It’s a common rant.

Manteca has too many gas stations.

Given there are 33 places you can buy gasoline in Manteca with another 10 proposed that are in various steps of the planning/approval process, the argument has some credence.

The question is how much credence and how far should the city go?

Those that are for the moratorium and don’t ignore court decisions concede trying to derail the 10 proposed gas stations by city edict could cost Manteca massive dollar losses in lawsuits.

Of course, those potential gas stations could go to the wayside by other means such as the applicant dropping the project or failing to get financing approved to proceed.

Mayor Gary Singh in December promised it was time for Manteca to “have the talk.”

And the council agreed that staff should look at various options and return with proposals for the council to possibly weigh or decide to keep the status quo.

Whatever staff comes up with is expected to go before the council in the coming months.

You don’t need a political crystal ball to predict the council will likely do something to put the brakes on gas stations in some form that passes legal muster even if it is further restricting planning zones they can go in or establish distance buffers between future gas stations and residential areas.

Doing nothing has political pitfalls.

Closing the door 100 percent has political pitfalls.

Doing something namby-pamby such as a moratorium that is reviewed annually has political pitfalls.

Putting rules in place that could shut the door on the proverbial slot machines of gas and sales tax revenue  — a massive truck stop placed in an area that offends no one— is shooting oneself in the foot given the opportunities being created for truck-based distribution in the region.

Back in December, it was clearly inferred options would be before the council sometime during the first half of 2026.

And while no one is sharing details of what that might be as they are still crafting it, a recent Manteca Planning Commission decision regarding a staff recommendation clearly inspired by elected officials, may telegraph what could be considered a genius move.

Before explaining what that was, economic reality needs to be explained.

Cooperate-owned gas stations never have a question of how they will be financed. And never do they anything beyond the pumps except for a convenience store and perhaps a car wash.

That, however, isn’t how most gas stations get built these days.

Smaller — and even medium sized — developers of shopping centers respect the cash flow that a gas station and convenience store combination creates.

Anchoring a retail center with one in the first phase puts cash flow in place and creates foot traffic critical to lure other tenants such as mom and pop restaurants, barber shops, small specialty retailers and such.

Building just a 12,000 square-foot commercial building with four or six individual suites is riskier especially they would need to have two thirds of the space filled out of the chute.

Gas stations also have the advantage of not having a high turnover in terms of sitting vacant, Again, that’s because the daily/weekly needs create a sales volume that an independent owner has a strong shot of making it even if it requires them working more than 80 hours a week.

It is why gas stations are often pursed by developers to secure other tenants for retail complexes they want to build.

So, what did the Manteca Planning Commission do?

They approved a condition that clearly originated with an elected official that the developers of the Village at Ticino agreed to that requires the initial phase of construction include one more element besides the gas station/convenience store/car wash combo.

They have the option to pick between three elements of their proposed development on the southwest corner of Louise Avenue and Airport Way for that additional first phase construction.

They are a 110 hotel, a grocery store, or a free standing commercial building, or 12,000 plus square feet with multiple tenant suites.

The condition avoids developers from going for multiple phases projects with gas stations/convenience stores in the first phase and then letting the rest of the land sit for years, if not decades, without getting developed.

Such a condition would be a game changer as well for at least two proposed projects that haven’t secured final entitlements.

One is directly to the east across Airport Way from the Village at Ticino that also envisions a gas station, convenience store, car wash along with other commercial space.

The other is at Pillsbury Road and Woodward Avenue where a gas station/convenience store is proposed with other commercial space.

If that condition was applied to those two projects, they would have to build commercial space in the first phase.

That would assure there is commercial space for economic growth and also put in part of the “buffer” that proper placement of in-line commercial can create between the gas station/convenience store and nearby neighborhoods.

The proposed gas station/convenience store on the southeast corner of Lathrop Road and Airport Way has been approved as a two-phase project but includes part of the other retail/restaurant space being built when the gas station is constructed.

Such a strategy, while it wouldn’t make everyone happy, would guarantee the  leveraging of  gas stations to assure they add economic muscle beyond the pumping of fuel and the sale of soda, chips, candy et al and place more services and such within walking distances of neighborhoods.

The strategy effectively ends the possibility of standalone gas stations with either a convenience store and/or car wash from being constructed in Manteca.

Had such a ban been in effect five years ago, the gas station on Main Street south of the 120 Bypass, the gas station at Union Road and Atherton Drive, and the gas station at Wawona Street and Airport Way would have required the construction of another commercial element concurrently.

Such a requirement prevents new free-standing gas stations (with convenience store and possibly car wash included) from siphoning off business from developments designed to fuel more than just cars.

This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com