as a tenet and subsequently high quality retail/restaurant tenets will be retained in the shopping center.

Marco Colucci
Location:

Submitted At: 1:58pm 12-06-21
I am a Curtis Park resident since 2001 and I am in strong opposition to having a fuel station at Crocker Village.

Please consider allowing other alternative commercial sites such as restaurants or family style venues. Thank you.

Michael Hearn
Location:

Submitted At: 12:43pm 12-06-21
As a Curtis Park family living in very close proximity to the proposed fueling center, we strongly urge the City to
deny, again, the fuel center. The grounds for denial have not changed from the previous hearing and, in fact, the City is even more justified to deny it today, as it increases its commitment to healthy families/neighborhoods, multi-modal transit, and the environment. There simply is no justification for a gas station that will increase traffic and pollution, be within short distance of RT transit, and meet absolutely no community need -- there are ample gas stations nearby. Furthermore, now that time has passed, we can see that some of the applicant's original arguments no longer apply. The Safeway store and surrounding spaces are now built, successful, and employ people despite there being no gas station. Thank you for opposing this ill-conceived project and making the right decision to protect the health and wellbeing of our family, community, and your constituents.

Darius Richmond
Location:

Submitted At: 11:25am 12-06-21
I live two blocks away from the proposed gas station site and I’m opposed to this permit for multiple reasons. The first being traffic. The speed of cars descending over the rail pass is already a problem and the access and congestion is also a concern. The intersection of Crocker and Sutterville is already very dangerous to navigate
as a pedestrian. There is not an easy through way to approach this proposed site. Vehicles would have to route
though a commercial parking area, though an existing truck loading area or through a street passing elderly
housing. The last route will also endanger pedestrians and bikes accessing the City College and Light Rail walk
and bike bridge. The final reason is poor air quality caused by cars waiting to fuel and the obvious need to curb
climate change. This area should be focused on enhancing bike and rail adjacent to this new residential
development and the college.

Andi Liebenbaum
Location:

Submitted At: 11:08am 12-06-21
A delay until January to review the proposal for a gas station at Crocker Village is not necessary. The proposal
should be rejected now. There are plenty of fuel options within WALKING DISTANCE of the proposed location. A FAR better option would be an EV charging station for the increased number of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles in the region. Moreover, there is a light rail station almost immediately adjacent to Crocker Village, and
we (the people) should be encouraging the use of public transit and DIScouraging the use of fossil fuel-based
transit. In addition, the proposed fuel station is intended to increase traffic; since there is no ingress/egress to
Crocker Village except through the neighborhood, the proposal intentionally seeks to increase motor vehicle
traffic in a neighborhood. Sacramento is experiencing the ravages of global warming. Let's not unnecessarily add to carbon in the atmosphere. SAY NO NOW TO A SAFEWAY FUEL STATION.

Julie Liebenbaum
Location:

Submitted At: 10:41am 12-06-21
The community has already decided this issue. It is a waste of time and resources to hold another hearing. The
south end of the commercial development is developing steady, robust, economic traffic at the newly opened
businesses, which will increase significantly once the housing development is completed. The main intersection
at Sutterville Road and Crocker Drive will have difficulty keeping up with this increase in vehicular traffic load.

The existing gas stations in the area, such as the Shell station less than half a mile from the proposed Safeway
site or the Valero less than three-quarters of a mile, are far better situated on major intersections with adequate
traffic control to handle the volume of traffic generated by a gas station.

Michelle Trujillo
Location:

Submitted At: 10:20pm 12-05-21
I’m a resident of Curtis Park and oppose the gas station due to the already significant increase of traffic on
24th/Crocker and surrounding residential streets. We have many gas stations nearby, there is simply no need for this project.

Diane Ayers
Location:

Submitted At: 2:27pm 12-05-21
I am opposed to the addition of the fueling facility
However, If a gas station is developed, it should be contingent on Petrovich paying back the $10 million dollars he received from SACOG to build the pedestrian overpass. Additionally the SACOG grant proposal should be scrutinized for falsification of information on the part of Petrovich development for falsely claiming project
objectives.

If you go back and review the SACOG grant proposal, the project scope put forth there are polar opposite of
including a gas station in the development. If we go back to when the SACOG grant was being discussed the gas station was not part of the overall project.

The addition of the fueling station was added as part of the agreements between Safeway and Petrovich development after the SACOG grant and the building of the overpass. If the gas station was part of the project scope at the time that Petrovich development requested the funds, I doubt that the grant would have been approved.

Jeff Moore
Location:

Submitted At: 12:06pm 12-05-21
I oppose the gas station at crocker village.

Jeanne Baldwin
Location:

Submitted At: 11:22am 12-05-21
I was under the impression that the proposal, in part, was rejected because of the closeness of the SCC Pre-
school Center, Bret Harte Elementary, and the Sacramento Children's Home.

It also was a major concern for the adjacent residences that would have huge gas trucks passing through narrow streets to get to the Safeway area.

Have these circumstances changed? If so, then the Proposal should be revisited. If not, this is not a good use of
your time except to placate Mr. Petrovich.

Glenn Backes
Location:

Submitted At: 10:17am 12-05-21
I live in Curtis Park, and do not want another gas station. There are numerous nearby options, and the short-term and long-term toxic effects of another gas station cannot be ignored.

Rod Lee
Location:

Submitted At: 8:32am 12-05-21
Why do we need yet another gas station when there’s already so many just blocks from this proposed site. On
top of that, Crocker Dr. is to narrow to support any kind of additional traffic.

This proposal is a bad idea and does a major disservice to this neighborhood.

I vehemently oppose this proposal.

Joshua Taylor
Location:

Submitted At: 6:40am 12-05-21
There are plenty of gas stations nearby.

DeLora Slattery
Location:

Submitted At: 3:29pm 12-04-21
Deny this proposal for fueling station again. There is nothing that should sway the Council from their previous
decision, denial. Council members listen to the majority of residents who strongly oppose. The city has more
priorities for a better Sacramento, and this proposal goes against the of making Sacramento a better place to live, work, and play.

Patricia Oneill
Location:

Submitted At: 12:59pm 12-04-21
I only find Safeway gas economically priced when you use Safeway "points" to lower the price. Which means I'd
have to spend a lot of money at Safeway to get cheap gas at Safeway and I find Safeway overpriced in general. I don't spend much money there.

I don't want another gas station there, it will increase traffic and make things more hazardous for pedestrians.

Doesn't that area flood every year still?
Thanks.

Sally Lorber
Location:

Submitted At: 11:43am 12-04-21
My name is Sally Lorber. I live at 3425 Crocker Drive. We are not opposed to the gas station as presented in the original plan. With the through streets blocked off in Old Curtis Park, traffic should not affect that area. Only Crocker Drive most likely would be affected and it's already used as a through Street by many to avoid the
freeway. What we really need is speed bumps from veterans first to Sutterville Road to avoid all the speeding
cars.

brenda fotos
Location:

Submitted At: 9:32am 12-04-21
I agree with all the comments opposing because of the traffic; and the Costco comment regarding idling and
exhaust fumes. Currently from my house in Curtis Park, there are two stations 2 min away, one 3 mins away, one 4 mins away, and two 7 mins away.

Sutterville traffic is atrocious and the development isn't even fully occupied.

This proposed station is not consistent with the city's carbon reduction goals, and the goal of making this
development walkable. Where is the electric vehicle charging stations?

Anne Da Vigo
Location:

Submitted At: 2:39pm 12-03-21
A Costco-type fuel center is wrong for Crocker Village shopping center. The parking lot is already extremely busy at nearly all hours of the day. At the Costco fuel center off Exposition Boulevard, I've observed blocks-long backups as motorists waited for a turn at the pump, causing traffic jams and hazardous conditions. Cars waited
for 15 to 20 minutes there, spewing exhaust as they waited. Please deny the proposal.

Heino Kemnitz
Location:

Submitted At: 12:27pm 12-03-21
The installation of a large fueling station was never a part of the original plan when this formerly contaminated
"Superfund site" was proposed as an addition to the Curtis Park neighborhood. Instead the plan called for a pedestrian, bicycling and public transport-friendly neighborhood, with decreased reliance on automobiles. It was a grand vision, actually. Once construction began, however, this plan apparently has morphed into a "more of the same" mentality--more cars, more parking spaces devoted to shoppers, and now a large fueling station in what has been pointed out by others as a rather dangerous location. This shifting of original priorities in an apparent attempt to increase profitability has become a tiresome tactic by this developer. The proposal was turned down several years ago for sound reasons; It should be categorically denied once again.

The city is laudably attempting to reduce traffic and reliance on petroleum.

This proposal flies in the face of that.

Michel Rizan
Location:

Submitted At: 11:21am 12-03-21
I do not feel a gas station would fit in with the promised walkable project, and would bring a large amount of traffic into the neighborhood. I am gravely concerned about the location which is at the foot of the Sutterville road bridge going over the railroad tracks. I have never seen a gas station at the foot of a bridge, and for good reasons I am sure. If a heavy vehicle were to run off Sutterville through the wood and metal guardrail into the gas station 20+ feet below it could cause a major disaster. The gas station would be sandwiched between the Sutterville road embankment and the Safeway building. I think it would difficult to fight a fire there. If a disaster did take place there it could compromise the integrity of the Sutterville bridge, closing it down for a long period of time. I do not believe the existing guardrail is adequate to protect the gas station. I do believe upgrading to a concrete wall could be costly, or require the removal of one lane of traffic.

Salwa Bojack
Location:

Submitted At: 8:34am 12-03-21
I oppose the approval of a new large gas station in Curtis Park's Crocker Village. This space could and should be used for high-density housing to address the city and state's housing crisis, especially given the excellent public transportation available nearby and the location's proximity to jobs and many city amenities. Permitting a rare infill location to be developed as an auto-oriented, low-value, highly-paved, and polluting site would be a grave mistake and incompatible with state and city objectives to reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Doug Bojack
Location:

Submitted At: 8:26am 12-03-21
I oppose the Council's approval of the requested CUP to operate a new Costco-style regional fuel center at the urban infill location in the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development. Sacramento has long been a leader in addressing the global climate emergency, and permitting the construction of a new fuel pumping station here would be inconsistent with the Council's past actions and current commitments to curb citywide greenhouse gas emissions.

Locating a large gas station in this urban infill development would be especially egregious—the proposed location is mere feet from some of the highest-quality public transportation in the state, including light rail and a future intercity rail station connecting Sacramento with much of Northern California. Permitting dozens of cars at a time to sit idling in the streets of this compact development waiting for a turn at the pump will smother the necessary walking and biking connections to these important public resources.

Louise Robbins
Location:

Submitted At: 7:47am 12-03-21
We do not need another polluting gas station. There are several within blocks of Safeway. Let’s keep our
residences free of toxins and pollutants please!
Louise Robbins

Marjorie Lee
Location:

Submitted At: 5:59am 12-03-21
Our community stood strong together when we opposed the gas station plan originally. We still feel the same way about it! We don’t want the traffic in our quaint neighborhood that is already busier than ever with the new shopping area.

Gildardo Duran
Location:

Submitted At: 9:35pm 12-02-21
I oppose the gas station because there are already plenty of others in the area and it will not contribute to
improved quality of life for my neighborhood - Carleton Tract. It additionally seems contrary to the commitment of the City of Sacramento to build more equitable green spaces and affordable homes near transit stations. A dog park, a park, an urban garden, affordable housing would all be much better options and contribute to improved quality of life.

George Krigas
Location:

Submitted At: 8:44pm 12-02-21
I recommend denying again the Curtis Park Village's developer's request to build a multi-pump gasoline station in the existing shopping center. Our neighborhood has a number of existing gas stations in the general area. I see no need for yet another gas station at his shopping center.

Thank you

Brenna Rizan
Location:

Submitted At: 6:48pm 12-02-21
This gas station proposal is not in keeping with the original vision of the project or the culture of the Curtis Park communities. There are 4 competing gas stations in a mile radius. As the only grocery related gas station in the area, traffic will increase. This small shopping center was not designed for high levels of traffic. It poses a danger to pedestrians. As designed, many residents walk to the shopping center. It is deceiving to think the gas station is "right off Sutterville". The gas station is adjacent to Sutterville, below an overpass for the train tracks. Cars have to either go south of Sutterville on a very narrow street, heavily trafficked by the unhoused and a body shop with cars parked all up and down the side of the streets or go north through the neighborhood either crossing the pedestrian access points to the shopping center or down 10th Ave where the senior housing is situated. A gas station is not appropriate for this location.

MICHAEL SCHEIBLE
Location:

Submitted At: 2:47pm 12-02-21
There is absolutely no need for another gas station in the Curtis Park or surrounding neighborhoods. The
proposal goes against essential efforts to reduce petroleum use and move the city to a net carbon zero future.

Safeway's goal is to use the allure of discounted gas to attract more vehicles to its market. This will increase fuel use city-wide and congestion in the Curtis Park area. Despite the pandemic's damping of business and many yet-to-be occupied storefronts in the Crocker Village complex the parking lot is already often crowded and difficult to navigate. Adding a fueling station will increase congestion and pollution unnecessarily. It is diametrically in conflict with the City's effort to support walking, biking and transit, become less auto dependent and environmentally sustainable. The Council should reject the proposed gas station.

Mike and Judy Scheible, Curtis Park residents since 1977 Agenda Item: eComments for 20. Rehearing-Third Party Appeal: Curtis Park Village Fuel Center (Noticed 11/24/2021 &
12/23/2021) File ID: 2021-01331
127 Comments received. 115 OPPOSE, 4 SUPPORT
Overall Sentiment Support 3%, Oppose 90%, No response 6%

Natsuki Fukasawa
Location:

Submitted At: 6:10pm 01-04-22
I'm a long time Curtis Park resident and am strongly oppose building a fuel center in Curtis Park Village. The
Village does not need more congestion and pollution. We have gas stations nearby. Thank you for opposing this agenda.

richard cionco
Location:

Submitted At: 6:06pm 01-04-22
I oppose the building of this dirty fueling station in Crocker Village (Curtis Park Village Fuel Center)!
Emphatically! The neighborhood needs more walkers and runners, and less cars/traffic and less pollution.

Please do not approve this money maker for this developer at the detriment of our residents! Thank you! Richard Cionco, Professor of Music, CSU Sacramento - [email protected]; Curtis Park resident since 1997.

Jeff Moore
Location:

Submitted At: 6:05pm 01-04-22
This gas station will bring more unwanted traffic and congestion to our formerly very quiet neighborhood. We
live on 24th Street and it's becoming dangerous to get out of a car on the street. The mountable island and
signage is just ignored by drivers at all hours passing through. Help us maintain our beloved Curtis Park
neighborhood and reject this gas station.

Daniel ODonnell
Location:

Submitted At: 6:02pm 01-04-22
Shell, Arco, Sinclair, 76, Valero and Chevron are close enough. And, Chevron honors Safeway Gas Rewards.

Amy Moore
Location:

Submitted At: 6:02pm 01-04-22
We live on 24th Street and are already concerned about the traffic and crime related to Crocker Village. There
are plenty of established gas stations already, and we shouldn’t be allowing new ones given the problems with
climate change.

Adamantly opposed. Was opposed last time too.

Julio Muao
Location:

Submitted At: 5:47pm 01-04-22
I have been a Curtis park resident for over 25 years now who has never had a problem finding a gas station close by. Furthermore, Safeway customers like me, can redeem the gas rewards discount at the nearby Chevon station on Broadway.

Jessica Stockton
Location:

Submitted At: 5:12pm 01-04-22
I am opposed to building the Curtis Park Village Fuel station. We have a sufficient number of fuel stations
surrounding within the area and off the freeway.

Bill Stokes
Location:

Submitted At: 5:03pm 01-04-22
Please vote no on unnecessary polluting gas stations. 16 extricate chargers would be great!

Katherine Hoffmore
Location:

Submitted At: 1:43pm 01-04-22
I strongly believe that placing another gas station in this neighborhood is completely environmentally
irresponsible. I would be in favor of a Tesla electric charging station (or other EV charging).

We are trying to decrease our carbon footprint. Please vote to REJECT the building of the Safeway gas station.

Thank you,
Homeowner
Katherine Hoffmore
3612 24th Street
Sacramento, CA 95818

Mark Swanson
Location:

Submitted At: 12:31pm 01-04-22
I am firmly opposed to a permit to allow the construction of any gas station sited anywhere in Crocker Village
particularly since such a plan was never discussed or proposed during any of the many meetings I have attended.

My opposition is not just due to the lack of notice but also to the lack of need with the availability of more than
three dozen gas stations with two miles and properly sited near freeways and not in residential areas. I am also
opposed for the membership type of gas station which would encourage traffic from surrounding neighborhoods
that would pass multiple gas stations to reach Crocker Village because of discount incentives and would lead to
lines of idling vehicles waiting for a gas pump and frequent transit of gas tankers to refill the storage tanks all of
which would severely degrade the air quality in a neighborhood that my family frequents while walking our dog
and shopping. I encourage the council and mayor to reject this dangerous precedent and vote No!!

Alex Nzive
Location:

Submitted At: 12:18pm 01-04-22
Oppose approval of proposed fuel center at proposed location at Crocker Village because;
• Lack of any analysis and consideration for residents south of Sutterville Road -North City Farms - that will be
most impacted by the proposed location. Newly proposed location is farther from Crocker Village homes, but
moves closer to homes on Deeble Street, West Pacific Ave, and Wilmington Ave! Traffic to the gas station would pass within 20 feet of some homes. This merits more consideration than what is apparent from the record. • Families of City Farms -including young children and teenagers – frequently walk or bike to both the RT station,
Crocker Village, as well as business just south on W Pacific Ave. W Pacific Underpass is the safest option, and
safety will be permanently compromised by increased car traffic on the narrow road that is not well maintained or upgraded to support existing traffic.

Approval would be arbitrary, unfair and in violation of proper protocols.

Ann Nakamura
Location:

Submitted At: 8:37am 01-04-22
The proposed station will increase traffic in residential sections of 24th Street, where attempts to slow traffic are
currently failing. Less than a mile from the proposed site, a speeding car jumped the roundabout, crashing
through a home’s metal fence. That accident could easily have been fatal.

Further, 24th has no traffic stops for
about a mile of residential straightaway, adjacent to new family homes.

Placing a station without any measures to improve safety is reckless.

Jess Cabrera
Location:

Submitted At: 8:04am 01-04-22
We support the station most of us in the area have to drive to work as there are no other means to take us there, we need a safe area we can fuel up and getting a discount with cost of gas is up

Jill Correll
Location:

Submitted At: 6:04am 01-04-22
I oppose the gas station being built in Crocker village.

Katherine Nzive
Location:

Submitted At: 11:14pm 01-03-22
I am a resident of North City Farms and strongly oppose the proposed fuel center at Crocker Village, which would be located less than 900 feet from my home (as-a-crow-flies). Many City Farms residents, including teens and families with young children, frequently walk or bike to Crocker Village and go over the pedestrian bridge to the RT station, as well as to businesses just south of Crocker Village on W. Pacific Ave. Increased car traffic from the proposed gas station would make crossing under Sutterville Road via the W.

Pacific Bypass/Buchannan Street or crossing Sutterville at-grade at Bicycle Alley, even more perilous than it already is for pedestrians and bicyclists.

The City should be pursuing improvements that make it easier for residents of City Farms and other nearby
neighborhoods to access public transit, shops, and restaurants without getting into cars. Authorizing a gas station at the proposed site would move things in the opposite direction.

Lara Johnson
Location:

Submitted At: 10:41pm 01-03-22
I oppose a gas station at Crocker Village and implore City Council to require Petrovich Development Company to adhere to its original Village plans, which did NOT include a suburban style Costco-sized mega fueling station in this transit-oriented urban infill project. I congratulate Safeway for joining our community at Crocker Village without a gas station, note its bustling success, and recall the developer threatening everything from Oak Park job losses to installation of a rendering plant when categorically insisting in 2015 that Safeway would not locate without a gas station. Do not reward developer’s bait-and-switch tactics or community-dividing lies. Infrastructure put in place now will impact residents of our neighborhoods for decades to come. Please keep Crocker Village’s future open for green, sustainable development, transit-oriented funding opportunities, and forward-looking businesses whose interests align with the people who live here. Do not approve this CUP.

Patrick Van Buren
Location:

Submitted At: 10:20pm 01-03-22
I live on 24th Street in Curtis Park, and I strongly oppose the fuel center in Crocker Village for the following
reasons:
1) There's currently more than an adequate number of gas stations in the area. I believe that number is around

22...
2) Infill growth should strengthen existing neighborhoods, not weaken them. 3) Traffic is already unbearable on Suttervile and 24th Street. The addition of a fuel center does nothing to
mitigate this undesirable situation and will only worsen the problem. 4) A fuel center is inconsistent with the City's commitment to reducing vehicle miles traveled and curbing the
negative impacts of climate change.
5) Adding a fuel center in this area serves absolutely no public good given the vast number of existing gas
stations.
6) Approving a fuel center is contrary to the City's commitment of promoting transit and pedestrian-oriented infill
projects.

Kate Van Buren
Location:

Submitted At: 9:52pm 01-03-22
Please vote no on the CUP to build a fuel station in my neighborhood. We are already acclimating to the
increased density and welcome our neighbors in Crocker Village. The last thing we need is a toxic business
summoning more thirsty vehicles into an already thriving commercial development. It is clearly one man’s greed
trying to overturn the protective and thoughtful rejection of the last use permit by the city council. You already
know the technical reasons we don’t need a fuel center in Curtis Park - there are already 22 in a small radius.

The vision for this development was to encourage bicycles, walking and family fun activities. Adding a 16 nozzle
(or any size) fuel center would be a terrible mistake not easily fixed. We must be stewards of our environment
and not contribute to climate change. We owe it to the generations that come after us. Please vote no on this
appeal.

Marily Schmucki
Location:

Submitted At: 9:19pm 01-03-22
I live in the southeast corner of Curtis Park and am strongly opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. The
Sutterville Rd./Franklin Blvd. intersection has become gridlocked, as more traffic accumulates due to City
College's increasing size, more homes in the Village, and the popularity of the local shopping center. The
neighborhood near this intersection, where an elementary school is located and a lot of children play in the
streets, is experiencing a huge increase in speeding cars cutting off the intersection, making it increasingly
dangerous, noisy, and polluted. Adding a large fuel center will only increase the traffic and gridlock.

The gas station is proposed in a difficultly accessed corner of an already busy local center. More cars would
overwhelm the center, the neighborhood's narrow streets, and its tight corners.

There is simply no need for another gas station, especially now that aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse
gases have been adopted by the Council.

Maggie Armstrong
Location:

Submitted At: 9:07pm 01-03-22
My family urges you to hear and represent the community in opposing the gas station in Crocker Village. On
behalf of the seniors at the nearby apartments, my mother among them, we also express our vehement
opposition.

Thomas Gohring
Location:

Submitted At: 8:54pm 01-03-22
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council, I am opposed to the proposed project. The magnitude of gas pumps
are not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. Furthermore, the City should be supporting electric charging
stations, not fossil fuel distribution. Thank you, Tom Gohring/Sacramento Resident

Kathleen Ave
Location:

Submitted At: 8:38pm 01-03-22
Very disappointing to see the staff report and recommendation rolled forward from 2015 while the world we live in and our understanding of it have changed significantly. The City has declared a Climate Emergency and convened a broad-based Mayors Commission effort to address it - new fossil infrastructure is inconsistent with
appropriate climate policy that demands urgent progress. The developer's bad faith, 11th hour departure from a
plan billed as "transit oriented" was appalling then and even more so now when it will only dig us into a deeper
hole and exacerbate climate injustice. Any remaining space should be used for high density affordable housing
for very low income residents. The City needs to stop supporting "business as usual" and reject projects that are not socially and environmentally regenerative (see www.living-future.org). PLEASE ALSO SEE COMMENTS

OPPOSING THIS PROJECT THAT WERE SUBMITTED WHEN THE ITEM WAS MISTAKENLY LISTED AS A HEARING ON 12/7/21.

Mary Helen Adams
Location:

Submitted At: 8:05pm 01-03-22
I am strongly opposed to building the Curtis Park Village Fuel station. We have a sufficient number of fuel stations surrounding our area. Additionally, we should be moving in an environmentally more friendly direction.

Sheila Joy Lowin
Location:

Submitted At: 7:09pm 01-03-22
Hello,
My name is Sheila Joy Lowin and I live here in Curtis Park. I strongly oppose the fuel center in Crocker Village.

Our neighborhood as well as surrounding neighborhoods have plenty of options as it is to get fuel. This is not
needed and I believe it would have a negative impact on the community as a whole. Thank you for your
consideration.

Regards,
Sheila Joy Lowin
~from Curtis Way

Travis Lowin
Location:

Submitted At: 7:08pm 01-03-22
My name is Travis Lowin and I live here on Curtis Way in Curtis Park. I firmly oppose the fuel center in Crocker
Village. Our neighborhood, as well as Crocker Village, has plenty of options as it is to get fuel. This is not needed and I believe if built it would have a negative impact on the community as a whole. Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Travis Lowin

Kay Moore
Location:

Submitted At: 6:34pm 01-03-22
24th St says no

Diann Velaga
Location:

Submitted At: 5:41pm 01-03-22
VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE A FUEL STATION @ THIS LOCATION.....!!!!! This neighborhood Has at Least 1Dozen gas stations within a mile or less.....!!!

Dennis Sorge
Location:

Submitted At: 4:54pm 01-03-22
As residents living on 24th Street, we have already taken the brunt of the increased cut-through traffic from the
Crocker Village development. The increase was to be expected, but the excessive speeds and semi-tractor
trailers were not. We currently have an open ticket with the City of Sacramento to re-evaluate the traffic slowing
measures. We hope they will increase the number of speed lumps/bumps/humps. Adding a large gas station in
our residential neighborhood would further increase the traffic on 24th, a residential street. We have lived in
Curtis Park for over 20 years and have never, at any time of day, had to wait for an open pump at any of the
existing gas stations.

Charles McGaith
Location:

Submitted At: 4:52pm 01-03-22
My name is Charles McGaith, &, as a Donner Way resident, I want to express my strong opposition to the
application for approval for a Crocker Village fuel center. I am concerned about the pollution it may cause as well as additional traffic congestion adversely affecting a residential neighborhood. Please vote “no” on this proposal.

Wendy Saunders
Location:

Submitted At: 4:35pm 01-03-22
1) The Council has been responsible in adopting aggressive goals for greenhouse gas reduction. Approving a
new massive fuel center that increases traffic and harms air quality flies in the face of the Council's adopted
goals; 2) There are 23 gas stations within a 2 mile radius of the proposed location-It is not needed; 3) The
development was approved in 2010 along with a detailed PUD with transit and pedestrian qualities; it was funded $16M transit-related public funds. The developer never mentioned the possibility of a gas station in any of the many public meetings or documents. The fuel center, added years later, is in total conflict with the well-
documented intent of the development; 4) The Curtis Park neighborhood is unified in opposition to this proposed blemish on one of the most transit- friendly, walkable and green neighborhoods in Sacramento. Please respect the neighborhood.

Karen Hill
Location:

Submitted At: 4:31pm 01-03-22
There can be no possible excuse for approving this fuel station:

We have plenty of gas stations in the vicinity. I have never once had to wait to put gas in a car.

The station is too massive to be inside a neighborhood of this size. It will dominate the environment.

The developed land was promised to be geared to environmentally sound modes of transportation.

California should be moving to electric cars.

Going forward: Any development within the City of Sacramento needs to be done in a responsible way. The
council needs to remember that whatever decisions they make will leave a long lasting effect on the city and its
residents. Whatever reasons the developer has in pushing for this gas station, whether monetary or other,
should not factor in what is best for our city and neighborhoods.

Kate Williams
Location:

Submitted At: 4:22pm 01-03-22
A large gas station is not needed and is not compatible with the Crocker village area. We have an electric car and if anything we need to add charge stations rather than gas stations. Please vote no.

Kate Williams

Stacey Armstrong
Location:

Submitted At: 3:56pm 01-03-22
Inadequate infrastructure for a 16 pump gas station. Contradicts initial plan for a transit and pedestrian friendly
development. Too close to houses. There are enough stations nearby. Green California.

brenda fotos
Location:

Submitted At: 3:41pm 01-03-22
I'm opposed to the council approving the 16-pump fuel center in Crocker Village. This old report needs to be
updated. There are 3 gas stations within 2 min of my house now. 2 gas stations within 7 mins. Approving this fuel
center would be against any climate change plan the city is trying to achieve. we don't need it. We never did need
it. Thank you Brenda and Cary Fotos, Curtis Park

Patti Yoder
Location:

Submitted At: 3:39pm 01-03-22
Live on 4th Ave in Curtis park. Do not see any need for a large gas station in Curtis Park Village and oppose the
construction. Seems this would not even be a very lucrative location considering that it is not on a main road and it will not be particularly visible.

Of course to anyone but those of us that live in this neighborhood. We have plenty of gas options
Signed Patti Yoder.

Paulette Natura-Johnson
Location:

Submitted At: 3:32pm 01-03-22
I vehemently oppose the proposed gas station in Crocker Village. I moved to Curtis Park in 1993 and raised my
family in this pedestrian neighborhood. We do not use gas power landscape equipment due to our environmental concerns. We must halt the environmental encroachment where ever we can for our future generations. I encourage you to vote 'No' on the new gas station.

Signed: Paulette Natura/Johnson

Jonathan Ambrose
Location:

Submitted At: 3:09pm 01-03-22
We have plenty of gas stations in the area, another one is not necessary. In light of the adverse impacts due to
climate change I encourage the City to take a lead roll in promoting new technologies such as recharging stations - not old technologies that will further exacerbate our ever warming climate. Thank you for your consideration of my comment.

Bruce Pierini
Location:

Submitted At: 2:11pm 01-03-22
I am in opposition to a major regional fuel center at the Safeway in Crocker Village. The reasons should be
obvious: We have 22 gas stations within a 2 mile radius of the site, super- sized fuel center should only be along
major thoroughfares, not shoehorned into a small lot, the traffic to Crocker Village and Curtis Park, at a minimum, will increase significantly as people drive to the Fuel Center for their Safeway rewards’ savings All the while Raley's provides electric charge stations at their Freeport store. No, no, no to this vanity project at Safeway,Crocker Village.

Michael Paparian
Location:

Submitted At: 1:25pm 01-03-22
Dear Council Members,
I strongly opposed the proposed gas station at the Safeway in Crocker Village/Curtis Park. Not only is this fueling station too close to a residential neighborhood, pursuing additional fueling stations is inconsistent with the climate change solutions the city and state are pursuing. Raley's on Freeport Blvd. did the right thing by placing modern electric vehicle charging stations at their new store. Safeway should be encouraged to do the same thing.

Please vote no on the Safeway fueling proposal.

Michael Paparian, Fifth Avenue

Kate Marusina
Location:

Submitted At: 1:22pm 01-03-22
I oppose the gas station in Curtis Park Village

Bill Westerfield
Location:

Submitted At: 1:02pm 01-03-22
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village! The LAST thing our neighborhood needs or wants is another
gas station.
-Wm. Westerfield, 9th Avenue

Margaret Fraser
Location:

Submitted At: 12:56pm 01-03-22
I live on Donner Way and oppose approval to construct a Safeway fuel center in the Crocker Village shopping
center. Such fuel centers do not belong in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, nor is another one
needed when there are already more than 20 gas stations less than 2 miles away from its proposed location. A
better idea would be to install electric vehicle chargers on the premises. I respectfully request your “No” vote on
the proposal. Thank you, Margaret Fraser

Melissa Cirone
Location:

Submitted At: 12:50pm 01-03-22
The proposed Fuel Center would be a terrible addition to the neighborhood, increase traffic in an already
overwhelmed neighborhood without easy access and be bad for everyone who lives in this community. There are enough gas stations for everyone and crowding a new one in an impacted area is not good. Students ride their bikes to schools close by and this increases the likelihood of accidents. I strongly oppose this center.

Sue Staats
Location:

Submitted At: 12:47pm 01-03-22
I oppose the proposed fuel center at the Crocker Village Safeway site. Please vote no on this.

Sue Staats

Alex Crawford
Location:

Submitted At: 12:45pm 01-03-22
I live on Coleman Way in Curtis Park and I oppose this gas station project. It is unnecessary for our community
and will negatively impact our quality of life in Curtis Park.

Leah Gutierrez
Location:

Submitted At: 12:37pm 01-03-22
As a resident of the area, I oppose the building of a sixteen pump fuel center in Crocker Village. Let me begin my addressing the traffic. There has been a significant increase in traffic since the residential and commercial development. Adding a gas station to the area will create even more traffic, resulting in some major traffic
congestion on the already busy Sutterville road and 24th street. This creates safety concerns for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and emergency vehicles getting to their destination. Lastly, there are 23 gas stations within a two mile
radius of the site. Building another gas station is bad for the environment and contradicts the Council’s adoption
of aggressive goals for reducing greenhouse gases. Please represent us by putting our community’s safety, and
the betterment of our environment first. I ask that the Council to do what is right by opposing the sixteen pump
fuel center in Crocker Village.

Jim Adams
Location:

Submitted At: 11:33am 01-03-22
If we are ever going to leave a sustainable environment for our children, we cannot keep implementing projects
that sustain and encourage the use of gasoline powered vehicles. The overriding motivation for the fuel center
request, I would argue, is profit driven; I suspect, however, both Safeway and the Petrovich development
company have already benefitted substantially from the overall Crocker Village project, and will continue to do so, even absent several gas pumps.

The city council, by denying the fuel center proposal, will be acting as a worthy custodian of the environment and of future generations.

Martin Tremblay
Location:

Submitted At: 11:33am 01-03-22
We are home owners at 2441 Curtis Way and we strongly oppose the addition of a fuel center next to the
Safeway store in Crocker Village.

Submitted At: 11:22am 01-03-22
I strongly oppose the gas station. Our neighborhood does not need more when we already have over 20 in a 2 mi radius. Please keep our neighborhood pedestrian and bike friendly.

Harold Thomas
Location:

Submitted At: 11:13am 01-03-22
The idea that we have to consider a staff support position for yet more carbon based fuels when climate change
burned many many hundred thousand acres immediately east of Sacramento is a sign of how disconnected from reality staff has become. Does not the Caldor and Dixie fires mean anything? We have a city climate plan and city climate commission recommending decarbonization. We are not the frogs in a pot about to succumb to
boiling water. Vote this proposal down. Thank you s/ Hal Thomas

Rose Arruda
Location:

Submitted At: 11:05am 01-03-22
I oppose the fuel center at Crocker Village.

Kathe Barnett
Location:

Submitted At: 10:45am 01-03-22
We are in opposition to the proposed gas station at Curtis Park Village for several reasons:
1) There is an abundance of nearby gas stations on Franklin Blvd, Freeport Blvd., and Broadway.
2) We feel this is a backward step and prefer forward-thinking such as electric charging stations consistent with
the future of transportation/energy.
3) A gas station is not friendly to pedestrians, bicycles and commuters. 4) We moved to Curtis Park because it was a historically signficant and interesting area. We believe a gas station is inconsistent with the character of Curtis Park.

Kathy Sananikone
Location:

Submitted At: 10:42am 01-03-22
I strongly oppose this. Curtis Park and the surrounding neighborhoods does not need another gas station,
especially one so large given there are already several gas stations within less than a mile from this location.

Each time an underground fuel storage tank is constructed, possible leaks can destroy the land for decades. The access for this station would also create havoc in this "residential neighborhood", increasing the congestion already created by the Crocker Village development. We moved in to this neighborhood for its pedestrian
friendly/bike friendly feel. Please do not destroy this even further by allowing this fuel station in this neighborhood.

Eric Whalen
Location:

Submitted At: 10:35am 01-03-22
As a resident of Curtis Park, I strongly oppose this proposal to build a 16 pump gas station in Curtis Park Village.

There is already an over saturation of gas stations in this area with 23 stations within a two mile radius - all with
easier access for motorists. Allowing this gas station to be built makes a mockery of the city's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and the governor's executive order banning new gas vehicle sales by 2035. It will create severe traffic congestion in the neighborhood, endanger health and safety of nearby residents, and destroy pedestrian and bicycle access through the area. Please do the right thing, like the council did in 2015, and vote NO on this proposal.

Lucky Rasmussen
Location:

Submitted At: 10:08am 01-03-22
Curtis Park, Land Park, Hollywood Park, Oak Park and the surrounding neighborhoods do not need another
fossil-fuel station. the fact that this Planning Commission's analysis was merely a rubber-stamp of the prior 2015 write up renders this vote rather silly, no?
Please vote no on this spurious attempt to place a fossil fuel distribution center in Curtis Park Village.

Go Green!

David Terca
Location:

Submitted At: 10:00am 01-03-22
No to the gas station. There is no need and it will lead to increased traffic and safety issues.

Gerre Buehler
Location:

Submitted At: 9:42am 01-03-22
I do not think the Curtis Park neighborhood needs another fuel center. There are over 20 within a 2 mile radius..

Jennifer Cardone
Location:

Submitted At: 9:02am 01-03-22
I am Jennifer Cardone of Portola Way and I strongly oppose the construction of the fueling center at the Crocker Village Safeway. It is not necessary as there are multiple gas stations in the immediate area. The area is congested enough as it is and fueling center is not in keeping with the intent of a pedestrian friendly and
alternative transportation community that Curtis Park Village now Crocker Village was said to be from the
beginning of the project. Please do the right thing and vote no.

Brenna Rizan
Location:

Submitted At: 6:45pm 01-02-22
I oppose the building of an unnecessary and disruptive fuel center at the south west corner of Crocker Village.

Since Buchannan St will be "exit only" traffic increases for the fuel center will overlay pedestrian access. Already bicycle access in CPV has been degraded by re-designing the community park to EXCLUDE a bike path. Page 62 illustrates the truck delivery path. Due to congestion it would be inadvisable for a tanker to use W. Pacific Bypass (See Google Maps) forcing the tanker to go through the shopping center. This Development was purportedly based on SACOG "Blueprint" (pg 121), to integrate land use and transportation planning to curb sprawl, cut down on vehicle emission and congestion in order to improve the quality of life for residents of the region however the primary principle, "Developments should encourage people to walk, bike, use public transit or carpool to their destinations" is seemingly erased. District 5 bought into the ORIGINAL plan, not this bait and switch.

Michel Rizan
Location:

Submitted At: 5:30pm 01-02-22
There is no need for another gas station. There are 3 a short distance away. I am gravely concerned about the
location which is at the foot of the Sutterville Road bridge going over the railroad tracks. If a heavy vehicle were to run off of Suttterville through the wood and metal guardrail onto the gas station 20+ feet below there could be a major disaster. The site is sandwiched between the Safeway building and the Sutterville embankment making it difficult to axcess for fire fighting. If a disaster were to happen it could compromise the integrity of the bridge, shutting down Sutterville road, light rial, and freight rail traffic. There would be many negative effects including
increases traffic, less walkability, loss of future funding for public transit projects, Sacramento moving backwards enviromentally, and possibly a major shut down of important infrastructure. The positive would be making a rich man richer.

Patti Roberts
Location:

Submitted At: 4:30pm 01-02-22
I strongly oppose the proposal to build a 16-pump gas station at Crocker Village. Not only is there no need for an additional gas station when there are dozens of gas stations in close proximity with easier access for motorists, the inclusion of another gas station would draw major traffic to a predominately residential area.

Georgann Eberhardt
Location:

Submitted At: 3:54pm 01-02-22
I am a resident of Curtis Park Please vote no on the proposal for a gas station at the Safeway store in Crocker
Village. The last thing we need is another gas station in this area of Sacramento. We need to focus on
encouraging people to use electric cars and public transportation not to drive their cars powered by gasoline.

Georgann Eberhardt, Portola Way

Cheryl Stewart
Location:

Submitted At: 3:36pm 01-02-22
Please vote down the proposal for a 16 pump gas station at the Safeway store near Curtis Park. It would
generate much more traffic and air pollution in this residential neighborhood.

The proposal violates the vision of
the transit-oriented community that it was designed to be.

We need more support for bicycles, pedestrians and electric vehicles - not more cars & new carbon fuel
infrastructure.

Please be forward thinking in your decision-making for the future of our neighborhood and for Sacramento.

Sincerely, Cheryl Stewart

Tom Monahan
Location:

Submitted At: 3:34pm 01-02-22
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. Much has happened in the six years since the 2015 Planning
Department report, which now warrant rejection of the proposed fuel center:
(1) Climate change has gotten
worse, blanketing Sacramento in deadly smoke, as extreme heat, wildfires and a 2+ year drought have
threatened our wellbeing and our water supply. (2) The proposal relies on fossil fuels when the automobile
industry is increasingly oriented towards clean-air electric vehicles. The 23 gas stations currently within 2 miles of the site are enough to satisfy a dwindling reliance on fossil fuels. (3) The pandemic has caused the State and many businesses to require or allow employees to work from home – thus reducing the need for area commuter
car use.

Sacramento should be looking to the future, not towards service to the dying dinosaur breed of gas-guzzlers
already on our streets.

Tom Monahan, Portola Way

Fran Coletti
Location:

Submitted At: 3:24pm 01-02-22
Dear City Council,
The Curtis Park neighborhood is already negatively impacted by Curtis Park Village in terms of more traffic.

Another gas station will make that worse. There are already sufficient gas stations surrounding the neighborhood.

So I encourage you to do what you did before and deny this Fuel Center. It is simply not needed.

Simon Haines
Location:

Submitted At: 3:02pm 01-02-22
I remain opposed to a Safeway gas station at the Crocker Village Safeway.

Part of the developer's argument in
favor of the gas pumps was that Safeway would not put or keep a store at that site without a gas station on site
and that Safeway needed the gas station to compete with the new Raley store on Freeport and in fact that Raley store was subsequently built without any gas station on site. And since then, a new giant ARCO station has opened down Freeport Blvd. across from the airport. There is no dearth of gas stations in our area. The Crocker Safeway itself appears to be thriving without a gas station on site and Chevron stations are part of the Safeway gas program.

There is a Chevron station at 1828 Broadway (2 miles from the Crocker Safeway) and at 4000 S, Land Park Drive (1.7 miles away) plus there are 18 other participating stations within 3 to 5 miles of Crocker Drive. For those and other reasons please oppose any permit for a gas station at the Crocker Safeway.

Michael Cook
Location:

Submitted At: 11:59am 01-02-22
NO! MEANS NO! NO GAS STATION!. And we meant it the first time. I DO NOT want lines of cars waiting 30
minutes to get cheap as seen at Safeway gas stations. I have lived in my house on Jeffrey Ave since 1994 and
have watched this Crocker Village project from it's begging. Safeway, originally refused to put in a store if they
could not put in a gas station. Safeway, eventually agreed to put in a store IF Raley's new Land Park store didn't include a gas station. Raley's new store went in without a gas station. Allowing a gas station at Crocker Village now is a betrayal of that agreement. The City would then have to agree to Raley's putting in a gas station at their old store location on Freeport just up the street from a BRAND NEW ARCO station.

Erin Hauge
Location:

Submitted At: 11:32am 01-02-22
I oppose a 16-pump gas station and minimart at Crocker Village. 1-We don’t need more gas stations, we need
more EV charging stations. Raley’s has a row of Tesla charging docks. I’ve never seen them empty and most of
the folks I’ve seen charging go into Raley’s to shop. Imagine the shop fest folks would have at Crocker Village
while charging their EVs! And Safeway would be doing the right thing climate- wise as a CA EV infrastructure
leader. 2-Not so long ago, that land was a Brownfield site for chemical contamination. Why would anyone now
want to bury big gas tanks in the ground there, right next to where people are living? 3- A gas station located off
the main drag would naturally create more through-traffic in a residential neighborhood where many cars already go too fast. Pedestrians, bicyclists, families and pets are already navigating speeding drivers and stop-sign sliders in the Curtis Park neighborhood. Please oppose this gas station application.

Jeanne Baldwin
Location:

Submitted At: 11:09am 01-02-22
We do not need huge fuel trucks driving through residential area to fill huge underground tanks. This is an
accident waiting to happen. This fuel site is within sight of two schools that house pre-school and K-12 students
and close to a SCUSD elementary school.

This site was formerly declared to be toxic-why do we want to add another safety issue to the residents/ Haven't
they declared loudly enough that they are opposed to this addition?.

Hear them (Petrovich and Safeway) out and then please vote to oppose the installation of this health hazard.

Bill Davies
Location:

Submitted At: 6:55am 01-02-22
This proposal is even more wrong now than it was the first time. With every major car manufacturer stopping
production of internal combustion engines - some by 2025 - if there is going to be any sort of infrastructure next to Safeway it needs to be for EVs, not for ICE cars. The state has its own mandate as well - I believe 2035. Be forward thinking here. You have high density housing with no charging infrastructure, and mass transit all
clustered here, and the appropriate use of the space, if any, would be EV support.

Jennifer Henderson
Location:

Submitted At: 11:46pm 01-01-22
Putting this on or near 10th Ave is putting it on the main pedestrian and cycling route from the new pedestrian
overpass. The overpass lets out on 10th Ave and that is the main shot to Curtis Park from the pedestrian bridge - meaning it is the most heavily used pedestrian road in this new development. Worse, this is already heavily in use and there are no bike lanes coming from the pedestrian bridge letting out onto 10th Ave (either the N/S or
E/W stretch), so you see kids on bikes on the sidewalks or in the middle of the street already. This is area is
already becoming a pedestrian hazard area and the development isn’t even finished building out. The
commercial development doesn’t have walk or bike ways so we ride our bikes in the middle of a busy parking lot.

They put in unusable bike lockers, and only one bike rack in front of Safeway in the entire development so far.

This development is already amazingly anti cyclist and pedestrian in its layout and amenities.

Catherine Xia
Location:

Submitted At: 10:27pm 01-01-22
I live in Hollywood Park and there's already so many gas stations nearby. We don't need more gas stations. We
need more bike parking and public transportation options. We need better bike and walking paths. I oppose
putting a gas station in curtis park village.

Shannon Smith-Crowley
Location:

Submitted At: 7:10pm 01-01-22
This has been going on most of the time we’ve lived in Curtis Park, almost 30 years. The neighborhood wasn’t
ever NIMBY but rather were happy that the brownfield would be cleaned up.

The neighborhood was involved to
have input on what the new development would be. The neighborhood insisted on full cleanup instead of spot
remediation and I’m glad we did. Apparently the pollution was MUCH more extensive that originally thought. It
would be a shame to put in a gas station into this remediated land (at high cost of time and money), where the
gas tanks could leak. When weighing the risk of contamination it should be noted that the station really isn’t
needed, considering the number of gas stations already in the area. Thank you for your consideration Shannon
Smith-Crowley Montgomery Way

Patricia Moses
Location:

Submitted At: 6:07pm 01-01-22
My name is Patricia Moses, I live on 24th Street. I am strongly opposed to the fuel center proposed for Curtis
Park Village.

Randall Rodda
Location:

Submitted At: 5:12pm 01-01-22
I oppose the creation of a fuel center at Crocker Village. As it stands now, with many of the storefronts yet to be
leased, vehicle traffic is a bone of contention, an impediment to pedestrian and bicycle traffic from both Curtis
Park and the new neighborhood. This makes no sense.

Ted Ridgway
Location:

Submitted At: 4:39pm 01-01-22
The original plans did not include gas station. It was introduced very late in the process. Developer said Safeway would not occupy the site without a gas station - the status quo shows that this was not true. The site is much too close to residences and the Children's Home, per statute. Waivers or exemptions are not warranted – the shopping center is already built and occupied, and there are already gas stations nearby (12th/Franklin, 12th/Freeport, Broadway/24th, to name three). If anything, the shopping center should install charging stations to encourage and support the use of electric vehicles. The snarl at the 12th St/Route 99 interchange would get worse by attracting gasoline customers. Those cars - idling through stoplight cycles, gridlocking each other in the 12th/Franklin intersection, put a lot of exhaust pollution into the air right here in our neighborhood. We should not have to suffer more of it. Me: Ted Ridgway, 2448 Donner Way

Muriel Rosenberg
Location:

Submitted At: 4:36pm 01-01-22
I am opposed to the creation of a fuel center in Crocker Village. Vote no.

Francisco Prieto
Location:

Submitted At: 4:31pm 01-01-22
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. There are multiple gas stations within a very short distance of
this site. The entrance to Hwy 99 at 12th avenue is already inadequate to handle current traffic during significant parts of rush hour. Adding more traffic from another gas station would worsen this, with negative implications for all of 12th avenue and Franklin Blvd. Why not encourage the developer to consider instead an EV charging station(s)? With the additional time usually needed for most EV's to charge, this might also encourage commerce at the center.

Cristina Zito
Location:

Submitted At: 4:18pm 01-01-22
In opposition

Frances Freitas
Location:

Submitted At: 3:35pm 01-01-22
I am opposed to the creation of a fuel center in Crocker Village.

Kerry Martin
Location:

Submitted At: 3:31pm 01-01-22
I live in Curtis Park on Montgomery Way. I am adamantly opposed to adding a fuel center to Curtis Park Village.

Kerry Martin

Susanne Zito
Location:

Submitted At: 1:46pm 01-01-22
Why 16 pumps? It’s a Safeway in Crocker Village, not a Costco. Additionally, aren’t we all moving away from
fossil fuels? Building a new gas station when there are multiple stations near by seems very short sighted.

Julia Johnston
Location:

Submitted At: 1:02pm 01-01-22
Crocker Village had the potential to be a model for infill, transit oriented development in Sacramento and the
nation. Instead it is a suburban neighborhood with a big box shopping center. I have never thought a gas station
with a 24-convenience store selling alcohol was a good fit for a neighborhood, but after the gas station was
proposed I spent sometime looking at similar gas stations in other places in California. I found none in residential neighborhoods because they are large and brightly lite and inappropriate for a neighborhood. I have been a planner for over 25 years, and Curtis Park homeowner for over 20 years) and it puzzles me how the city can possibly think that a large gas station is a compatible use in this neighborhood. I urge the city to put residents over developers and once again reject a large gas station and convenience store that will even further erode the character of this part of the city for generations.

Hope Rabinovitz
Location:

Submitted At: 12:55pm 01-01-22
With all the new houses, there is already too much traffic. We don't need a gas station to add to it.

Debra Johnson
Location:

Submitted At: 8:49am 01-01-22
The developer said Safeway would not come to Crocker Village without a gas station. That was a lie. The
developer said the Safeway would not be profitable without a gas station. That was a lie. The developer said he
had to have a gas station because Raley's new store would likely have one and therefore have a competitive
advantage. That didn't happen and was again a lie. As a Curtis Park resident for over 30 years, I appreciate the
Safeway store shop there, as well as patronizing the other merchants in Crocker Village. There are always lots of patrons in the store, and I think this Safeway is likely the most profitable one in the area (compared to19th St, Alhambra, and University Village). There is no need for additional gas stations, as there are many within one mile of Crocker Village. It is ludicrous to place a large gas station next to a light rail station. We need to encourage more walking, biking, and public transport, not more fossil fuel consumption.

Liz Hanson
Location:

Submitted At: 7:58am 01-01-22
I am opposed to the gas station in crocker village because it will make the shopping center more hostile for
pedestrians. What's the point of having a nice community shopping center on the middle of a neighborhood if
you're going to make it toxic and dangerous to walk/bike to? It will also discourage public transit which would be
super lame since the light rail station is right there.

Carol Blackman
Location:

Submitted At: 7:31am 01-01-22
As a neighbor/ homeowner for 40 years I oppose building a gas station in Crocker Village. There are many fuel
stations nearby with closer access and convenience. No need for another one. Crocker Village was promoted as a walkable/bike-friendly community with shopping/restaurants. With large fuel trucks going in and out of a potential fueling station promotes the opposite: more gas vehicles and traffic.

The goal of building Crocker Village was to provide a community dedicated to living lightly on the earth and not
create a huge footprint to negatively impact the environment.

Jeff Wilson
Location:

Submitted At: 9:06pm 12-31-21
Climate change is real. More access to fossil fuels is counterproductive. Do you really want your kids to live in a
world where suburbs burn like in Colorado? If a fire starts on a dry, windy day in a Sacramento suburb will there
be capacity to contain it?

Joseph Larrea
Location:

Submitted At: 6:00pm 12-31-21
Curtis Park Village (now Crocker Village) was intended to be a Transit Oriented Development, encouraging its
residents and neighbors to use public transit. The plans, as originally presented, did not include a fueling center
let alone one the size at Costco. Albertson’s (owners of Safeway) said this was added to compete with the new
Raley’s on Freeport because otherwise it, “...wouldn’t pencil out.” Raley’s kept their promise to not put in a fuel
center. There are 9 gas stations within a 2-mile radius of this proposed site...how much more gas do we need?
Do the right thing...don’t allow this to proceed.

Nancy Nguyen
Location:

Submitted At: 5:47pm 12-31-21
I live on Curtis Way and I oppose the fuel center at Crocker village.

Kate Sproul
Location:

Submitted At: 5:13pm 12-31-21
I am strongly opposed to a gas fuel center in Crocker Village. I live on 5th Ave in Curtis Park.

Nancy McKeever
Location:

Submitted At: 4:20pm 12-31-21
The Council rightly denied the application in 2015 with a 7 to 2 vote. Those reasons still hold and are even more
urgent in 2022. Sacramento is now a leader in climate action. I ask the City to stay true to your aggressive goals
and be satisfied that the 23 gas stations within two miles of the proposed site meet public needs. Also, it would be a travesty to place any gas station, let alone a Hypermarket Fuel Center so close to the public pedestrian bridge, senior housing and city college. Three tanker trucks entering and exiting the site along with gas customers from seven urban area Safeways is too much.

Please do not approve this application.

Kelly Haarmeyer
Location:

Submitted At: 4:03pm 12-31-21
I strongly oppose this fuel center, it is not needed in this community.

Michael Miller
Location:

Submitted At: 4:02pm 12-31-21
Neighbors did not oppose the developer’s submission of the Curtis Park Village proposal when it didn’t include a gas station. When the developer presented the plan to the Council, we were stunned that it included a 16-pump fuel center. The developer and Safeway both insisted that their project wouldn’t “pencil out” because they were convinced that the new Raley’s on Freeport would also offer fuel. The Council wisely denied the developer’s request because it broke the bargain struck with the neighborhood. Raley’s does not offer fuel. Safeway is fine without fuel. Multiple gas stations exist adjacent to Curtis Park; the neighborhood is not “underserved.” Entombing giant tanks under a truck-stop sized fuel center to attract gas-guzzling commuters from around the entire region under a formerly toxic railyard Superfund site that neighbors fought long and hard to ensure was clean enough for human habitation would constitute a complete betrayal to Curtis Park. Please don’t give in to greed.

james moses
Location:

Submitted At: 3:47pm 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village. The fuel center is a Costco- sized magnet station intended to
draw in participants in Safeway's Gasoline Rewards program. Its purpose is at odds with an infill project.

James Moses
24th Street

Gregory Jecmen
Location:

Submitted At: 2:15pm 12-31-21
I live on 25th Street and Curtis Park and strongly oppose the proposed fuel center in Crocker Village.

Kris Backus
Location:

Submitted At: 2:01pm 12-31-21
I live on Portola Way and I oppose the fuel center at Safeway in Crocker Village.

JOHN BAILEY
Location:

Submitted At: 1:59pm 12-31-21
I live on Coleman Way in Curtis Park and am opposed to the regional gas station proposal for the following
reasons:

The Transit Oriented Development Ordinance now in place forbids a gas station in this location, for good reasons. The traffic impacts of the gas station would be detrimental to public safety from both accident and pollution perspectives.

There are already over 20 gas stations within 2 miles of the site.

Safeway sought the station to be competitive with an anticipated gas station at the new Raley's. Raley's did not
build a gas station so their argument is now unfounded.

The adjacent Sacramento City College light rail station is projected to become an Amtrak station as well. The gas station is antithetical to the pedestrian oriented goals of this transit center and jeopardizes opportunities for future state and federal funding.

Thank you,
John Bailey

Phil Goldcamp
Location:

Submitted At: 1:51pm 12-31-21
Too close to residential property.

MICHAEL SCHEIBLE
Location:

Submitted At: 12:06pm 12-31-21
Seriously? The Council has the discretion to deny to a totally unnecessary major fueling center in a mixed-use,
residential area and it's staff is recommending that the project be allowed to go ahead?
Safeway doesn't profit from discounted gas, its sells gas to attract patrons to its Crocker Village store and away
from other groceries that involve less travel. What does this accomplish? More travel regionally, more congestion locally and more emissions of GHGs.

Doesn't the City have a policy to reduce travel and congestion, especially by GHG emitting gasoline vehicles?
Instead of pursuing a 16 pump gas station Crocker Village should be making a meaningful commitment to
attracting EVs. Of the hundreds of parking spaces adjacent to Safeway just two are labeled for EVs. Even this
labeling is token - just a little paint on a compact space. One indicates EV charging only but has no charger (see photos).

The Council should deny the conditional use permit.

Mike Scheible, 4th Ave

Jordan Lang
Location:

Submitted At: 11:38am 12-31-21
I oppose the fuel center proposed for the Crocker Drive shopping center for several reasons: development
around a light rail station should emphasize services for a high-density transit- using community, a freeway-style
fueling center should not be located in a largely residential neighborhood, our neighborhood already has access
to many fuel stations. The City with its long-needed action plans to fight climate change should be de-
emphasizing facilities that encourage fossil-fuel consumption. Thank you, Jordan Lang, Curtis Way.

Mimi Budd
Location:

Submitted At: 10:57am 12-31-21
Please reject the proposal to build a large fuel center in Crocker Village. The fuel center creates the direct
opposite impact of the transit centered intent of the infill project. It will encourage more cars, not fewer. There
are plenty of gas stations nearby to serve peoples needs. And the added cars will draw more traffic and that emit more fumes in a residential neighborhood.

The reasons the council rejected the project in 2015 still stand today.

The additional environmental protections passed by the council subsequent to the 2015 denial add further reason to vote against the proposal today in 2022.

Please vote no. Thank you. Mimi BUDD Curtis Park Resident

BRENDA MCCULLOCH
Location:

Submitted At: 10:35am 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in the Crocker Village development.

Craig McCulloch
Location:

Submitted At: 10:20am 12-31-21
I oppose the huge gas station in Crocker Village Safeway. It is not needed with plenty other gas stations already
in the area. It is not consistent with the walkable bike-friendly design of the shopping area. Please vote NO.

Joan Cusick
Location:

Submitted At: 10:14am 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village.

Joan Cusick
2664 Portola Way

Donna Chipps
Location:

Submitted At: 10:14am 12-31-21
I live at 3311 East Curtis Dr and oppose gas stations at the Crocker village shopping center. It is not on a major
street and requires access through residential neighborhood

Ryan Mesman
Location:

Submitted At: 9:57am 12-31-21
I am a resident of Crocker Drive and oppose a gas station in Crocker Village

Christy MG
Location:

Submitted At: 9:50am 12-31-21
I am in favor of a new well-lighted fuel station. Many of the other gas stations do not feel safe in the area. Ideally
the station would have a car wash as well.

Judy Maben
Location: 96122, Portola
Submitted At: 9:49am 12-31-21
I support the fuel center because it will give local residents a gas station where they can use Safeway credits to
purchase low cost gasoline (approximately the same price as Costco). The location at the back of the lot is a
good one and access off Crocker Drive is facilitated by the light at 10th Ave.

That site is also far enough away
from any residence.

Judith Maben, 2571 Portola Way

Aaron Carruthers
Location:

Submitted At: 9:44am 12-31-21
I am a resident of Crocker Drive and oppose a gas station in Crocker Village.

Patty Muldown
Location:

Submitted At: 9:34am 12-31-21
We can’t handle the traffic we have, Shell on franklin and 12th ave is enough, more people have electric cars, gas use is down in Crocker village and Curtis park

Keith Haberstock
Location:

Submitted At: 9:28am 12-31-21
I am a resident of Crocker Drive and I am OPPOSED to a super fuel station in Crocker Village.

Marc Grossman
Location:

Submitted At: 9:19am 12-31-21
I oppose the gas station in Crocker Village.

Marc Grossman
3541 East Curtis Drive
Sacramento, CA 95818

Terri Hardy
Location:

Submitted At: 9:12am 12-31-21
A fuel center is not needed or wanted in this community.

Ann Kuhns
Location:

Submitted At: 9:00am 12-31-21
I live on Marshall Way and I support the gas station at Safeway. I think it is reasonable to have a gas station at
that location. I support transit friendly development, but I don’t think a gas station at the location on Crocker Way and Sutterville conflicts with that.

Moreover, the reality of the neighborhood in Curtis Park and surrounding areas is that most houses have 2 cars and those cars need gas.

Frank Bruno
Location:

Submitted At: 8:49am 12-31-21
I am opposed to the fuel center. I originally supported a compromise of a four- pump fuel center designed to fit in
with a walkable commercial center. However the developer played Curtis Park residents and instead installed
what we did not want: a regional big-box shopping center filled with national franchises, and the city planning
department acquiesced to this. I was very disappointed in the city's performance on this issue.

Suzanne Love
Location:

Submitted At: 8:45am 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village.
9th Avenue Curtis Park

Dave Backus
Location:

Submitted At: 8:04am 12-31-21
I am opposed to a fuel center in Crocker Village - Dave Backus - Portola Way

Sean Klein
Location:

Submitted At: 7:59am 12-31-21
I am opposed to the fuel center in Curtis Park Village. I live in Curtis Park and we do not need a gas station in the shopping center. Plenty of options are present in and around the neighborhood. Furthermore, Safeway appears to be doing excellent business without the gas station.

Lyn Crouch
Location:

Submitted At: 7:58am 12-31-21
I am a Curtis Park resident and believe proposed fuel center would damage our neighborhood. Crocker Village
developer knows our community’s strongly held opinions about this matter and needs to let it go. There is no
need for this fuel center and significant reasons against.

Lyn Crouch, Castro Way

Sunni Burns
Location:

Submitted At: 7:37am 12-31-21
I am opposed to the huge fuel center in my neighborhood.

Dorsey Griffith
Location:

Submitted At: 7:35am 12-31-21
I AM A CURTIS PARK RESIDENT AND I AM 100 PERCENT OPPOSED TO THE SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER. IT IS AN UNNECESSARY ADDITION TO CROCKER VILLAGE. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING AND REJECT THIS APPEAL. ONE OF THE NICEST THINGS ABOUT CROCKER VILLAGE IS THAT WE CAN WALK THERE.

LET'S ENCOURAGE A WALKABLE COMMUNITY -- NOT ONE OVERRUN BY GAS-GUZZLING CARS.

Dorsey Griffith, 8th Ave.

Lisa Brodkey
Location:

Submitted At: 4:14am 12-31-21
I am opposed to this gas station for all the environmental reasons others have expressed. In addition, I clearly
remember a representative of Safeway telling residents assembled at a town hall meeting that Safeway couldn't
possibly succeed here if there were no gas station. The CV Safeway is doing just fine. Drivers have many other
nearby options for gas. Please vote no on this proposal.

Lisa Brodkey, Portola Way

Jason Silva
Location:

Submitted At: 11:20pm 12-30-21
As a transit oriented development, a high-volume discount fuel station is unacceptable. With the rapid changes to our climate and the urgent move to electrification reveals this proposal to be not just short-sighted but the opposite direction needed. Vote No or approve with the condition of it being an entirely electric charging station.

Jason Silva - 4th Ave

Marian Moe
Location:

Submitted At: 9:52pm 12-30-21
If you, as a member of the city council members, are committed to combatting climate change, this is your
opportunity to show it. This project was "sold" as a pedestrian-friendly, close to public transportation, low
emissions development. Approving a magnet multi-pump gas station is in complete contradiction to general plan policy and past positions.

Please take a look at the plans for cars queuing up in the parking lot, in front of the now Covid-necessary outside seating areas for other businesses like Peet's and Five Guys; it shows how much of a public health threat this proposal creates. As a nearby neighbor on Donner Way, I am not only concerned with the traffic this will attract, but also the air quality impacts that will have long-term effects on our health and the global health of the world.

Thank you for your consideration.

Marian Moe

Joyce Terhaar
Location:

Submitted At: 8:49pm 12-30-21
This proposal is outdated dinosaur thinking given the need for charging stations and ZEVs. CA has ambitious
goals to reduce emissions and slow climate change, let’s support them rather than invest in ways that actively
encourage consumer behavior that undercuts those efforts and increases emissions and the pace of climate change. We’re already dealing with drought, extreme wildfires, dangerous purple air and we are rethinking this decision? For what? So someone can compete with established gas stations and hope to get a slice of their pie?
Rather than move into the future and provide services for the next generation? This makes no sense, especially
if you care about young people who must live with decisions made by a generation that won’t be alive to face the consequences. Vote no on this proposal.

Joyce Terhaar, 3601 Cutter Way.

Martin Tremblay and Jill Oviatt
rebecca botelho
Location:

Submitted At: 11:23am 01-03-22
I simply do not understand why this is up for reconsideration. When you determined that Jay Schenirer's vote
didn't count, the council still voted to oppose the gas station, so why this appeal seems like a mute point. Aside
from that obvious issue, the issue of transit funding used in this project, close proximity of gas stations (
eliminating a need) and the huge issue of traffic. Have you EVER seen a 16 pump gas station in an area with 2
lanes in and out. I have already wondered why the streets were approved at a width that doesn't even allow for
you to drive by when a Fedex delivery truck is parked at some of the houses on Crocker, or for home owners to
park in front of their houses. We do not need another gas station, and we certainly don't need the traffic. please
use common sense and vote no, like you did the previous time.

Frank Whalen
Location: