PD Editorial: Some flexibility won’t undercut climate goals
Three years ago, Santa Rosa became the largest city in the country to ban new gas stations. Now, with time to assess this policy, there is room for improvement. The city will not sacrifice its environmental cred if it allows Costco to relocate a gas station.
The city’s rules are strict. That can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing. Good: There are no loopholes that would allow a clever developer to build a gas station. Bad: The rules are so inflexible that a sensible response to specific circumstances is impossible.
The Costco situation illustrates why excessive rigidity is problematic. The popular wholesale retailer wants to move its Santa Rosa Avenue fuel station to a nearby strip mall. That would improve traffic flow and free up space for desperately needed parking near its store.
Additional parking would mean fewer cars emitting greenhouse gases while circling for a spot or trying to get past the queues at the gas pumps that sometimes overflow into the parking lot. A better designed gas station, meanwhile, could smooth the flow of cars waiting for the pumps, also cutting down on idle emissions. In addition, Costco plans to install electric vehicle chargers at the new site.
Council members Victoria Fleming, Eddie Alvarez and Caroline Bañuelos caution that revisiting the ordinance would betray a promise to voters.
On the contrary, good governance requires adapting policies when circumstances change or when a measure creates unintended or unanticipated conflicts. Costco does not wish to increase the number of gas stations, only to move one and thereby improve things for customers and the community.
The city’s climate ambitions are admirable, but the ban was always more symbol than substance. Developers had not flooded the city with applications to build gas stations before the ordinance. Only a handful have been submitted over 30 years.
Nationally, the number of gas stations has declined. Higher real estate costs, improved fuel efficiency and the gradual shift to electric vehicles meant that gas stations were not as profitable as they once were.
Meanwhile, local developers have applied to open plenty of drive-thru coffee shops and fast-food joints where dozens of cars idle daily for a latte. Apparently bans are only useful when they target the Big Oil bogeyman, not the source of a daily caffeine fix.
Even Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is hardly a cheerleader for fossil fuels, has softened his stance on oil production. Confronted with the possibility of refinery closures that could push the price of California’s already-expensive gasoline higher, he and Democratic legislative leaders last year negotiated a plan with the petroleum industry to boost production.
Newsom, whose presidential aspirations are no secret, knows that inflexible climate policy does not play well in a general election nationwide. He also realized that even if California car dealers stop selling gas-powered vehicles by 2035 as the state wants, older gasoline cars will linger on the roads for a long time. Their drivers will increasingly be lower-income people who are least able to afford an electric upgrade.
None of this means Santa Rosa should give up on addressing climate change. It can still pursue meaningful emissions reductions by continuing to invest in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, public transportation and charging stations. It can even make the barrier to gas stations extremely high.
Santa Rosa should be willing to revise a largely symbolic ordinance that is preventing a major retailer from reducing idling cars and thereby cutting emissions.
You can email letters to the editor to letters@pressdemocrat.com