Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to oppose proposed 24-hour AMPM station near Woodward Park
Summary
Dozens of Manteca residents told the City Council on May 6 they oppose a proposed 24‑hour AMPM gas station at Pillsbury Road and Woodward Avenue, citing safety, health and land‑use conflicts and asking the city to update siting rules before the project advances.
Dozens of residents told the Manteca City Council on May 6 that a proposed 24‑hour AMPM gas station at 1840 Pillsbury Road and Woodward Avenue does not belong in the middle of a family neighborhood and should be blocked or reconsidered.
Joanna Titus, a Woodward Park homeowner, said the project “does not belong in the middle of a residential neighborhood” and noted the site is less than a third of a mile from Woodward Park. Other speakers raised traffic, late‑night activity, lighting and noise, potential groundwater contamination and public‑safety risks near schools and a heavily used park.
The speakers urged the council and staff to update the city’s siting rules for fueling stations and cited recent guidance from the California Air Resources Board that recommends buffers between fuel sources and sensitive uses. Several residents also said they had assembled petitions and supporting documents; one speaker said neighbors gathered more than 700 signatures opposing the project.
Why this matters: Commenters told the council they feared adding a 24‑hour convenience store and fueling canopy immediately adjacent to single‑family homes and a major neighborhood park would increase vehicle and pedestrian conflicts, change neighborhood character and introduce health risks from fuel‑related pollutants.
City staff and the city attorney clarified that the AMPM proposal was not an agenda item for the May 6 meeting and could not be fully discussed by council that night. The city attorney also told the public that Mayor Gary Singh had informed the city attorney’s office he would recuse himself from considering the project and would not participate if the item comes before the council for a formal decision.
Public health and safety concerns were raised by multiple speakers. A registered nurse with public‑health nursing and hospice experience said the proposal “invites around‑the‑clock vehicle traffic, loitering and public‑safety concerns” and framed the proposal as an environmental‑justice issue, arguing the city should require larger setbacks from homes, schools and parks.
Several commenters asked the council to delay or block any approval until the city updates its municipal code and general plan guidance for gas‑station siting, and to require modern environmental review that addresses benzene and other fuel‑related pollutants. One resident said the project’s initial study runs to roughly 777 pages and argued it omitted a detailed benzene exposure analysis.
Council response and next steps: Council members and staff said they heard residents’ concerns but could not debate or decide the issue at that meeting because it was not agendized. The city attorney repeated that admonition and confirmed the mayor’s recusal. The council encouraged residents to submit written materials and to monitor future agenda postings; some members also directed staff to provide information about traffic‑calming and the city’s process for reviewing development proposals.
No formal vote or decision on the proposed AMPM station was taken on May 6.
