Council receives staff report on Sweetwater gas-station project after months of public objections

The National City Council received and filed a staff report on the discretionary application process for the Sweetwater Road gas station and associated drive-through/retail uses after a lengthy public comment period on May 6. Staff’s report reviewed earlier Planning Commission actions, responses to council questions about findings and CEQA, and added an ex parte communications disclosure prepared by the city attorney’s office. The council did not approve a project or change land-use designations; the item was treated as a “file report.”

The issue drew more than a hundred members of the public and dozens of speakers who raised concerns about safety, traffic, and the history of the application. Multiple speakers said the applicant allowed a prior conditional use permit to expire in April 2024 and then submitted a substantially different proposal on April 29; several commentators said they had email and text records suggesting city staff or officials provided informal assurances to the applicant before the new filing. Martin Reeder, assistant director of community development, told the council staff had corrected a date typo in the report and added the city attorney’s ex parte section; he said the report contained no new factual findings beyond what staff previously published.

Speakers included several community members, residents and technical witnesses who called for reversing prior approvals, restoring residential zoning for the 0.8-acre parcel at Sweetwater and Orange, or requiring additional traffic mitigation. Frank Rivera, identified in testimony as a licensed civil and traffic engineer, criticized the project’s traffic analysis and told the council the project study relied on sites owned by the applicant rather than comparable third-party locations. Other commenters alleged informal favors or “behest” contacts between the mayor’s office and the applicant; some asked the council to restore the parcel’s RS-2 residential zoning and corresponding low-medium density general-plan designation.

Council members and staff repeatedly characterized the evening’s item as a procedural report of how the application and planning review were handled. Council accepted and filed the report; there was no project approval and no project-specific CEQA approval on May 6. Staff said they would continue to post updates and respond to follow-up questions about the application record and ex parte disclosures.

The council’s action leaves open future formal steps if an applicant re-submits or modifies a proposal. Any future discretionary approvals (conditional use permits, variances, zoning or general-plan amendments) would be considered separately and would require formal public hearings and a council vote.