Sacramento City Council
February 27, 2024

·1· ·an individual, a resident of District 4.· And wasn't ·2· ·planning to really speak on this, but looking at the ·3· ·comments that largely come -- seem to be coming from the ·4· ·business community, I feel like it's important that at ·5· ·least some representation from residents who live within ·6· ·these industrial areas or -- or around these areas ·7· ·necessary.
·8· · · · · · So I would actually ask the question of -- ·9· ·similar to what business community asked is:· What 10· ·outreach was done to the low income residents who live in 11· ·a lot of these -- would've long been considered -- air 12· ·quality monitoring deserts?· Which this ordinance is 13· ·seeking to -- like, to better address, at least.
14· · · · · · I mean, I know there have been at least some 15· ·progress or at least pilot programs to really monitor the 16· ·air quality within these areas.· But many people that I 17· ·know that live within them, and I have many friends and 18· ·loved ones that are in the north and south -- South 19· ·Sacramento areas that were highlighted in that map.· They 20· ·don't have time to really, like, follow along with these, 21· ·like, with these bureaucratic meetings, as well as, like, 22· ·you know, being track of the legalese that comes into all 23· ·these ordinances.
24· · · · · · But business communities that are up here 25· ·complaining absolutely do.· And they have armies -- like,

·1· ·many of them have armies of lawyers or represented ·2· ·interest groups that often times come up here and throw ·3· ·up things like the 14th Amendment, and as if that is a ·4· ·clause exclusively intended to protect their commercial ·5· ·rights and property rights, as opposed to make --
·6· ·guaranteeing equal protection for everyone, most
·7· ·particularly, those most vulnerable low income residents ·8· ·that they are living near.
·9· · · · · · So I would really encourage us to, you know, 10· ·take a deep look at this, but also, if there needs to be 11· ·outreach or additional consideration, actually consider 12· ·and ask the residents that live there and not just the 13· ·people with the most money and -- and are most
14· ·advantaged.
15· · · · · · CITY CLERK:· Our last speaker is Sheridon Evans. 16· · · · · · MR. EVANS:· Good afternoon.· My name is Sheridon 17· ·Evans with Buzz Oats Construction.· Just a few questions. 18· ·As far as the lack of notice goes, we received notice 19· ·on -- on this last Thursday, so I -- I echo what all the 20· ·other speakers have said.
21· · · · · · A few questions.· Read through the report. I 22· ·saw that there were no financial considerations taken. 23· ·As you can tell, they're -- even going through a CUP 24· ·process, that's added permitting fees, added time of loss 25· ·of operation.· Also, as you spoke, if you were expanding

·1· ·your business, that's additional time lost as well.· So ·2· ·I -- I would recommend to Staff to take a look at the ·3· ·financial considerations as well.
·4· · · · · · Also, a few questions, as far as operators go. ·5· ·As the gentleman before me said, you know, they're not -- ·6· ·they're typically small -- small business owners.· You ·7· ·know, they don't deal with, you know, the legal language ·8· ·that a lot of the big developers do.
·9· · · · · · And it is small business owners that will have 10· ·to come out and get this CUP.· So how will the CUP 11· ·coincide with the new General Plan update that's
12· ·happening?· Because often times, a CUP takes -- I know 13· ·the City says it takes about four to six months, but 14· ·typically, in experience, it takes up to nine months to 15· ·get these things issued, especially with understaffing. 16· ·And we're also coming into a recession, so it's -- 17· ·it's -- there's additional consideration that needs to be 18· ·taken when it comes to adding in additional cost, and 19· ·also, processees to business owners.
20· · · · · · And one last thing:· As far as air quality goes, 21· ·I didn't see any mention of how this ordinance will 22· ·attempt to solve the air quality issues.· As far as 23· ·having a CUP issued, all it seems to do is just add 24· ·another process to what's ultimately zoned as industrial 25· ·already.· So you're still going to have an industrial use

·1· ·there.
·2· · · · · · CITY CLERK:· Thank you for your comments.· We ·3· ·have no more speakers.
·4· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· All right.· I am going to go ·5· ·a little out of order, (Unintelligible) the Committee for ·6· ·the Councilmember whose district includes this area.· So ·7· ·Councilmember Kaplan, would you like to start us off? ·8· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· Thank you, Chair
·9· ·Valenzuela.· And -- and for a bit of context, when this 10· ·discussion first started, was entirely in Councilmember 11· ·Loloee's district.· And then, I've inherited parts of 12· ·Robla and Pell in District 1, so I appreciate, 'cause 13· ·this now affects both of us.
14· · · · · · So I appreciate and I've been in discussions 15· ·with Councilmember Loloee, but I have a couple of
16· ·questions.· So what is the process?· And Kevin, can you 17· ·help me?· How did you determine what -- what did you say, 18· ·1,022 notices went out?· How -- how does that happen? 19· · · · · · MR. COLIN:· Yeah.· I work with our GIS Staff to 20· ·identify every parcel that connects the dot between where 21· ·are we -- where have we issued these permits for these 22· ·particular land uses, identify those districts.· Which, 23· ·in then, turn I could aggregate every owner of those 24· ·properties.· So everything purple on the -- on the map 25· ·you saw earlier.

·1· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· But can we re-pull up -- ·2· ·I -- I think that would be a great -- for -- for me to ·3· ·see context, 'cause I have a couple questions.
·4· ·Especially the -- the one graphic that -- where you had ·5· ·the red circles.· The purple zones and then the red ·6· ·circles.· Thank you, Staff.· I know, Staff, technology ·7· ·behind the scenes is -- is working -- working the mice ·8· ·to -- to pull it back up, which I appreciate.
·9· · · · · · So let me question this:· If you didn't receive 10· ·notice, then this potential change doesn't apply to you? 11· · · · · · MR. COLIN:· No.· It doesn't work that way. 12· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· Okay.
13· · · · · · MR. COLIN:· Yeah.· So I won't speculate on why a 14· ·particular piece of mail didn't make it into an
15· ·individual's hand.· What I can assure you is that the 16· ·list on file is representative of what the County
17· ·Assessor Office has as the registered owner of that 18· ·parcel of land.
19· · · · · · If you have split ownership, different -- I -- 20· ·where the mail goes is where the Assessor has determined 21· ·the owner resides or the entity that does own that.· And 22· ·yeah, so there are many things that could happen, but -- 23· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· And -- and -- and I think 24· ·it's -- it's good to notice, 'cause I actually didn't 25· ·know that business owners got notice, so that's something

·1· ·new to me.· But just for those in the audience, I was not ·2· ·part of the conversations with Councilmember Loloee, so ·3· ·outside of Chair Valenzuela, that sometimes sees things ·4· ·earlier, the rest of us, I got first view in -- in ·5· ·reading of this on Thursday as well.· So I can understand ·6· ·the anxiety.· You know, we have, what, four or five days ·7· ·to get up to speed on this.
·8· · · · · · And this is a -- I think it's a delicate
·9· ·balance.· As we're looking at the 2040 General Plan, and 10· ·how do we look at areas that have historically been 11· ·disadvantaged, but not as well as punish business owners 12· ·that work in By-Right.· It is industrial.· They have the 13· ·right to have their business.· They've been set up. 14· · · · · · We have, as a city, no legal right to say now 15· ·you can't operate there.· So I just want to make that 16· ·very clear.· Anybody who's watching, you've got a
17· ·business, we have no legal right, as a city, to take it 18· ·away or tell you to stop because things have been done 19· ·legally.
20· · · · · · What can be said is we looked at our 2030 21· ·General Plan -- I've looked at it -- and I think we, as a 22· ·city, have not done the job we needed to, to implement 23· ·some of the recommendations that were put forward, 24· ·because back then, it was looked at the Robla neighbor 25· ·that there needed to be sidewalks, there needed to be

·1· ·widening of streets.· We needed to look at how we handle ·2· ·environmental justice, and we, as a city, collectively -- ·3· ·or whomever was elected at that time -- just didn't push ·4· ·those issues and the Council make decision.
·5· · · · · · So it's a delicate balance of now we're looking ·6· ·at it.· I think it's a conversation that needs to be had. ·7· ·But I do have, and want to request a slight pause.· Do ·8· ·you have, by chance, the graphic that you could put up? ·9· · · · · · MR. COLIN:· I do.· Sorry.
10· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· That's okay.
11· · · · · · MR. COLIN:· I have a close-up.· What -- what -- 12· ·what -- sorry, sorry, sorry.
13· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· Yes.· That one.· Let me 14· ·pull it up on my screen so I'm not looking behind me as 15· ·well.· So in each of those red areas, I -- I want to 16· ·understand what the circles -- is that the thousand 17· ·square feet?· Like, or is that just a broad circle? 18· · · · · · MR. COLIN:· Yeah.· What I'm attempting to draw 19· ·attention to here is there is a subtle darker shade of 20· ·purple that's sprinkled in those areas that are
21· ·surrounded by the red dashed rectangles.· Those are the 22· ·residential uses in an industrial zone.
23· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· So what I would like -- 24· ·and I have confirmed and conferred with Councilmember 25· ·Loloee -- is I think we need to pull some of our

·1· ·stakeholders together.· We need to really look at
·2· ·narrowly tayloring this, because if you look at the ·3· ·ordinance, as drafted, I think one of the things that was ·4· ·missing -- especially on page 3 of the ordinance, on ·5· ·number 1 -- is we need the word "and," because we need to ·6· ·narrowly taylor it.
·7· · · · · · Like, you look at Pell, there are no
·8· ·non-conforming uses on Pell.· There are no residential, ·9· ·so why would we, in requesting any expansion of
10· ·businesses along Pell, have them go through a CUP when 11· ·it's already zoned industrial and it's already By-Right? 12· · · · · · But on the items where 1, 2, 3 -- and this is 13· ·where I also want stakeholder feedback -- but we need to 14· ·look at the, you know, the M-1, M-1(S), 2 and area, and a 15· ·thousand feet.· So if somebody is outside of the thousand 16· ·feet, there should be no changes.· There should -- there 17· ·should be no Conditional Use Permit requirement.
18· · · · · · But then, I also want to give the time for 19· ·stakeholders and those who have taken the time to write 20· ·in, which I appreciate it, or read the online comments, 21· ·those who show up here, what does this mean?· As well as 22· ·reading the ordinance, it does not specifically say that 23· ·this only applies to new or expanding.· So I can
24· ·understand existing businesses thinking that this might 25· ·be shutting down some of their current operations.

·1· · · · · · So I would like the time for city Staff, our ·2· ·city attorney to make sure that this is -- is drafted ·3· ·appropriately.· Stakeholders come together.
·4· ·Councilmember Loloee has agreed to this, as well as look ·5· ·at this as a pilot, because I think there has to be -- ·6· ·this is we pilot.· We work out all the idiosyncrasies. ·7· ·2040 General Plan comes in and this is an item that comes ·8· ·back to City Council as to how do we apply it city wide. ·9· · · · · · So this is just an interim basis of how do we 10· ·start a pilot, address the kinks, work with an area, and 11· ·how does this then apply when the 2040 General Plan is 12· ·coming in, which is going to require us to do some of us 13· ·through SB-1000 and changes in state law that we -- we 14· ·find that balanced.
15· · · · · · But I'm -- I'm -- I'm not comfortable yet saying 16· ·we need to go forth and concur, 'cause I think we need to 17· ·re-look at the language that was written and how do we -- 18· ·how do we address it in a nuanced way.
19· · · · · · So I would like for -- you know, I want to hear 20· ·my fellow Councilmember feedback.· I'm comfortable with 21· ·having the stakeholder and kind of move forward.· I don't 22· ·see that there's going to be a whole lot changed, per 23· ·say, beyond very narrowly tayloring and providing some 24· ·deadlines.
25· · · · · · But I want to thank Councilmember Loloee, 'cause

·1· ·not often do we -- we bring up environmental justice and ·2· ·try and balance this.· But I think we do need to -- to ·3· ·balance it, but also give stakeholders the ability to ·4· ·have some feedback.
·5· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Okay.· So to be clear:
·6· ·You're comfortable with a motion to move it to Council, ·7· ·just giving you time to do this --
·8· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· Yeah.
·9· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Okay.
10· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· Where it's going to be 11· ·a -- a -- a while --
12· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Okay.
13· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· -- but it'll be narrowly 14· ·tailored.
15· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Got you.· All right.· Vice 16· ·Mayor.
17· · · · · · VICE MAYOR GUERRA:· Thank you, Madam Chair. 18· ·I -- I definitely think this needs more time and work, 19· ·specifically, with the Councilmember.· I -- my
20· ·understanding with -- when I've spoken with the
21· ·Councilmember, is he's trying to balance that -- the -- 22· ·the -- the sensitivity towards the local businesses. 23· · · · · · But the reason this came up, and -- and I hope 24· ·the -- the representatives of those businesses and 25· ·property owners here will understand is that it was, for

·1· ·the last four years, and even before then, people who ·2· ·live in the industrially area have had concerns, have had ·3· ·either -- whether they are the businesses that are here ·4· ·today or not -- probably not, because the ones who are ·5· ·non-responsive are usually not the ones that show up -- ·6· ·but have had issues with that relationship.· And for good ·7· ·or bad, that's not here for us to -- to say.· You know, I ·8· ·mean, again, you know, decisions were made in the past ·9· ·that allowed for this mixed use and -- and unfortunately 10· ·has created that -- that conflict.
11· · · · · · My mother lives near a UP railroad, you know, 12· ·so -- but it's in the south area, in the industrial area, 13· ·and -- and I wouldn't say it's a great buffer, but you 14· ·know, they're -- at least the power and road kind of 15· ·somewhat separates that.· But there are still communities 16· ·that are adjacent to, you know, large, heavy, industrial 17· ·operations.
18· · · · · · And -- and having looked and seen those -- 19· ·the -- the daily numbers on air impacts, if you're living 20· ·next to that, anyone that's within 500 feet, you're -- 21· ·you're exposed.· I mean, that's just -- and you don't -- 22· ·you may not smell it, you may not see it, but the
23· ·particulates are small enough to get in your lungs and 24· ·that's just -- that's just a fact.
25· · · · · · And so, what we're trying to do here, I think,

·1· ·is find a solution of how do we, one, ensure that -- that ·2· ·what happens in the future is -- is both respective to ·3· ·not only the property owner, but most importantly, which ·4· ·is a responsibility of this Council, which is the health ·5· ·and safety of those who live in those areas.· So I think ·6· ·that -- that needs to be a factor.
·7· · · · · · Now, a -- a couple things here.· I do think that ·8· ·it should be -- it -- it -- this seems to be much more a ·9· ·problem in the northeast area, so -- and I -- I am -- 10· ·have been working and having conversations with the 11· ·Councilmember, because I represent the largest industrial 12· ·area and -- and we do have some very, very limited 13· ·housing in that industrial area.
14· · · · · · So I -- I think, you know, figuring out, as I 15· ·think the Chair -- I mean, as my -- my colleague
16· ·mentioned, looking at a pilot program or something that's 17· ·specific to this area.· Some of the concepts that the 18· ·Councilmember -- and this is why I think it's
19· ·important -- I -- I would even be supportive of having it 20· ·come back to Law and Leg after the conversation with the 21· ·Councilmember and the industry is -- because my
22· ·understanding is that the Councilmember would also like 23· ·to see maybe an Administrator-level Review so that if it 24· ·isn't that much of a conflict, but it does have a hearing 25· ·process, it does have the ability for a resident to come

·1· ·in and say, look, they're going to expand an operation ·2· ·that's going to produce this type of impact next to where ·3· ·I live.· That's faster than the Planning Commission. ·4· · · · · · And you know, not -- I'm not always a -- a big ·5· ·advocate of the -- of the, you know, stepping up here ·6· ·of -- of -- of -- of -- of processes, but I think this ·7· ·might be a recommendation is looking at -- at could you ·8· ·use the admin -- the -- the -- the Zoning Administrator ·9· ·Level Review versus the Planning Commission review.· It's 10· ·also not as expensive, too.
11· · · · · · So if you're adding just a shed in your
12· ·industrial operation, are we going to make you go all the 13· ·way to the Council?· But -- you know, so I think -- I 14· ·think there's -- I think those level of details need to 15· ·be worked out and -- and that level of notification. 16· · · · · · And it is -- it is an unfortunate situation.· If 17· ·you're -- if you're driving down any of that area along 18· ·Business 80, you're going to have warehouses next to a 19· ·home, next to a tract development and then another 20· ·warehouse and it's -- and you know, for whatever -- for 21· ·whatever happened in the development in North Sac and -- 22· ·and Del Paso Heights, you know, unfortunate for -- for 23· ·that lack of floor planning.· I think what we're trying 24· ·to do is make sure that we don't exacerbate the impacts 25· ·to those -- the people that live there as well.

·1· · · · · · So -- so I think that would -- you know, Madam ·2· ·Chair, I think that would be my recommendation is -- is ·3· ·to go back with the stakeholders and the Councilmember, ·4· ·'cause my understanding is Councilmember would like to ·5· ·see something of a different approach here that allows ·6· ·homes that are next to a -- an industrial use at least ·7· ·have some type of -- of conditional use process.· I -- ·8· ·and he doesn't want to overcomplicate it, and I don't ·9· ·think it should be overcomplicated, but there -- I think 10· ·there needs to be more dialogue.
11· · · · · · I will say, I -- I appreciate this conversation 12· ·happening, because in my time that I've -- that I've, you 13· ·know, been watching Council, at least 20 years, I don't 14· ·think this has ever come up.· And -- and from folks that 15· ·I know, 'cause I had a cousin who lived up in that area, 16· ·it's always been an issue.· It's always been a -- from 17· ·people who live there, they've always felt that
18· ·frustration.· So we do have to balance the -- the -- the 19· ·unfortunate circumstance that we have here.
20· · · · · · And again, it's not the people who have a 21· ·business there or the people who live there, those 22· ·decisions were made probably over 30 years ago that now 23· ·are leading to what we see the data is showing, which is, 24· ·we do have unfortunate health impacts that are occurring 25· ·and that needs to be addressed.

·1· · · · · · So those are my thoughts, and if it means ·2· ·kicking it back and coming back, Madam Chair, I think ·3· ·that might be the best so that there's an opportunity for ·4· ·the businesses to respond appropriately and that the ·5· ·neighbors could -- and the Councilmember can figure out ·6· ·what is right by their neighbors, 'cause that's -- that's ·7· ·the intent of why this was brought here.
·8· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Okay.· Thank you, Vice Mayor. ·9· ·Vice Chair Jennings.
10· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER JENNINGS:· Thank you.· I -- I -- I 11· ·just want to know on the notifications -- excuse me. 12· ·When we send the notifications, are we doing that through 13· ·normal mail or are we doing it through certified mail? 14· · · · · · MR. COLIN:· We do it through standard postal 15· ·service.
16· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER JENNINGS:· Standard postal
17· ·service.· So we have no way of knowing whether the owner 18· ·or the person it was intended to go to actually got it, 19· ·read it, understood it or not?
20· · · · · · MR. COLIN:· That -- that would be a method to do 21· ·certified mail.· I can tell you, I've gotten over 20 22· ·phone calls, which were, Please tell me about the notice. 23· ·So we do not individually verify or have that chain of 24· ·custody -- if I could use that term -- between sending 25· ·and receiving.

·1· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER JENNINGS:· Right.· But you sent ·2· ·out 1,022; correct?
·3· · · · · · MR. COLIN:· Correct.
·4· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER JENNINGS:· So 20 against 1,022 ·5· ·doesn't -- doesn't make me jump up and get excited.· So ·6· ·I -- I'm just saying, I think that, that's an issue, as ·7· ·far as notification is concerned, and I think we need to ·8· ·make sure that it does get to the person that we're ·9· ·trying to get it to, however we do that.
10· · · · · · But I do think the pilot opportunity gives us 11· ·more time to get this right, whether it's notification, 12· ·whether it's the detail, whether it's the health issues, 13· ·whether it's the air quality issues, which this really 14· ·doesn't address at this time.
15· · · · · · I think we need more time.· I think it needs to 16· ·come back to Law and Leg before it goes to the Council. 17· ·That would be my recommendation.· And I think we need to 18· ·bring the -- the landowners, the property owners,
19· ·together in order to really be able to understand how we 20· ·can reduce this issue.
21· · · · · · I was surprised to hear, in District 6, you 22· ·don't have as much of an issue there as we do in District 23· ·2.· And so, I think it's important to get out there and 24· ·bring people together to have a conversation, because I 25· ·always believe that when you bring people together, they

·1· ·solve their own problems, and maybe there's some
·2· ·solutions in doing that.· So I think this needs a little ·3· ·bit more time to bake.
·4· · · · · · And I think the -- the pilot program, before the ·5· ·2040 General Plan comes out, gives us an opportunity to ·6· ·find the solutions that we need in order to tie it into ·7· ·the 2040 plan.· So that would be my recommendation. ·8· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Thank you, Vice Chair. ·9· ·Before I kick it back to Councilmember Kaplan and make 10· ·the motion that she's comfortable with, I just want to 11· ·give some comments.· And again, thanks Staff, for your 12· ·work with the Council Office on this ordinance.
13· · · · · · It is, as the Vice Mayor said, it's -- it's one 14· ·of the first times that we've seen something this
15· ·tailored come forward.· And I think it's really great 16· ·taking the spirit of SB-1000 to heart, that we need to be 17· ·more proactive at how we address historic issues with 18· ·land use, especially those that are impacting specific 19· ·communities that have been left behind for a very long 20· ·time.
21· · · · · · Folks know that I do environmental justice 22· ·advocacy, and I'm privileged to be working, still, with 23· ·some of the groups who sponsor legislation, that required 24· ·that in the General Plan.· And this is exactly -- I can 25· ·say exactly, the type of issue that we were trying to

·1· ·address at that time, right, is how -- like, trucking and ·2· ·neighborhoods is one of the biggest issues if you go to ·3· ·Long Beach, if you go to the -- I mean, like, these are ·4· ·one of those habitual issues.· You go to EJ communities ·5· ·across the state, they're going to talk about heavy duty ·6· ·trucks in their community.
·7· · · · · · And so, while at the same -- one hand, you can ·8· ·say, this is a lawfully established business, you didn't ·9· ·do anything wrong.· You went where you were allowed to 10· ·go.· You did what you were supposed to do.· Nobody's 11· ·trying to take that away from you.· We also have to 12· ·grapple with, as my colleague said, the public health 13· ·implications and the larger stewardship of, Is this 14· ·appropriate to be right next to homes?
15· · · · · · So I would like to say that for me, Conditional 16· ·Use Permit is more than just additional administrative 17· ·steps.· What we fight for a lot, statewide environmental 18· ·justice policy, is informed community process.· Right? 19· ·The ability for residents to be told that something is 20· ·coming, to be told what that means and to have an
21· ·opportunity to weigh in.
22· · · · · · It doesn't always mean that everybody's going to 23· ·agree at the end of the day, but similar to what the Vice 24· ·Chair just said, it gives the community a chance to know, 25· ·hey, we're going to expand, we're moving, you might be

·1· ·impacted by this, let's talk about it.
·2· · · · · · One example was actually in the Vice Mayor's ·3· ·Guerra -- Guerra's district.· I remember when the school ·4· ·was being built, the central kitchen was being built in ·5· ·Tahoe Park.· One of the things they had to do to
·6· ·accommodate that central kitchen is they had to swap the ·7· ·transportation yard with the land that the central ·8· ·kitchen is now, and what that did is it moved a bunch of ·9· ·buses, including some diesel buses, right behind a 10· ·residential neighborhood.
11· · · · · · And at the time, there were some of us in the 12· ·room who said, Hey, wait a minute.· Like, this might not 13· ·be good for those residents.· They've had more of a 14· ·buffer since then, now it's moving closer.· And it 15· ·proceeded as it was.
16· · · · · · And now, I'm sure Councilmember Guerra can tell 17· ·you that he gets lots of complaints from residents about 18· ·vibration and noise and pollution and headaches and, 19· ·like, these are the sort of things that residents deserve 20· ·to know about, especially those who, more often than not, 21· ·don't have the resources to sell and move if they don't 22· ·like what's happening near their communities, and they're 23· ·stuck dealing with something that they didn't have a 24· ·voice in the process for.· So just want to reemphasize 25· ·that.

·1· · · · · · And I would also like to ask in this ongoing ·2· ·stakeholder process, this is moving forward for permits, ·3· ·which I think is very important.· I think there is a ·4· ·conversation about best practices for dealing with ·5· ·exposure now, and not to say additional requirements, per ·6· ·say, but more, like, idling rules, for instance.· You ·7· ·know, the vehicles can only idle for so much time. ·8· · · · · · We have done sensitive truck routes before where ·9· ·we say, Hey, instead of taking this road, take that road. 10· ·And obviously, all of that has to take into account the 11· ·operations and logistical needs of those businesses, but 12· ·I would love to see, when this comes back, some ideas as 13· ·to what we do today to kind of build a better partnership 14· ·between those residents and the businesses so they can 15· ·co-exist a little bit more, with a little bit less impact 16· ·on everybody involved.
17· · · · · · So that would be my only additional comment and 18· ·feedback.· And then, I will kick it back to Councilmember 19· ·Kaplan to make our motion.
20· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· Thank you.· And I just 21· ·want to appreciate everybody's impact, 'cause this is new 22· ·territory that we're heading into of how -- how are we 23· ·thoughtful with existing zoning, you know, mixed uses 24· ·that while we talk about how do we mix, how do you do it 25· ·in the right way, an environmental way, but also not

·1· ·destroying businesses who have the right to be there and ·2· ·we balance it.
·3· · · · · · So I would just like to get confirmation from ·4· ·Chair, 'cause I know this is something that Councilmember ·5· ·Loloee has -- has worked on for a long time.· I like to ·6· ·work expediently.· I got a lot on my plate, so pull ·7· ·stakeholders together, residents together, if, you know, ·8· ·we get something in the next couple months, bringing ·9· ·something back.· 'Cause what -- what I don't want to see 10· ·is all of a sudden this comes back in June.
11· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Yeah, that's a good point. 12· ·And I will say schedule wise, I don't think there would 13· ·be any way for it to come back before the end of the 14· ·year, if that's helpful, just in terms of what our 15· ·agendas have coming forward.· Cannabis, BOPT, housing 16· ·stuff, all the like.· ·So if that factors into your 17· ·consideration, we could try to agendize it as soon as 18· ·January, as we can, as soon as you're ready, but that 19· ·would be a few months.
20· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· And -- and that's also 21· ·part of, like, this Committee's consideration.· Also, 22· ·Councilmember Loloee is not part of this Committee. I 23· ·had to remind him this wasn't agendized as a council 24· ·meeting, so he couldn't -- he couldn't show up.· That I 25· ·was going to try and speak for him as best as possible.

·1· · · · · · But that was also one of my suggestions.· I know ·2· ·this is new, but I think this also -- we need to give him ·3· ·the opportunity while -- you know, I -- I'm hoping my ·4· ·word -- you guys understand when I say we're going to ·5· ·meet with stakeholders.· We're going to look at how we ·6· ·narrowly taylor this.· But I would like to see this ·7· ·potentially moved to Council, because then that gives ·8· ·Councilmember Loloee, who did bring this up and brought ·9· ·it up, the ability.
10· · · · · · And -- and I know, you know, since you, Eric, 11· ·Sean and I have mostly talked about this, you know, even 12· ·including you, so that you have that -- that comfort in 13· ·this so that it can move on to Council.· Because I know 14· ·how much we have to do at Law and Leg, and I don't want 15· ·it coming back to this be another reason why we're not 16· ·moving forward on an important issue.
17· · · · · · So if that's okay with my -- my fellow
18· ·colleagues, I -- I -- understanding that we will have 19· ·stakeholder meetings.· We will do outreach, which he's 20· ·done to the community.· Work with planning Staff, city 21· ·attorney.· We need to narrowly taylor and add in a 22· ·sunset, as this is a pilot program, in alignment with the 23· ·2040 General Plan.· If you're okay with me saying those 24· ·are some of the parameters that when we work out details 25· ·we come to City Council.

·1· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· I mean, if that's a motion, I ·2· ·would second it.
·3· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· Motion.
·4· · · · · · VICE MAYOR GUERRA:· I -- the -- the only thing I ·5· ·would ask -- request is that, you know, it seems to me, ·6· ·when I talked to the Councilmember, that -- that there ·7· ·could've been a -- a -- another way to simplify it. ·8· · · · · · And so, it's -- this is particularly one of ·9· ·those where it's importantly critical that we work with 10· ·that Councilmember in drafting this.· That Staff work 11· ·very closely with that Councilmember drafting this. 12· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Uh-huh.
13· · · · · · VICE MAYOR GUERRA:· So --
14· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· Yeah, and -- yeah, and 15· ·this is -- this is, you know --
16· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Oh, sorry, you're muted. 17· ·Sorry.
18· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· -- this -- this will be 19· ·Councilmember Loloee and I working in tandem on this. 20· ·This is -- this -- he's leading this.· I'm just trying to 21· ·pretend to be him a little bit today.
22· · · · · · VICE MAYOR GUERRA:· And I represent industrial 23· ·area, so this is why, also, you know, I -- I have a keen 24· ·sensitivity to it as well.
25· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Uh-huh.· Oh, Vice Chair.

·1· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER JENNINGS:· I -- I -- I guess I'm a ·2· ·little concerned, only because I don't -- I don't want to ·3· ·just do something for District 2 that we're not doing for ·4· ·the entire city.· I'm -- I'm just a little sensitive ·5· ·about having an ordinance that has just preference for ·6· ·one district.
·7· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Yeah.
·8· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER JENNINGS:· So I want to make sure, ·9· ·as we do this pilot, in District 2, that we come back 10· ·with a policy for the entire City of --
11· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Absolutely.
12· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER JENNINGS:· -- Sacramento.
13· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· That is the commitment 14· ·through the General Plan draft, unless anybody --
15· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER JENNINGS:· Yeah.
16· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· -- changes it, which I hope 17· ·you don't, but -- 'cause I love the EJ element of the 18· ·General Plan and I'm really excited about it.· But yeah, 19· ·that is the commitment.· It's a start with the most 20· ·overburdened area, which is traditional EJ practice and 21· ·then expand out, you know, to ensure everybody else is 22· ·protected as well.
23· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER JENNINGS:· Just want to make sure 24· ·we're all on the same page.
25· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Absolutely.

·1· · · · · · COUNCILMEMBER KAPLAN:· Yeah, I commit to that. ·2· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Absolutely.· Okay.· There is ·3· ·a motion and a second to move it to Council once.· Robust ·4· ·stakeholder process has concluded, and with Vice Mayor, ·5· ·as well as the Councilmembers for the District.· Okay. ·6· ·All in favor.
·7· · · · · · MULTIPLE SPEAKERS:· Aye.
·8· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Aye.· Any opposed or
·9· ·abstentions?· Passes unanimously.· Thank you for that 10· ·robust discussion.· To be continued with Councilmember 11· ·Loloee being able to chime in for himself, which is 12· ·great.· All right.
13· · · · · · Moving on to Item 5, a favorite of the Vice 14· ·Mayor's, Outdoor Interactive Digital Media Display or 15· ·Digital Kiosk Policy.· Who is our presenter on this?· Hi. 16· ·Welcome.
17· · · · · · VICE MAYOR GUERRA:· Only year six.
18· · · · · · MS. MOSLER:· Could we get the -- oh, perfect. 19· ·All right.· Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. 20· ·I'm Jamie Mosler, Associate Planner in the Community 21· ·Development Department, and I'll be giving today's 22· ·presentation on Digital Kiosk.
23· · · · · · CHAIR VALENZUELA:· Could I briefly interrupt you 24· ·to ask folks to move conversation outside, please.· That 25· ·would be excellent.· Thank you.

·1· · · · · · MS. MOSLER:· Yeah.· No problem.· So by way of ·2· ·overview, first, I'll quickly remind everyone what a ·3· ·digital kiosk is.· And then, I'll go through some of our ·4· ·community outreach findings.· And then, share the
·5· ·ordinance, resolution, along with Staff's recommendation. ·6· · · · · · So I think we're all pretty familiar with what ·7· ·digital kiosks are.· But just a quick reminder, when we ·8· ·talk about digital kiosks, this is what we're talking ·9· ·about.· They're interactive platforms that provide 10· ·pedestrians with informations and services.
11· · · · · · So we did community outreach, in the month of 12· ·March, with our consultant team at Third Plateau.· It 13· ·took three forums.· We did interviews with partner 14· ·agencies and City Staff in various departments.· We did 15· ·focus groups with various neighborhood associations, 16· ·PBIDs and business groups.· And then, we also had a 17· ·community survey to get broader community feedback. 18· · · · · · Overall, most community members saw potential 19· ·benefit for digital kiosk within Sacramento, while they 20· ·are also raising questions about feasibility,
21· ·sustainability and if there were other tools that would 22· ·serve the community better.
23· · · · · · In terms of features, when we asked the
24· ·community what features it would most be interested in 25· ·for kiosk, the ones on the left-hand side were the ones

·1· ·that were the most of interest to community members.· And ·2· ·the ones on the right-hand side were the ones that were ·3· ·less interest to community members.
·4· · · · · · In terms of concerns, these were the six main ·5· ·themes of concerns that we heard, maintenance and
·6· ·vandalism, duplicative technology.· People wondered if ·7· ·cell phones would be used instead.· Advertisements. ·8· ·Folks were understanding that advertisements could be ·9· ·used to --
10· · · · · · · · · · · (End of recording.)
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25

·1· · · · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E
·2
·3
·4· · · · · · I, KRISHA ALATORRE, Certified Shorthand
·5· ·Reporter/Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that I was ·6· ·authorized to transcribe the foregoing recorded
·7· ·proceeding, and that the transcript is a true and
·8· ·accurate transcription of my shorthand notes, to the best ·9· ·of my ability, taken while listening to the provided 10· ·recording.
11 12· · · · · · I further certify that I am not of counsel or 13· ·attorney for either or any of the parties to said
14· ·proceedings, nor in any way interested in the events of 15· ·this cause, and that I am not related to any of the 16· ·parties thereto.
17 18· ·Dated this 10th day of October, 2023.
19 20
21· · · · · · · · · · · · · _______________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · KRISHA ALATORRE, CSR. NO. 13255 22 23
24 25

California Fuels and Convenience Alliance
2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95833
916.646.5999

January 31, 2024

City of Sacramento
915 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814

Re: 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE – BANNING NEW AND EXPANDED GAS STATION USES To: Mayor Darrell Steinberg
Council Member Lisa Kaplan
Council Member Karina Talamantes
Council Member Katie Valenzuela
Council Member Caity Maple
Council Member Eric Guerra
Council Member Rick Jennings
Council Member Mai Vang

The California Fuels and Convenience Alliance (CFCA) represents about 300 members, including nearly 90% of all the independent petroleum marketers in the state and more than one half of the state’s 12,000 convenience retailers. Our members are small, family- and minority-owned businesses that provide services to nearly every family in California. Additionally, CFCA members fuel local governments, law enforcement, city and county fire departments, ambulances/emergency vehicles, school district bus fleets, construction firms, marinas, public and private transit companies, hospital emergency generators, trucking fleets, independent fuel retailers (small chains and mom-and-pop gas stations) and California agriculture, among many others. CFCA appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on this proposed general plan update.

The California Fuels and Convenience Alliance strongly opposes the proposal for a prohibition on the construction of new gas stations and the expansion of existing gas stations in the 2040 General Plan Update.

LOSS OF JOBS, INCOME AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUELING

AND CONVENIENCE INDUSTRY

When enacting bans on an industry, it is imperative to account for the intricate interconnections that exist with other major sectors. For example, the fuel and convenience industry plays a major role in the job sector of the construction industry. Imposing a ban on new gas stations wouldn't merely diminish job opportunities and income for the fuel and convenience sector, but it would also severely impact jobs in supporting industries such as construction. The fueling and convenience industry also supports $7.4 billion in labor income statewide. While there is an argument to shift these jobs to the electric and hydrogen sectors, the existing limited infrastructure does a disservice to Californians who depend on the current fuel industry for their livelihoods. The assumption that jobs can seamlessly transition to the electric and hydrogen sectors overlooks the reality that, without sufficient infrastructure, these alternatives are not immediately viable. And to make matters worse, 60% of gasoline establishments in the state are operated by owners who manage just one station. 40% of all establishments are minority-owned, and 60% are first-generation, foreign- born immigrants – the highest percentage across any industry in the US. That means these bans disproportionately hurt small, minority-owned businesses the most.

Moreover, bans appear to ignore the substantial revenue generated from taxes – nearly $10 billion per year in state and local taxes. These taxes can be broken out into two main categories. The first is excise and local sales taxes

applied to motor-vehicle fuels, which primarily support state and local transportation and transit projects. The second is the sales, property, income, and other state and local taxes imposed on fueling and convenience operations as well as their employees. The financial strain resulting from a ban on the fuel and convenience industry, leading to reduced revenue, will impede job creation and infrastructure investment, making expansion of public transit and renewable energy infrastructure a challenging prospect.

LOSS OF FUELING OPTIONS FOR DRIVERS, ESPECIALLY IN GROWING COMMUNITIES

California is a dynamic state; it experiences massive population variance, and as a result, variance in its economy as well. Looking at the macro data introduces grave consequences - in particular, using a sample of cities and extrapolating to explain fuel consumption and sales trends for California showed the change in gasoline consumption over the 9-year period between 2012 and 2021, in which nearly 40% of cities saw fuel consumption rise, on average, by 28%. This trend points to the overall dynamic nature of California. Banning new fuel establishments puts communities at great risk of facing a major economic downturn. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance in taking a more micro-economic approach to measuring/analyzing the impact of the fuel and convenience industry on Californians and your residents.

LESS COMPETITION AND HIGHER PRICES FOR GASOLINE

Furthermore, a ban poses a significant threat by diminishing competition and escalating gasoline prices, directly conflicting with California's dedication to supporting low-income communities. The widening gap between increasing demand and a decreasing supply of gas stations is poised to result in higher fuel costs, disproportionately affecting those relying on affordable fuel, particularly given the limited readiness of electric and alternative vehicles to serve low-income households. A study by the New Energy Institute on Mexico’s gas station industry revealed that, prior to new competitors entering the market, prices tended to remain relatively stable. However, after new entries, prices significantly decreased across all refined products. Regular gasoline prices, for instance, sharply dropped by 0.05 pesos per liter in the initial quarter post-entry and continued to decline in subsequent quarters.1 Conversely, a lack of competition allows prices to rise as businesses face no pressure to compete on pricing.

Ultimately, these price impacts will bear heavily on lower- and moderate-income households, which are less likely to adopt new Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) early on, relying on gas- powered vehicles for an extended period.

LESS INVESTMENT IN ZEV FUELING INFRASTRUCTURE

Unfortunately, the hefty investment required to deploy electric charging and hydrogen infrastructure doesn't match up with the expected minimal returns, making it an impractical move for businesses if there are no other revenue streams to support the adoption of these technologies that will result in little-to-no return on investment. It also does not help that, despite the growth of EVs both in California and nationally, EV charging infrastructure remains extremely expensive and will require funding from traditional fueling infrastructure until a vast majority of vehicles are not Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. This scenario remains decades away as EVs only account for

2.799% of California’s total light-duty vehicle population as of December 2021 according to the California Energy Commission.2 Dealing with both challenges puts a heavy strain on businesses, forcing them to tread carefully through tough financial situations. The funding needed for this ambitious transformation isn't just a hurdle; it poses a serious threat to businesses. Requiring a 1:1 ratio of traditional gasoline dispensers to DC Fast EV chargers will be nearly insurmountable for larger operators and entirely unachievable for small business owners when accounting for the excessive costs of the chargers, the skyrocketing utility bills, and the lack of return on investment due to low use. Operating just two DC Fast chargers requires more electricity than powering the entire gas station and convenience store combined. As utility rates continue to increase for the commercial sector, this problem will only worsen. This highlights the practical absence of any strong incentive for businesses to venture into alternative fuel infrastructure. The mandated excessive costs will make the idea unappealing and discourage businesses from taking on this transformative effort.

1 https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2023/12/11/does-station-competition-drive-gas-prices/ 2 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/light-duty-vehicle

CONCLUSION

Beyond risking significant job loss and impacting small businesses, especially those largely owned by minorities and immigrants, a ban neglects the intricate economic interconnections within California. The call to transition jobs to the electric and hydrogen sectors overlooks the current limited infrastructure and economic realities faced by communities dependent on the existing fuel industry. Additionally, a ban's macro-level approach fails to consider the diverse fuel needs for the community, risking economic downturns for businesses not suited to a one- size-fits- all solution.

Furthermore, the potential reduction in competition and subsequent increase in gasoline prices contradicts California's commitment to supporting low-income communities. A ban may also hinder investment in zero- emission vehicle (ZEV) fueling infrastructure due to insufficient demand, high costs, and a prolonged transition period to non-Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles.

In essence, a more nuanced, transition-focused approach is essential for effective and sustainable energy policies.

Empowering businesses, promoting competition, and considering the diverse economic landscapes within your community are vital elements in shaping a resilient future for the city's fuel and convenience industry.

Please contact Alessandra Magnasco, CFCA’s Governmental Affairs and Regulatory Director, by email or phone with any questions or comments, at [email protected] and (916) 646- 5999.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Graham Alessandra Magnasco
Chief Executive Officer Governmental Affairs & Regulatory Director

Appendix

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on
New Construction and Upgrades to
Fueling Establishments in California

May 2023

Prepared for:

California Fuels and Convenience Alliance

Prepared by:

Capitol Matrix Consulting

About the Author

About the Author
Brad Williams joined Capitol Matrix Consulting (CMC) in 2011 after serving in various positions in California state government for nearly 33 years. During the past twelve years at CMC, Mr. Williams has been involved in hundreds of projects covering energy and regulatory policy, economic forecasting, economic impact analysis, and state and local government taxation and finance. During his prior three decades in state government, Mr. Williams served in key positions in the State Treasurer’s office, Assembly Appropriation Committee and the Legislative Analyst’s Office, where he was chief economist and Director of Budget Overview and Fiscal Forecasting. During his government career, Mr. Williams was regarded as one of the state's top economic and fiscal experts, and he was recognized by the Wall Street Journal as the most accurate forecaster of the California economy in the 1990s.

ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1 Background ....................................................................................................... 3 Economic Impacts of the Fueling and Convenience Industry ................................... 8 State and Local Revenues Generated by the
Fueling and Convenience Industry ...................................................................... 10 Benefits of a Robust Fueling and Convenience Industry to Households and Businesses ............................................................................... 11 Local Bans to-Date ............................................................................................ 13 Legislative Proposal to Study a Statewide Ban...................................................... 14 Impacts of a Statewide Ban ................................................................................ 14 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 18 Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
1 Executive Summary
Given the emerging movement to ban new or upgraded fueling establishments in California, our firm has been commissioned by the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance to analyze (1) the economic contributions of the Fueling and Convenience industry, and (2) the economic impacts that adoption of a statewide ban – or widespread adoption of local bans – would have on the California economy.

Our findings are as follows:

Regarding the Fueling and Convenience Industry:

• The industry consists of about 10,423 fueling establishments in California, of which about 85 percent, or 8,900 establishments, are connected to convenience stores.

• While California has the second largest number of fueling establishments in the United States, it lags other states in terms of fueling establishments per capita, per driver, or per vehicle miles traveled.

• The industry directly employs about 66,000 workers, and indirectly supports another 59,000 jobs in businesses that supply goods and services to fuel and convenience stores and their employees.

• It also supports nearly $10 billion in taxes paid to state and local governments in California. These revenues support roads, transit, schools and other state and local government services.

• Over 95 percent of fueling establishments are operated by small businesses owners of branded franchisee gasoline establishments or of independent gasoline establishments. About 60 percent of gasoline establishments are operated by owners that own just one station.

• The industry characterized by its diverse ownership and workforce. About 40 percent of establishments are minority owned, and nearly 60 percent of owners are first-generation, foreign-born immigrants – the highest of any industry in the U.S.

• The industry provides many benefits to consumers, including convenience, choices of brands and pricing points, and the ability to save time by combining fueling with other purchases.

Regarding recent and proposed bans:

• As of early 2023, 8 cities in Sonoma, Napa, and Marin Counties, as well as the County of Sonoma, have enacted local ordinances banning construction of new establishments and prohibiting improvements to existing facilities that expand or upgrade fueling equipment and storage.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
2 • Two other cities have placed moratoriums on new construction while their City Councils consider permanent bans, and others, including the City of Los Angeles, are considering bans.

• AB 1614 (Gabriel), introduced in February 16, 2023 requires the California Energy Commission, in consultation with other state and local agencies to conduct a study on the feasibility of phasing out existing gasoline fueling stations by a specified date, along with potential incentives and regulatory barriers related to transitioning those stations into electric vehicle charging stations. The study would not look at hydrogen stations.

Regarding what is at stake with respect to a statewide ban:

• Loss of jobs, income and small business ownership opportunities in the fueling and convenience industry.

• Loss of fueling options to consumers, adding time and vehicle miles traveled for refueling activities.

• Less cash-flows generated to support investments by owners of fueling establishments in chargers, hydrogen dispensers, and other alternative fuels.

• This would be an unfortunate outcome because (1) existing gasoline stations are logical sites for alternative fuel dispensers and (2) CARB has identified hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles as an important alternative to battery powered electric vehicles for many Californians, potentially accounting for as much as 20 percent of the new-car market by 2045.

• There is significant legislative resistance to hydrogen as a clean energy alternative. However, a lack of development in hydrogen infrastructure would leave only one option for California drivers in the future and make them highly vulnerable to electrical blackouts during peak-use periods.

• Less competition, less economies-of-scale and higher prices for gasoline.

The price impacts would fall heavily on lower- and moderate-income households, which are less likely to be early adopters of new zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) and thus be more likely to rely on gas-powered vehicles for years to come.

Given these factors, a much better approach would be to allow market forces to determine the level of new construction and remodeling of fueling establishments as California makes the transition to renewable energy.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
3 Background
The fueling and convenience industry plays a key role in California’s economy. It is part of the state’s fuel production, distribution and retail sales network that has developed over a century and has consistently provided Californians with convenient and reliable fueling options for many decades. In this report, we first review the economic contributions and benefits to consumers provided by the fueling and convenience industry, and then discuss the impacts that a statewide ban (or widespread adoption of local bans) on construction and improvements to fueling facilities would have on Californians.

Number of fueling establishments. According to the California Energy Commission, there were 10,423 fueling establishments in California in 2021.1 About 85 percent of the total, or 8,850 establishments, were combined with convenience stores. These establishments sold 13.8 billion gallons of gasoline and about 3 billion gallons of diesel during the year, representing average per-establishment sales of 4,400 gallons per day. The total number of establishments has remained stable over the past decade, rising slightly from the 10,219 that existed in 2012 but down slightly from the 10,481 that existed in 2016.

The 2021 total represents 2.65 establishments for every 10,000 Californians.

As indicated in Figure 1 (next page) there are between 2 and 3 establishments per 10,000 population in most large counties. However, there are some outliers.

San Francisco has slightly over 1 station per 10,000 population while Kern County has about 4 establishments per 10,000.2

1 California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting 2 Capitol Matrix Consulting calculations using Energy Commission data for gasoline establishments and California Department of Finance data for population.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
Figure 4
4 Number of Fueling Establishments, Top 15 California Counties

State/County
Number of Establishments
Total Per 10,000 Population
California 10,423 2.65
Los Angeles 2,058 2.07
San Diego 753 2.29
Orange 647 2.04
Riverside 572 2.36
San Bernardino 620 2.84
Santa Clara 407 2.13
Sacramento 387 2.45
Alameda 380 2.29
Kern 379 4.18
Fresno 369 3.66
Contra Costa 289 2.49
San Joaquin 250 3.20
San Mateo 199 2.65
Ventura 195 2.32
San Francisco 91 1.07
All other Counties 2,827 4.12

California has fewer fueling establishments per-capita than other states.

California has the second largest number of fueling establishments in the country, trailing only Texas. However, the state has a relatively smaller number stations when measured on a per-capita, per-driver, or per-vehicle-miles-traveled basis. As indicated in Figure 2 (next page), the 2.65 establishments per 10,000 residents in California compares to 5.2 per 10,000 residents in Texas, 4.90 per 10,000 residents nationally, and 4.7 per 10,000 residents in Florida. As discussed below, gas station density is one key factor accounting for differences in price paid at the pump. Policies further reducing gasoline station density in California means less competition, fewer choices for consumers and likely higher prices at the pump.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
Figure 5
5 Fueling Establishments Per 10,000 Population, California Versus Other States

Texas

U.S.

Florida

Ohio

Penn.

New York

Illinois

California

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Fueling Stations Per 10,000 Population

Most fueling and convenience stores are operated by small business owners.

Only a limited amount of fuel is sold by stores that are owned and operated by major oil companies. As indicated in Figure 3 (next page), the great majority is sold through small-business – either “branded franchisees” or through independent fueling establishments and convenience stores, such as 7-11 or Circle-K. About 17 percent of fuel is sold through “hypermarts,” which are high-volume independents owned by companies such as Safeway, Sam’s Club, Walmart, and Costco.3 (See box on page 7 for definitions of terms used in this report.)

3 “Petroleum Watch, January 2020.” California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 02/2020-01_Petroleum_Watch.pdf
Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
Figure 6
6 Hypermarts
17%
Independent
38%
Distribution of Fueling Establishments in California
By Type of Ownership

Company
Owned/Operated
3%

Branded
Franchise
42%

As another indication of the “mom and pop” nature of the fueling station industry, Figure 4 (next page) shows that of the 15,000 fueling establishments in the Western U.S., 9,000 are operated by owners that operate just one fueling station.4

4 Industry data from the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
7 Figure 4
Distribution of Fueling and Convenience Stores
By Number of Establishments Per Owner
10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

-
1 2 to 10

11 to 100 100 to 500 Over 500
Establishments Per Owner

The fueling and convenience industry has a diverse workforce and ownership.

According to American Community Survey data, about 32 percent of California fueling and convenience industry employees are non-Hispanic White, 20 percent are Hispanic, 29 percent are Asian, 9 percent are African American, and 9 percent are other races (including multiple races). About 57 percent of employees are male and the other 43 percent are female.

Number of Establishments

Key Definitions in the Fueling Industry
■ Branded Fueling Stations: Gasoline establishments that have entered into an agreement with a major oil company to sell only their proprietary fuel blends under designated street branding. Proprietary additives include Techron by Chevron and V-power by Shell. Examples of branded fuels are 76, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell, and Valero.
■ Unbranded Fueling Stations: Gasoline establishments that are not restricted to any one major oil company’s proprietary fuel blend and cannot carry a major oil company’s street branding. Examples of more notable unbranded stations are Rotten Robbie and Sinclair.
■ Hypermarts: Large retail suppliers of general merchandise or groceries that also sell gasoline. Examples of hypermarts are Costco, Safeway, and Sam’s Club.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
8 The industry provides flexible of hours for employees needing to combine earning extra income with other family obligations.The fueling and convenience industry also provides pathways to business ownership for Californians of all races and ethnicities. According to U.S. Census data, about 43 percent of establishments in California are minority-owned, and 61 percent of U.S. gas station owners are foreign born, the largest percentage of any industry (see Figure 5).5

Figure 5
Percent of Business Owners that Are Foreign Born

Gas stations

Accomodations
and Food Service

Personal services

All Retail

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Economic Impacts of the Fueling and
Convenience Industry
Our analysis in this section focuses on the 10,423 retail establishments selling gasoline, including stand-alone gasoline stations and those that combined gasoline stations with convenience stores. Our analysis does not include impacts of the approximately 3,500 convenience stores not having fueling dispensers.

5 Data on minority-owned business from U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Business Survey: Statistics for Employer Firms by Industry, Sex, Ethnicity, Race, and Veteran Status for the U.S., States, and Metro Areas: 2020. https://data.census.gov/table?g=0400000US06&n=44711&tid=ABSCS2017.AB1700CSA01. Data on percent of owners that are foreign born is from “Bringing Vitality to Mainstreet. How Immigrants Small Businesses Help Local Economies Grow.” David Dyssegaard Kallick, Director of the Immigration Research Initiative, Fiscal Policy Institute. January 2015. https://www.as-coa.org/sites/default/files/ImmigrantBusinessReport.pdf Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
9 The fueling and convenience industry is a major source of economic activity in California. It is directly responsible for 66,300 jobs, $2.8 billion in wage income plus another $560 million in non-wage benefits.6 We estimate that the industry accounts for over $71 billion in sales, of which $53 billion (75 percent of the total), is related to fuel, $14 billion (19 percent of the total) is related to merchandise and $4 billion (6 percent of the total) is food service (see Figure 6).

Figure 6
Distribution of Sales for Typical Fueling and Convenience Store

Prepared Foods
6%

Merchandise
19%

Fuels
75%

In addition to its direct impacts on sales and employment, the fueling and convenience industry indirectly supports jobs and income in other sectors of the economy. These include local and regional businesses that supply products and services to fueling and convenience establishments. Supplying businesses include wholesalers and distributers of fuel, merchandise, food and equipment, as well as utilities and businesses providing maintenance, repair, delivery, and accounting services. These are referred to as indirect impacts. As one example of indirect impacts, the National Association of Convenience Stores estimates that the California convenience and fueling industry spent $464 million on utilities last year.

6 Job and labor income estimates tie to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages maintained by the California Employment Development Department (https://labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/qcew/cew-select.asp) as well as Non-employer Statistics maintained by the U,S. Census Bureau ( https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/nonemployer- statistics/data/tables.html). Job estimates from the National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) are substantially higher than these government-based numbers. The NACS estimate for all convenience stores and fueling stations is 193,200. Part of the difference is because the NACS includes convenience stores without fuel dispensers, which is not the focus of this report.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
10 In addition, expenditures by the households of employees of the fuel and convenience industry generate sales, jobs, and wages in a wide range of industries, including restaurants, retail establishments, real estate offices, entertainment venues, medical services, and other professional services. These are referred to as induced impacts. For simplicity, the indirect and induced impacts are often combined and referred to as the multiplier impacts.7

Figure 7 shows that when multiplier impacts are included, the fuel and convenience industry supports a total of 125,400 jobs in California’s economy. This includes 66,300 employees and owner/operators working in the fueling and convenience businesses, plus 59,100 jobs in other supplying industries. The fueling and convenience industry also supports $5.7 billion in labor income and $15 billion in gross state product.

Figure 7
Estimated Economic Impact of the Fueling and Convenience Industry - 2022 (Dollars in Billions)

Impact Jobs Labor Income Gross State Product
Direct 66,300 $2.800 $8.470
Multiplier 59,100 $2.920 $6.550
Total 125,400 $5.720 $15.020

These economic impacts are for annual operations only. They do not include the economic benefits flowing from construction and remodels that take place each year.

Regarding remodels, industry surveys indicate that about 11 percent of fueling and convenience establishments are remodeled each year, at an average expenditure of about $600,000 per facility.8 We estimate that these remodels result in about $650 million in contract spending annually, which in turn supports thousands of jobs and generates income for workers in building and trade occupations.

State and Local Revenues Generated by the
Fueling and Convenience Industry
The fueling and convenience industry supports about $9.7 billion in state and local taxes in California each year (see Figure 8, next page). The total can be broken out into two main categories. The first is excise and local sales taxes applied to motor- vehicle fuels, which primarily support state and local transportation and transit projects. We estimate these taxes will total about $8.8 billion in 2022-23. The second is the sales, property, income, utility-users, and other state and local taxes imposed on fueling and convenience operations as well as their employees. We estimate that these taxes combined totaled about $800 million during the year.

7 We use the IMPLAN input-output model of the California economy to estimate multiplier effects. 8 Based on industry data from the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
Figure
11 11

State and Local Taxes Supported by the Fueling and Convenience Industry 2022-23

Taxes on Gasoline: Annual Amount
(In millions)
Gasoline/Diesel excise tax $7.450
Local Sales tax on fuel and other taxable items sold $1,380 Other Taxes:

Property Tax on establishments $180
State/local taxes on profits and employee income/spending $660 Total $9,670

Benefits of a Robust Fueling and Convenience
Industry to Households and Businesses
While the jobs, income and taxes attributable to the fuel and convenience industry are important, the main beneficiaries of a robust industry are California’s 21 million licensed drivers, which benefit from the convenience and reliability of the network of fuel distribution and sales that has evolved over 100 years. “Range anxiety” is not a concern for drivers of gasoline-powered vehicles. There are plenty of fueling options almost wherever and whenever motorists travel in California, and there is virtually never a concern about the quality of the fuel. There is also plenty of redundancy, so if a station is out of commission, there is likely to be another one within a few miles, if not a few blocks.

Most households and businesses in urban areas are located within a few minutes of fueling establishments and, just as importantly, the majority of establishments are located near major thoroughfares. As indicated in Figure 9 (next page), slightly over one-half of all fueling establishments in California are located within one-quarter mile of a highway or freeway, and over one-quarter more are located between 0.25 and 1.0 miles from these main thoroughfares.9

9 Source: California Energy Commission, Petroleum Watch. January 2020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/2020-01_Petroleum_Watch.pdf Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
12 Figure 9
Number of Establishments Distributed by Distance from Freeway or Highway

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

-
Less than 0.25 0.25 to 1.0 1.0 to 2.0 2.0 to 4.0 Over 4.0 Distance from Freeway or Highway

Refueling takes less than 5 minutes – often less than 3 minutes – and fuel purchases can be combined with purchases of prepared foods, snacks, beverages, and household items, further saving time for motorists.10 Shoppers benefit from convenient locations, extended hours of operation, one-stop shopping, grab-and-go food service, and fast transactions. Regarding “inside purchases,” a national association of convenience stores speed metrics study found that it takes customers, on average, 3 minutes and 33 seconds from the time they leave their cars until the time they get back in their cars with a purchase.11 For motorists traveling for business purposes, the time savings associated with both refueling and convenience purchases translate into higher productivity and more profit.

10 See, for example, “Staying Safe at the Pump.” American Petroleum Institute. https://www.api.org/oil-and-natural- gas/consumer-information/consumer-resources/staying-safe- pump#:~:text=But%20the%20average%20fill%2Dup,be%20discharged%20at%20the%20nozzle. 11 See “Time Counts. Digital technologies help customers save time—still the No. 1 criteria for a convenient shopping experience,” Chris Blasinsky, National Association of Convenience Stores Magazine. October 2020. https://www.nacsmagazine.com/issues/october-2020/time-counts Number of Stations
Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
13 Local Bans to-Date
As of mid-February 2023, eight cities in Marin, Sonoma, and Napa counties have approved bans on new gasoline establishments or improvements to existing establishments (see Figure 10). These cities have a combined population of 339,000, or about 0.9 percent of the statewide total. In March 2023, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors adopted a ban that will affect stations in the unincorporated areas of the County. Two additional cities have passed moratoriums on new establishments while their city councils debate more permanent bans. Several other local entities are considering bans, including the cities of Los Angeles, Cloverdale, Healdsberg, and Sonoma, as well as Napa County.12

Figure 10
Local Fueling Station Construction Bans Enacted in California to Date

City (County) Population Date
Petaluma (Sonoma) 59,403 March 2021
Calistoga (Napa 5,187 December 2021
Rohnert Park (Sonoma) 44,411 March 2022
Sebastopol (Sonoma) 7,448 April 2022
Cotati (Sonoma) 7,498 June 2022
Santa Rosa (Sonoma) 136,938 August 2022
Novato (Marin) 52,708 August 2022
Windsor (Sonoma) 26,039 October 2022
County of Sonoma 146,739* March 2023
Moratoriums Passed
American Canyon (Napa) 21,605 March 2021
San Anselmo (Marin) 12,693 February 2023
* Population in unincorporated areas of Sonoma County.

12 Based on CMC review of local ordinances. A listing of cities that have adopted local ordinances, as well as language contained in local ordinances is provided by the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations (CONGAS). https://con- gas.org/resources/
Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
14 The ordinances that have been enacted to-date prohibit construction of new fueling facilities and prohibit improvements and alterations to existing establishments. The restrictions on improvements and alternations apply broadly to all items related to the sales, storage, conveyance, and dispensing of gasoline or other fossil fuels.

The ordinances generally allow exceptions for maintenance, as well as installation of hydrogen dispensers and electrical chargers. We note that these exceptions have been opposed by environmental groups, which assert that (1) charging should be done at home and workplaces, and (2) installation of chargers and hydrogen dispensers will sustain operations of fueling establishments, thereby delaying the phase-out of petroleum-based fuels. The ordinances also allow exceptions for specific public health and safety purposes, such as when the city determines the investments will improve traffic safety or water quality. Modifications for purposes unrelated to the storage, conveyance, and dispensing of fuel would continue to be allowed, though in reality the incentives for such upgrades will be diminished due to the strong connection between fueling sales and “inside sales.”

Legislative Proposal to Study a Statewide Ban
AB 1614 (Gabriel), as amended on April 26, 2023, goes a step further by requiring the California Energy Commission, in coordination with the California Air Resources Board, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, local air districts, and local governments to conduct a study on the feasibility of phasing out existing gasoline fueling stations by a specified date. The study is to include an assessment of potential incentives and regulatory barriers for gasoline fueling stations to convert to electric vehicle charging stations. The bill ignores transition incentives for dispensers of hydrogen or other alternative fuels (discussed further in the following section), which could play important roles in California’s renewable energy future. The study would be due by June 30, 2026.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban
Bans on fueling station construction and improvements will not accelerate the transition to zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). However, such bans and shutdowns will hurt California workers, small business owners and consumers in multiple ways.

Fewer jobs and entrepreneurial opportunities. A statewide ban will result in fewer jobs and opportunities for small business ownership. At stake would be significant share of the 125,000 jobs currently supported by the industry. A statewide ban would also eliminate potentially thousands of building and trades jobs associated with new construction or remodeling of existing facilities. Given the synergy between fuel sales and inside sales, restrictions on investments in dispensing equipment and storage will make non-fuel-related investments less attractive as well.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
15 Loss of fueling options for drivers, especially in growing communities. One of the major problems created by a statewide ban is that it fails to consider the dynamic nature of California’s population and its economy. Even in the case where statewide fuel consumption is flat or declining, fuel consumption within specific local markets can be increasing sharply, due to local population increases, new residential and business development, and changes in transportation patterns.

A statewide ban is a blunt instrument that fails to recognize varying circumstances that motorists face throughout California.

To provide an indication of how dynamic fuel consumption patterns can be, we reviewed California Energy Commission data on fuel sales in California’s 369 cities.

Figure 11 shows that over the 9-year period between 2012 and 2021, statewide fuel consumption fell by 9 percent. (The decline was driven by the Covid-19 pandemic, which temporarily depressed vehicle miles traveled in 2020 and early 2021.) Underlying this 9 percent statewide decline, however, were 134 cities that experienced fuel sales increases averaging 28 percent, and 235 cities that experienced fuel sales decreases averaging 22 percent.

Figure 11
Change in Gasoline Consumption by City: 2012 to 2021

Number of Cities Cumulative Change
(Millions of Gallons)
Unweighted % Change
2012-2021
Increases 134 582 28%
Decreases 235 -1,013 -22%
Total 369 -431 -9%

Similar divergence between regions is reflected in county-level data related to fueling establishments and population. Between 2016 and 2021, the total number of fueling establishments in the state fell by 56. Underlying this total, however, were 24 counties that experienced increases totaling to 164 establishments, and 34 counties that experienced decreases totaling to 220 establishments. Similarly, total California population increased by 201,000 between 2016 and 2021. This consisted of 39 counties that experienced a total increase of 548,000 people, offset by 19 counties with population decreases totaling 347,000.

The key point conveyed by this data is that California is a dynamic state, with population, fueling establishment and sales patterns varying significantly from one community to another. In this environment, a statewide ban on all new fueling establishments would be a blunt tool. In particular, its effects on drivers in growing areas could be substantial. In these expanding areas, especially, motorists will have fewer fueling options, will need to travel longer distances to refuel, and will likely have to pay more for gasoline due to less competition among retailers (see discussion below).

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
16 While impacts on growing communities will be the most severe, impacts on communities experiencing steady or declining fuel demand may also be significant due to changes in consumption patterns within the areas. For example, if an establishment were to close on one route due to completion of a thoroughfare that diverts traffic, there would no longer be the opportunity for a replacement station to be built in a more favorable location. Similarly, hypermarts such as Costco or Sam’s Club sometimes move locations within communities due to the need for more floorspace, more parking, or better customer access. A gas station ban would require a hypermart considering such a move to either give up fueling dispensers in the new location or to forgo the move and remain in a suboptimal location. Either way, the impacts on consumers would be negative.

Less investment in renewable fueling infrastructure. Existing ordinances banning construction and improvements to fueling establishments contain exemptions for installation of chargers and hydrogen fuel dispensers. However, owners of fueling establishments that are precluded from upgrading existing fueling facilities will be less likely to generate the cash-flows needed to support investments in these new technologies – especially in the near term, prior to when the uptake of zero emission vehicles has reached significant levels.

This would be an unfortunate outcome, given the enormous challenge California faces in building an infrastructure sufficient to support a transportation system based on renewable fuels.

Of particular concern is the loss in opportunities to build a hydrogen fuel infrastructure. In its 2022 annual review of hydrogen vehicle and fueling markets, the California Air Resources Board indicated that that that meeting California’s Zero Emission goals “will require growth of hydrogen fueling and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) alongside battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), as auto manufacturers need to provide technology options for all vehicle segments, vehicle use patterns and behaviors, and individuals’ access to ZEV fueling and charging infrastructure” (italics added for emphasis.)13 As one example, FCEVs would be a logical alternative for the millions of California families living in apartments where there is a lack of dedicated space – and in some cases a lack of adequate electrical infrastructure – for overnight charging of battery powered vehicles.

The primary scenario evaluated in CARB’s 2020 Mobile Source Strategy found the potential for more than 20 percent of the new car market to be met by FCEVs by 2045. California would need thousands of hydrogen fueling stations to support a FCEV fleet of this size, yet as of early March 2023 the state only has 63 operating retail stations in place.14 Existing and prospective fueling stations would be particularly well suited for delivery of hydrogen as well as other renewable fuels.

13 See page viii of “2022 Annual Evaluation of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Deployment and Hydrogen Fuel station Network Development,” California Air Resources Board. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/AB-8-Report-2022- Final.pdf.
14 California Energy Commission, Hydrogen Refueling Stations in California. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/zero-emission-vehicle-and-infrastructure-statistics/hydrogen-refueling Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
17 We also believe that greater emphasis should be placed on financial incentives for hydrogen fuel stations, given the importance of establishing a viable fueling network for fuel-cell vehicles in the state. This is especially true given that up-front installation costs for hydrogen stations can range up to several millions of dollars per station.

Along these lines, Assembly Bill 2127 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Assessment (AB 2127 assessment) has become the state’s principal planning document relating to fueling infrastructure needed to support ZEV-related fueling needs under Governor Newsom’s executive order N-79-20 and CARBs Advanced Clean Car II regulation (both of which require that zero emission vehicles account for 100 percent of new cars sold in California by 2035.) Unfortunately, the document focuses exclusively on charging infrastructure, even though CARB’s 2020 Mobile Source Strategy identifies a potentially major role for hydrogen vehicles, and there remains considerable uncertainty about how renewable technologies will evolve in the future. For these reasons, we believe that the AB 2127 assessment should be broadened to include hydrogen as well as other renewable fuels.

Reduced competition and higher retail fuel prices. There have been numerous studies examining differences in retail gasoline prices between communities and between states. These studies have found several factors are responsible for price differences. At the state level, key factors include differences in state and local taxes, environmental fees, costs of producing reformulated gasoline, and market factors at every stage of the supply chain. Differences within states can also be due to varying costs of land and construction, operating expenses for energy and labor, distance of the station from major terminals, and local government permitting restrictions.

Demand-side factors also play a role, such as differences in consumer preferences and loyalties to specific brands, and the distribution of household income in a locality.

However, a key factor affecting retail prices is the degree of competition between establishments and barriers to entry.15 On this front, California is already at a disadvantage to other states across the country, which have, on average, nearly twice the number of establishments per-capita as California.16 The reduced competition among retail establishments is often cited as a factor contributing to California’s above-average retail prices (beyond what is explained by higher taxes and environmental charges as well as tight wholesale markets).17 A statewide ban would further reduce the number of gas establishments relative to population in California, as establishments close and are no longer replaced. The result would likely be less competition and higher prices for consumers, especially in communities where station shortages emerge.

15 See for example: Marvel, Howard P. “Competition and Price Levels in the Retail Gasoline Market.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 60, no. 2 (1978): 252–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/1924978; “Gasoline Explained: Regional Price Differences.” U.S. Energy Information Administration. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/regional-price- differences.php
16 See for example, Dave Hackett, “California Gasoline Prices – Part 2,” Stillwater Associates, June 26, 2019. https://stillwaterassociates.com/california-gasoline-prices-part-2/ 17 Ibid.

Impacts of a Statewide Ban on New Construction and
Upgrades to Fueling Establishments in California
18 The impacts of price increases and loss of consumer choices will be regressive, to the extent that low- and-moderate income Californians are less likely to be early adopters of ZEVs and thus, will bear the brunt of fewer gasoline establishments and higher fueling costs.

Conclusion
Aside from being a major economic force in California, the fuel and convenience industry provides numerous benefits to California motorists, including convenience, reliability, and many choices of brands and pricing points. A statewide ban on new gasoline station construction and improvements to existing facilities would have multiple negative impacts on Californians. These include losses in industry jobs and income, as well as a loss in small business-ownership opportunities for California’s diverse population. Just as important, bans will hurt California motorists, who will need to travel further and pay more for fuel. The impacts would fall heavily on lower- and moderate-income households, which are less likely to be early adopters of more expensive ZEVs, and thus will exposed to the impacts of the ban on consumer choice and gasoline prices. Given these factors, a much better approach would be to allow decisions about new construction and remodeling of fueling facilities during the transition period to renewable energy to be determined by local supply and demand for fuel.

Impacts of a State and Local Bans on
New Construction and Upgrades

TO FUELING ESTABLISHMENTS IN CALIFORNIA
In view of growing interest by environmental advocates in banning new or upgraded fueling establishments in California, Capitol Matrix Consulting was commissioned by the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance to (1) analyze the various contributions the Fueling and Convenience industry, and (2) discuss the impacts that widespread local bans or a statewide ban would have on California.

Included here are CMC’s main findings.
10,423
fueling establishments
in California
8,900 (about 85 percent)
are connected to convenience
stores
66,000
workers
directly
employed
59,000
jobs
indirectly
supported
$5.7
billion
in wages
annually
$15.0 billion
gross state product
annually
Nearly $10 billion
paid in taxes to state and local governments in California, supporting roads, transit, schools and other state and local government services INDUSTRY’S ECONOMIC FOOTPRINT

ENTREPRENEURIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS 61 percent
of the owners are first generation, foreign-
born immigrants – the highest of any
industry in the U.S.

About 60 percent
of gasoline establishments are operated by
owners that own just one station.

Over 95 percent
of fueling establishments
in California are operated
by small business owners
of branded franchisee
gasoline establishments or
of independent gasoline
establishments.
1 Stations
Owned
2-10
11-100
100-
500
Over
500
Gas
Stations
Accom-
modations
and Food
Service
Personal
Services
All Retail
61%
36% 31%
24%

CURRENT BENEFITS TO MOTORING PUBLIC
Provides the motoring public with
convenience, reliability, choices of
brands and pricing points, and the ability
to save time by combining fueling with
other purchases. “Range anxiety” is never a
problem, due the state’s well-
developed network of stations.

Fuel cell electric vehicles, powered by hydrogen,
are a logical alternative for the millions of
California families living in apartments where there is a lack of dedicated space and electrical infrastructure for overnight charging of electric vehicles.

California’s fueling stations are well
positioned to dispense hydrogen

FUTURE BENEFITS TO THE MOTORING PUBLIC
Yet as of early 2023 the state had only 63 operating
hydrogen dispensing retail stations in place.

ENACTED AND

PROPOSED BANS ON

FUELING STATION

CONSTRUCTION AND

UPGRADES
As of early 2023, 8 cities in Sonoma, Napa, and Marin
Counties, as well as the County of Sonoma, have enacted fueling station bans.

Other local governments are considering such bans, and
Legislation has been introduced that would require the
state to study the feasibility of phasing out existing gasoline stations across the state.

NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH BANS
Loss of jobs,
income and
small business
ownership
opportunities
in the fueling
and convenience
industry.

Loss of fueling
options for
consumers,
adding time
and vehicle
miles traveled
for refueling
activities.

Loss of
opportunity to
convert fueling
establishments
to dispensers
of hydrogen,
electrical
charging, and
other alternative
fuels.

Less
competition
and higher
prices for
gasoline during
the energy
transition,
especially in
growing regions
of the state.
2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 646-5999
cfca.energy
Renewable fuels made from agricultural
feedstocks, such as soybean or canola oil,
sharply reduce net CO2 emissions from
transportation and can play a major role in
California’s energy transition.
….and renewable fuels
Examples include renewable diesel,
gasoline, and natural gas.

From: Scott Johnson
To: Tom Buford; Matt Hertel
Cc: Remi Mendoza; Amy Yang; Leslie Walker; Kourtney Burdick Subject: FW: The City and DUDEK missed the point about the need for a citywide Natural Areas Program re: 2040 General Plan Update and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan
Date: Thursday, February 1, 2024 3:24:33 PM
Attachments: City of Sacramento_TJV comments on Draft Master EIR_10 10 23.pdf DUDEK responses to comments by TJV Sacramento 2040 General Plan.pdf FYI

From: Tim Vendlinski <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2024 2:56 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kendra Reed <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Remi Mendoza <[email protected]>; Jackie Beecham <[email protected]>; Shannon Brown <[email protected]>; Dana Repan <[email protected]>; Jason Wiesemann <[email protected]>; Victor Randall <[email protected]>; Victoria Vasquez <[email protected]>; Stacia Cosgrove <[email protected]>; Rachel Patten <[email protected]>; Laura Tuller <[email protected]>; Scott Johnson <[email protected]>; Christine Kronenberg <[email protected]> Subject: The City and DUDEK missed the point about the need for a citywide Natural Areas Program re: 2040 General Plan Update and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan

Dear Planning & Design Commission:

After your meeting last week, I learned that the City had suspended the practice of accepting live comments from people who view your Commission meetings online. I waited online for nearly 3.5 hours to no avail.

Given that I missed my opportunity to speak to the Commission, I am writing to register my complaint that the City and DUDEK disregarded the comments I made on the Draft Master EIR for the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (incorporated into the FEIR on page 4- 235; Comment letter 14, and attached below). In the attached version, the hyperlinks are active, so you can explore the material that supports my observations, ideas, and recommendations.

In 2023, I spent a great deal of time interacting with City staff, elected officials, commissioners and stakeholders across the Sacramento region to discuss how a municipal Natural Areas Program could
be used to bind together and amplify the success of the emerging General Plan, CAAP, Parks Plan, and Urban Forestry Plan.

Unfortunately, DUDEK and City planners disregarded my ideas and recommendations for the General Plan and the CAAP, and they were dismissed with the following non-response: The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. This a nonsensical reaction because my comments precisely addressed the inadequacy of the Draft Master EIR to address the intertwined and vexing issues involving land-use, climate disruption, and the extinction crisis. As it stands, the City has no tangible, rigorous, nor legally defensible program in place to protect native plant communities, waterways, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and wildlife.

Even if the City and DUDEK disagreed with my comments and recommendations, at least I deserved a professional response. Much was made during your Commission meeting about all the meetings held, and all the comments taken, but this apparent achievement rings hollow when credible recommendations are summarily swatted away.

Please know that the Planning and Design Commission and the City Council are approving a deeply flawed General Plan Update and a CAAP that misses a once in a generation opportunity to embrace nature-based solutions
for sequestering greenhouse gases, mitigating the urban heat island effect, advancing environmental justice and equity, safeguarding biodiversity, securing our freshwater supplies, and providing a range of opportunities for environmental education and nature appreciation.

Sincerely,
Tim

Tim Vendlinski
[email protected]
(510) 366-4669

Begin forwarded message:

From: Scott Johnson <[email protected]
>
Subject: City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan Update Final Master Environmental Impact Report (SCH: 2019012048)
Date: January 18, 2024 at 2:39:45 PM PST
To: Scott Johnson <[email protected]
>
Cc: Remi Mendoza <[email protected]>, Amy Yang <[email protected]>, Ron Bess <[email protected]>

Thank you for reviewing and providing comments on the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) for the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan Update.

A copy of your comment letter and a written response is included in the Final MEIR prepared for the 2040 General Plan Update. An electronic copy of the complete Final MEIR is available on the City’s Community Development Department webpage located at the following URL:
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-
Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact-Reports

The project is scheduled for the January 25, 2024 City Planning and Design Commission meeting, which begins at 5:30 pm at City Hall (915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, City Council Chambers) to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The project is tentatively scheduled for the February 27, 2024 City Council meeting, which begins at 5:00 pm. These meeting dates could change. Meeting agendas are available on the City’s website and should be checked for any potential changes to hearing dates. The direct link to the City Meeting Schedules
is: https://sacramento.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=21 .

Thank you.

Scott Johnson
City of Sacramento
Community Development Department
Environmental Planning Services
300 Richards Blvd., 3
rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 808-5842
[email protected]

10/10/23
Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento, Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Subject: Comments on the Draft Master EIR for the Draft 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)
Dear Mr. Johnson:

The City of Sacramento needs to establish a citywide Natural Areas Program that links and provides a thematic through-line for the City’s FOUR PLANS currently underway:

1. General Plan Update

2. Parks Plan 2040

3. Climate Action & Adaptation Plan

4. Urban Forest Plan
The primary concern I had in reviewing the FOUR PLANS is that the City appears to be backsliding on environmental protection at a time when the world is facing the overlapping crises of climate disruption and the loss of biodiversity. The City needs stronger, not weaker, protections for natural landscapes, water resources, and biological diversity. Once simple and profound step that could be made in the Draft Master EIR is to retain and strengthen the Policies for Environmental Resources contained in the City’s 2035 General Plan (itemized below).

These 2035 provisions commit the City to protect and steward a diversity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats including creeks, oak woodlands, grasslands and wetlands. BUT, the General Plan did not include mechanisms for implementing the provisions for Environmental Resources. The Parks Plan is focused on providing conventional and traditional recreational infrastructure and activities. The protection of natural areas and biodiversity is not prioritized in Parks Plan 2040, and the existing and potential natural areas in the City remain at risk from innumerable stressors, e.g., illegal camping, dumping, intrusion of intensive recreational activities (e.g., BMX tracks, disc golf courses), feral cats, etc. The City needs to make a Natural Areas Program the implementing mechanism to ensure that environmental resources are protected in Sacramento.

Policies Regarding Water and Biological Resources
ER 1.1.1 Conservation of Open Space Areas. The City shall conserve and where feasible create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits such as riparian corridors, buffer zones, wetlands, undeveloped open space areas, levees, and drainage canals for the purpose of protecting water resources in the city’s watershed, creeks, and the Sacramento and American rivers. (RDR/ MPSP) Draft Master EIR City of Sacramento Page of 14 Comments by TJ Vendlinski 10/10/23 ER 2.1.2 Conservation of Open Space. The City shall continue to preserve, protect, and provide appropriate access to designated open space areas along the American and Sacramento Rivers, floodways, and undevelopable floodplains, provided access would not disturb sensitive habitats or species. (MPSP/IGC)
ER 2.1.3 Natural Lands Management. The City shall promote the preservation and restoration of contiguous areas of natural habitat throughout the city and support their integration with existing and future regional preserves. (RDR/IGC) ER 2.1.4 Retain Habitat Areas. The City shall retain plant and wildlife habitat areas where there are known sensitive resources (e.g., sensitive habitats, special-status, threatened, endangered, candidate species, and species of concern). Particular attention shall be focused on retaining habitat areas that are contiguous with other existing natural areas and/or wildlife movement corridors. (RDR/IGC) ER 2.1.5 Riparian Habitat Integrity. The City shall preserve the ecological integrity of creek corridors, canals, and drainage ditches that support riparian resources by preserving native plants and, to the extent feasible, removing invasive nonnative plants.

If not feasible, adverse impacts on riparian habitat shall be mitigated by the preservation and/or restoration of this habitat in compliance with State and Federal regulations or at a minimum 1:1 ratio, in perpetuity. (RDR/IGC) ER 2.1.6 Wetland Protection. The City shall preserve and protect wetland resources including creeks, rivers, ponds, marshes, vernal pools, and other seasonal wetlands, to the extent feasible. If not feasible, the mitigation of all adverse impacts on wetland resources shall be required in compliance with State and Federal regulations protecting wetland resources, and if applicable, threatened or endangered species. Additionally, the City shall require either on- or off-site permanent preservation of an equivalent amount of wetland habitat to ensure no-net- loss of value and/or function. (RDR/IGC) ER 2.1.7 Annual Grasslands. The City shall preserve and protect native grasslands and vernal pools that provide habitat for rare and endangered species. If not feasible, the mitigation of all adverse impacts on annual grasslands shall comply with State and Federal regulations protecting foraging habitat for those species known to utilize this habitat. (RDR/IGC)
ER 2.1.8 Oak Woodlands. The City shall preserve and protect oak woodlands, heritage oaks, and/or significant stands of oak trees in the city that provide habitat for common native, and special-status wildlife species, and shall address all adverse impacts on oak woodlands in accordance with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance. (RDR) Draft Master EIR City of Sacramento Page of 24 Comments by TJ Vendlinski 10/10/23

RATIONALE FOR A NATURAL AREAS PROGRAM
Before the City of Sacramento was settled, the region was occupied by indigenous people associated with the tribes of the Nisenan, Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, and Patwin Wintun. Natural habitats included perennial grasslands, riparian 1 woodlands, oak woodlands, creeks and rivers, freshwater marshes, ponds, and vernal pools. As the “American Period” commenced in 1848, the ecological wealth of 2 3 Sacramento and the North Delta was exploited in favor of gold and aggregate mining; the construction of water supply and flood control facilities; the industrialization of agriculture; the siting and operation of military and aerospace installations; and the development of roads, freeways, and the attendant urban and suburban settlement.

Natural habitats were fragmented and obliterated, and no longer defined the landscapes of the region. From a global perspective, the natural habitats characterizing the Sacramento Region are part of the California Floristic Province (CFP), a zone of Mediterranean-type climate where summers are hot and dry, and winters are cool and wet. The CFP is one of only 33 “biodiversity hotspots” worldwide where the survival of an exceptionally rich assemblage of plants and animals has been placed at extreme risk by a complex assortment of human-induced (anthropogenic) stressors. 4 As of 2023, natural areas persist within neighborhood and regional parks across the City of Sacramento, some by design and others by chance. While the City’s 2035 General Plan calls for protecting and enhancing open space and natural areas for the sake of sustainability and the regional ecosystem, the City has never established a systematic 5 way to evaluate, catalogue, protect, nor provide access to the natural areas that are essential elements of the City’s municipal park system. And while the City’s draft 2040 Parks Plan suggests “directions” providing people access nature and connected trails, 6 the document should boldly recommend establishing Natural Areas Program to ensure there are mechanisms and priorities in place for identifying, securing, and stewarding Natural Areas forever.

Land Acknowledgement; City of Sacramento. 1 https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Mayor/Land-Acknowledgement-Text.pdf?la=en City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan; CHAPTER 6: Environmental Resources; page 6-13. 2 https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/General-Plan/2035-GP/Chapter-6--- Environmental-Resources.pdf?la=en
The History of Oak Woodlands in California, Part II: The Native American and Historic Period; Scott Mensing; 3 UNR; The California Geographer Volume 46, 2006.
https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/sn00b2449
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). 4 https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/california-floristic-province/ City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan; CITYWIDE GOALS AND POLICIES; Biological Resources; page 2-315 to 319. 5 https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/General-Plan/2035-GP/ Environmental-Resources.pdf?la=en
SACRAMENTO PARKS: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/ParksandRec/Parks6 Draft Master EIR City of Sacramento Page of 34 Comments by TJ Vendlinski 10/10/23 The Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) is urging the City to designate a network of natural areas across the eight Council Districts, and to establish a Natural Areas Program to administer the natural areas network. There are numerous examples of commendable natural area programs across cities of the Western United States, and 7 the City of Sacramento could use them as models for establishing a Natural Areas Program tailored to the unique and vibrant natural features, cultures, and ethnicities of the City. Doing so would be consistent with the City’s 2035 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, the City Parks Plan 2040, the California Biodiversity 8 Initiative, and the California 30x30 Initiative. 9 10
New funding from public and private sources would be required to establish a Natural Areas Program, and funding mechanisms used by other cities will need to be explored.

Also, the City will need to hire individuals with expertise in ecological restoration, wildlife management, and environmental education to staff the new Program. While some opposition to such a Program can be expected, there is much to lose with inaction, and the time is now for Sacramento to distinguish itself among the other cities in the Central Valley as a leader in protecting nature in the city. 11 Sincerely,
Timothy John Vendlinski
Tim Vendlinski
[email protected]
(510) 366-4669
Municipal Natural Area Programs in the West 7 City of Eugene: https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/68225/COE-Parks-and-Open-Space-Annual- Report-FY2022.

City of City of Fort Collins: https://www.fcgov.com/naturalareas/pdf/nad-master-plan-draft8-14.pdf City of Greeley: https://greeleygov.com/docs/default-source/natural-areas/get-outdoors-greeley-strategic- plan---02-02-21.pdf
City and County of Los Angeles: https://planning.lacounty.gov/site/sea/home/ City of Portland: https://www.portland.gov/parks/nature/natural-areas City of San Francisco: https://sfrecpark.org/DocumentCenter/View/8556/01-SNRAMP_ExecSummary Regional Natural Areas Programs in the West
East Bay Regional Park District: https://www.ebparks.org/ Mid-Peninsula Open Space District: https://www.openspace.org/ City of Sacramento Climate Action & Adaptation Plan: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-8 Development/Planning/Major-Projects/General-Plan/About-The-Project/Climate_Change California Biodiversity Initiative: https://californiabiodiversityinitiative.org/9 Pathways to 30x30 California: Accelerating Conservation of California’s Nature: https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/10 CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/30-by-30/Final_Pathwaysto30x30_042022_508.pdf MAKING NATURE'S CITY: A science.based framework for building urban biodiversity: 11 https://www.sfei.org/projects/making-natures-city
Draft Master EIR City of Sacramento Page of 44 Comments by TJ Vendlinski 10/10/23

1 of 2

February 12, 2024

Maya Wallace, Chair, and Members of the City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commission Remi Mendoza, Matt Hertel, and Cheryle Hodge, City Planning Staff Via email

Re: Planning and Design Commission Hearing Jan 25, 2024 Natomas Basin Special Study Area - our request to have it removed from the General Plan Update

Dear Chair Wallace, Commissioners, and Staff,

Thank you for the excellent discussion on the issue of the Natomas Basin Special Study area during the hearing for the General Plan Update (GPU) on January 25, 2024.

The GPU Land Use and Placemaking Element states on page 3-17, “The Special Study Area (SSA) designation is applied to five potential annexation areas (shown on Map I-2) that may become part of the City in the future after additional studies have identified the fiscal and service delivery implications on City functions.” At the January 25, 2024 hearing, we requested the removal of the Natomas SSA because we want to protect the remaining open space in the Natomas Basin from development. The compelling truth is that if the 7,500 acres for the Upper West Side and Grand Park developments and the 450 acres for the Airport South Industrial project (proposed for annexation in the City) go ahead, the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will not succeed. Thirty years of work will be wasted constituting a major planning failure for the Sacramento region.

At the hearing we were encouraged when the City's Long-Range Planning Director cited land use provisions in the General Plan that call for the protection of surrounding open space lands, farm and habitat lands; and when the New Growth Manager affirmed the City’s commitment to the success of the HCP. We also appreciated commissioner comments that the City’s Special Study Area “ensures the City is at the table and has some level of influence on the plans” in Natomas in Sacramento County (referring to Upper West Side and Grand Park).

Sacramento County: We have communicated with County officials on multiple occasions regarding the importance of retaining agricultural land uses and avoiding further urbanization in the Natomas Basin.

The HCP strategy depends upon farmland to buffer and support the habitat values of existing and planned preserves. County policies currently protect agriculture in Natomas, and four of five Supervisors are required to approve any change to the Urban Services Boundary, a County General Plan feature which prohibits urbanization in the Natomas Basin, among other areas.

2 of 2

We ask the City Planning Commissioners and staff to do these two things before the City Council approves the GPU:

1. To recommend a change to the sentence in the GPU on page 3-17 cited above to either better represent the full range of the City’s interests in the SSAs or to keep it simple, like this: “The Special Study Area (SSA) designation is applied to five areas that are of strategic interest to the City because of their proximity to the City.”

2. To reconcile the potential annexation and development of the South Airport Industrial Project with the City’s stated intent to protect open space as described in the GPU, Community Plans:

Special Study Areas, page 11-SSA-5, as follows:

Natomas Basin Study Area. . . The Natomas Basin has been of interest to the City for decades in regard to the preservation of open space, agricultural and habitat areas, transportation/circulation, water resources, and planning for municipal services. . . .

The HCPs for the Natomas Basin provide for a conservation strategy to provide protection for 22 covered species. This strategy calls for a significant portion of the basin to be placed in habitat mitigation reserves and on preservation of agricultural operations. The City is committed to preserving open space and agricultural uses that includes a system of wildlife corridors and creates buffers between habitat and development as called for in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan and the 2002 MOU.

We ask the City Planning Commissioners and staff to do the following on an ongoing basis:

• To actively support these Sacramento County policies that are protective of open space, habitat, and agriculture; to use your influence as representatives of the County’s largest jurisdiction -- with a third of the County’s population and two County Supervisors residing in the City.

• To take a more active role in seeking funding for permanent protection of farmland in the Natomas Basin. We are working with land conservancies and would appreciate the City’s engagement in this process as well.

Sincerely,

Susan Herre AIA AICP Rob Burness
President of the ECOS Board of Directors Co-Chair Habitat 2020

Judith Lamare and James Pachl Barbara Leary
Founders, Friends of Swainson’s Hawk (FOSH) Sierra Club Sacramento Group