Commerce City council deadlocks on proposed 1-year moratorium on new fuel sales operations

Commerce City — The City Council voted 4-4 on a motion to direct staff to draft an ordinance imposing a one-year moratorium on the acceptance or approval of new applications for construction of future fuel sales operations, leaving the proposal without the majority needed to advance.

Councilmember Marian Chacon, who introduced the motion, told colleagues the pause would “allow the city time to study the development and environmental impacts of gas stations on the community.” Chacon framed the moratorium as a tool to measure cumulative health and land-use effects and to examine whether the city is becoming “stigmatized” by dense clusters of fuel/convenience sites.

The measure drew vocal public comment both for and against. Rona Sanchez, a Commerce City resident, urged council to “study whether we even need any more gas stations and convenience stores” after pointing to multiple stations along 104th Street. Renee Bullock, executive director of the Commerce City Chamber of Commerce, urged a “no” vote, saying a moratorium would send businesses to neighboring cities and discourages growth.

Supporters on the dais emphasized environmental justice and the permanence of underground tanks. Mayor Pro Tem Paul Noble said a moratorium would give the city time to assemble “the data that we’re talking about — EnviroScreen, impacted communities, traffic impacts, pricing” and develop local rules rather than continuing to allow administrative approvals to proliferate convenience stores with fuel.

Opponents raised economic and practical concerns. Councilmember Mary Ford said she could not back the moratorium because many modern grocery or retail proposals include fuel components and because higher local fees already deter developers; she said a moratorium would further “push commercial opportunities away.” Councilmember Dukes and others pressed for specific cost estimates for the environmental and cumulative-impact studies the motion envisaged; City Manager Rogers told the council staff could not give a reliable cost estimate without clearer parameters.

City Attorney briefed the council on process: a locally adopted moratorium would require a drafted ordinance and two readings before adoption. After debate and several rounds of public and council remarks, the motion failed on a 4-4 tie vote, with one council member excused.

Why it matters: The vote leaves current applications in process unaffected but blocks a formal pause that proponents said was needed to evaluate long-term health, land-use and economic tradeoffs. The issue drew local business and resident voices and exposed tensions between economic development aims and environmental justice concerns.

Next steps: Because the motion failed, no moratorium ordinance will be drafted unless a council member reintroduces a similar motion. Councilmembers and staff referenced state and regional screening tools (EnviroScreen) and said further data-driven study of “disproportionately impacted communities” could be pursued outside a moratorium.

Votes at the meeting on this item were recorded as a tie; the motion did not pass.