Residents urge Modesto City Council to extend general‑plan comment period and prioritize infill over sprawl
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
During public comment at the Jan. 13 meeting, multiple residents asked the council to extend the Jan. 15 deadline for the general plan public comment period and warned that outward-growth scenarios would harm air quality, farm land and disadvantaged communities.
Several Modesto residents used the council’s public comment period on Jan. 13 to press the city to extend the public comment window for the general plan land‑use scenarios and to favor infill and higher‑density development over outward sprawl.
Milt Treeweiler, identified himself as a lifelong Stanislaus County resident and asked the council to "grow up and not sprawl," arguing that concentrating new housing in existing neighborhoods and building upward would preserve farmland and use existing water, sewer and emergency services. "We must grow up on the infill and blighted areas where there are already city services available for this growth," he said, and urged the council to reconsider plans that resemble the city’s 1995 plan.
Edgar Garibay, who said he works with Valley Improvement Projects and the Stanislaus Sustainable Communities Coalition, asked the council to extend the public comment period beyond Jan. 15 so residents—particularly those impacted by pollution and land‑use decisions—have more time to engage. Garibay warned that the "competitive regional opportunity" alternative emphasizes outward growth and could increase vehicle dependence, worsen air quality and consume prime agricultural farmland. He cited Senate Bill 1000, noting that the city has obligations to reduce pollution exposure and prioritize community engagement and investments in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Juan Taez, a West Modesto resident and community organizer, thanked staff for public engagement but said a December start and a roughly 30‑day comment window over the holidays limited meaningful participation. He urged the council to provide additional time and to consider hybrid engagement options to allow more community input.
Other public commenters raised technology and neighborhood concerns. A speaker identified as Lucas said the ZeroEyes gun‑detection system did not integrate with existing cameras and suggested piloting such systems at schools; he also suggested exploring "noise cameras" to address vehicle noise. Sebastian Jones described long‑term efforts to secure commemorations for Martin Luther King Jr. and Cesar Chavez—including fundraising and petitions—and asked for council support and help pursuing grants.
No formal action or motion to extend the comment period was recorded during the meeting. Council members later commented on housing strategy and the city’s interest in higher‑density projects, but the transcript shows no vote or direction to extend the general plan comment deadline at this session. The public‑comment requests and questions were referred to staff for follow‑up.
