When such final recommendation has been submitted to the Council, it shall not thereafter be amended by the Commission.
Upon receiving the final recommendation from the Commission, the Council may adopt the compensation as recommended by the Commission or may adopt compensation in some lower amount, but in no case may adopt compensation in some higher amount. The Council may only adopt all such compensation by ordinance and after a public hearing of which legal notice is published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City at least 20 days prior to said hearing.
Salaries established by ordinance adopted pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall remain in effect until amended by a subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to the provisions of this Section. The compensation being paid to Councilmembers as of the effective date of this Section shall continue until any subsequent compensation is established pursuant to the requirements of this Section.” DISCUSSION:
Five members appointed by the City Council serve on the Citizens’ Salary Setting Commission pursuant to the Commissions’ requirements. In accordance with the City Charter, the Commission held several meetings during the months of March and April to discuss possible salary recommendations for the Mayor and Councilmembers. The Commission provided several opportunities for public comment and had detailed discussions on what salaries they believe are fair and equitable.
The 2026 Citizens Salary Setting Commission issued the following salary recommendations:
Position Current
Salary
Recommended Salary (6.2% increase)
Mayor $54,000.00 $57,348.00
Council Members $30,000.00 $31,860.00
Attached are the 2026 Recommendations from the Commission regarding the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Public input was solicited during the preparation of the Citizens’ Salary Setting Commission Final Report and Recommendations. All meetings were open to the public.
In addition, two noticed public hearings were held on April 6, 2026 and April 13, 2026 and held in accordance with Section 703(d) of the Charter.
CEQA/NEPA REQUIREMENTS:
This item does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 and requires no environmental review. #14..
- 554 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Citizens’ Salary Setting Commission Final Recommendations for Mayor and Councilmembers‘ Salaries
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion accepting the Citizens’ Salary Setting Commission 2026 Recommendations for the Mayor and Councilmembers’ salaries.
Motion setting a Public Hearing for the May 12, 2026 Council Meeting and directing the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance amending the salaries for the Mayor and Council Members pursuant to Charter Section 703.
Submitted By:
______________________________________
Roldon “Sandy” Sutton, Chairperson
Citizens’ Salary Setting Commission
Attachment: 1. Attachment A – Final Report: Recommendations for Mayor and Councilmembers Salaries
#14..
- 555 -
1 City of Modesto Citizens Salary Setting Commission
2026-2028 Final Recommendation
Background / Context
The City Charter establishes the limits of compensation for City Council Members and Mayor. The Citizens Salary Setting Commission, composed of five (5) members, was appointed to determine the extent the salaries should be increased, if any. This commission, as required by the City of Modesto Charter Section 703(b), met “between March 1 and April 30th of every even numbered year.” Through Measure M, the five members shall be qualified electors residing within the City and appointed by the City Council, serving without compensation. Qualifications of the current commission include:
• A member from a bona fide local nonpartisan political organization with tax exempt status • A member of former Civil Grand Jury
• A member of bona fide local taxpayer’s association with tax exempt status • Two members who have demonstrated civic involvement and a capacity to serve in an honest, independent, and impartial fashion
In 2024, the Commission made the following recommendations:
• Increase the Mayor’s salary from $43,200 / year to $54,000 / year. • The Mayor received a 25% salary adjustment increase based on CPI from 2008 to 2024. • Increase the Council Member’s salary from 24,000 / year to $30,000 / year. • The Council received a 25% salary adjustment increase based on CPI from 2008 to 2024. • The 2024 Citizens’ Salary Setting Commission Recommendations can be found here.
The Citizens Salary Setting Commission makes recommendations using these parameters set forth by the City Charter:
• The recommendation is not an evaluation of the current officeholders, but rather to determine fair compensation for the responsibilities of the office itself. • The compensation limit for a City Council Member is half (50%) of the median family income (currently at $79,891) for the Modesto Metropolitan statistical area as reported by the United States Census Bureau.
• Council Member current salary: $30,000 per year.
• The compensation limit for the City Mayor is half (50%) of a Stanislaus Superior Court District Judge (currently at $248,368).
• Mayor current salary: $54,000 per year.
• Salaries are paid out of the General Fund of the City Expenses.
Table 1: Current Salary Compared to Charter Maximum
Position Current Salary Charter Maximum
Mayor $54,000 $124,184
Council Member $30,000 $39,945
#14..
- 556 -
2 Guiding Principles Considered
Several principles guided this Commission and their recommendation:
• Public Responsibility: Compensation should remain modest and respectful of taxpayer resources.
• Workload Reality: Although these positions are described as part-time, actual responsibilities often include:
o Council meetings
o Preparation and review of agenda materials
o Committee Assignments
o Regional board participation
o Constituent meetings
o Community events
Analysis
The current Commission met a total of eight (8) times since the initial orientation meeting on February 27, 2026, to discuss and analyze data requested from and provided by City of Modesto staff.
The methodology included the following:
• Current Salary of the Stanislaus Superior Court Judge, median household, and Modesto fulltime wage earner • Current Population of Modesto, Modesto Expenses, and updated Comparable Tables o San Joaquin Valley Cities
o Charter Cities
o Expenses and Population
• CPI increase from 2024 to present
• Role of Mayor as full-time and part-time
• Other official duties including committee assignments • Both the Mayor and City Council Members have fringe benefits that are limited in scope. • Both the Mayor and City Council Members may participate in the City’s health plan at their own expense.
Findings
Table 2: Indicators comparing 2024 to 2026
Indicators 2024 2026
Population 218,989 219,786
City Expenses $525,973,774 $588,042,068
Median Household Income $73,375 $79,891
Individual Full Time Income $32,044 $32,706
CPI -- 5.4%
Note: Modesto’s population has been flat, median household income is up approximately 9%, personal median income is flat. CPI has risen by 5.4% since 2024. #14..
- 557 -
3 Table 3: Comparable by Population and Expenses and Mayor Description Cities Salary Population1 Expenses2 Full/Part time
Glendale $26,276.00 183,761 $948,298,145 PT
Huntington Beach $22,805.00 190,515 $464,376,984 PT
Santa Rosa $26,640.00 177,300 $553,829,678 PT
Modesto $54,000.00 221,529 $588,042,068 PT
Burbank $23,949.00 101,793 $632,433,340 PT
Sunnyvale $48,041.00 157,557 $659,294,710 PT
San Bernardino $50,000.00 226,103 $387,341,916 FT
Berkeley $143,800.00 120,514 $603,357,325 FT
Bakersfield $83,440.00 423,592 $725,671,879 FT
Fresno $133,900.00 553,800 $1,474,265,521 FT
Sacramento $184,464.00 540,907 $1,622,100,000 FT
Stockton $97,107.00 326,977 $782,821,042 FT
Note: A Salary review of Comparable Cities by Population, Expenses, and Mayor position of Full or Part Time found higher salaries for Full Time Mayors, lower salaries for Part-time Mayors. The salary for Full Time ranges from San Bernardino at $50,000 to Sacramento at $184,654. The salary for Part-Time Mayors ranged from Huntington Beach at $22,805 to Modesto at $54,000. Within the comparable cities the Modesto Mayor is paid more than San Bernardino Full Time Mayor and is the Highest paid Part-Time Mayor. Salaries are only paid out of the General Fund for the City of Modesto, which for 2026 is projected to be $206,449,484.
Table 4: Stanislaus County Cities for Mayor
Cities Salary Population Expenses Full/Part-time
Modesto $54,000.00 221,529 $588,042,068 PT
Ceres $8,400.00 49,032 $80,179,376 PT
Hughson $3,600.00 8,107 $12,986,939 PT
Newman $3,000.00 12,242 $24,146,656 PT
Oakdale $4,445.00 23,209 $44,429,843 PT
Patterson $7,920.00 26,329 $117,898,654 PT
Riverbank $10,800.00 25,959 $31,416,956 PT
Waterford $3,600.00 9,338 $11,022,115 PT
Turlock $6,000.00 72,948 $149,283,449 PT
Note: Mayors within Stanislaus County are all part-time Mayors. The Modesto Mayor is the highest paid at $54,000.00, Riverbank Mayor is in second place at $10,800.00. 1 World Population Review https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/california 2 California Cities Financial Data/State Controller https://bythenumbers.sco.ca.gov/ #14..
- 558 -
4 Table 5: Comparable by Population and Expenses for Council Members Cities Salary Population Expenses Full/Part-time
Glendale $17,160.00 183,761 $948,298,145 PT
Huntington Beach $22,147.00 190,515 $464,376,984 PT
Sunnyvale $38,307.00 157,557 $659,294,710 PT
Santa Rosa $17,760.00 177,300 $553,829,678 PT
Burbank $23,949.00 101,793 $632,433,340 PT
Modesto $30,000.00 221,529 $588,042,068 PT
Berkeley $90,594.00 120,514 $603,357,325 FT
Bakersfield $20,062.00 432,592 $725,671,879 FT
Fresno $72,351.00 553,800 $1,474,265,521 FT
Sacramento $111,324.00 540,907 $1,622,100,000 FT
San Bernardino $40,728.00 226,103 $387,341,916 FT
Note: On review of Comparable Cities by Population, Expenses and Mayor position, the Commission found that Cities with Full-Time Mayor structure had higher salaries for the Council Members. Berkeley at $90,954 and San Bernardino at $40,728. Cities with Part Time Mayors had lower salaries; Sunnyvale the highest at $38,307 and Modesto Council Member’s salary at $30,000. The salaries are only paid out of the General Fund for the City of Modesto, which for 2026 is projected to be $206,449,484.
Table 6: Stanislaus County Cities for Council Members
Cities Salary Population Expenses Full/Part-time
Modesto $30,000.00 221,529 $588,042,068 PT
Ceres $6,000.00 49,032 $80,179,376 PT
Hughson $3,000.00 8,107 $12,986,939 PT
Newman $1,200.00 12,242 $24,146,656 PT
Oakdale $4,445.00 23,209 $44,429,843 PT
Patterson $4,752 .00 26,329 $117,898,654 PT
Riverbank $10,800.00 25,959 $31,416,956 PT
Waterford $3,600.00 9,338 $11,022,115 PT
Turlock $6,000.00 72,948 $149,283,449 PT
Note: All cities within Stanislaus County have a part-time Mayoral Structure, Modesto Council Members are paid the highest at $30,000.00.
#14..
- 559 -
5 Recommendations
The 2026 Citizens Salary Setting Commission makes the following recommendation:
Table 7: Current Salary vs Recommended Salary for Fiscal Years 2027 and 2028 Position Current Salary Recommended Salary (6.2% increase) Mayor $54,000.00 $57,348.00
Council Members $30,000.00 $31,860.00
The rationale for this recommendation:
The office of Mayor and Council Members choose to run for the office because they desire to serve and improve our community by making a positive impact. Through their service they become the voice of their constituents.
After our review of the data from several data points, our recommendation is to increase the respective salaries by 6.2% after considering CPI (5.4%) and Median Household (9%).
April 14, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Sutton, Chair
Citizens’ Salary Setting Commission
#14..
- 560 -
6 APPENDIX
Glossary of Terms
CPI: CPI stands for Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation. It tracks inflation by the average change in prices paid by consumers for goods and services. CPI gauges the cost of living and purchasing power of money.
Charter City: Modesto is a Charter City, it operates under its own charter, which is our local constitution. Charter Cities can establish their own laws and regulations, particularly in areas like taxation and land use. A Charter or changes to a Charter requires the local vote by residents. There are 125 cities in California that have adopted Charters.
General Law City: Operates under the general laws of California, rather than a city charter. It is governed by the California Government Code, which outlines its powers and responsibilities. General Law Cities have limited flexibility compared to Charter Cities.
City Manager: Serves as the chief executive officer of the city, overseeing daily operations of all the departments within the city. They are responsible for implementing city policies and managing municipal departments. The city manager develops and proposes budgets, and financial updates.
Engages with residents to address concerns and gather feedback. Leads emergency response efforts and public safety initiatives.
Full Time Mayor: Typically found in large cities, they are full time, they dedicate their entire time to overseeing city operations, leading initiatives, and managing staff. Their role is involved in daily governance and budgetary oversite.
Part Time Mayor: Typically balances their duties with other employment. The City Manager oversees the day-to-day operations of the city. The Mayor is the ceremonial lead for all political and representative purposes, and by the Governor for military purposes. The Mayor makes recommendations to the City Manager on policy, programs; and can request budgetary information.
They do not hire or evaluate staff.
Household: A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit (such as a house or apartment) as their usual place of residence. A household can consist of family members, roommates, or unrelated individuals. A household is often responsible for shared expenses like rent, utilities, and groceries.
Median Household Income: This income level represents the middle-income of a household in an area. Half of the households earn more than the median, and half earn less. It is often used to gauge economic health and living standards of a city.
Per Capita Income: Per capita income measures the average income earned per person in a specific area. It is calculated by dividing the total income of a region by its population. This metric helps assess the economic health and standard of living in a city. #14..
- 561 -
CITY OF MODESTO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE OF MEETING:
April 28, 2026
Date: March 27, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
FROM: Jessica Hill, Director of Community and Economic Development SUBJECT: Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050 - Land Use Alternatives CONTACT: Michael Hren, Principal Planner, [email protected], 209-577-5267
DESCRIPTION:
Consider selecting a preferred Land Use Alternative for the Comprehensive General Plan Update. (Funding Source: Not Applicable)
STRATEGIC PLAN ELEMENT:
The Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050 supports the City’s 2025-2026 Strategic Plan Goal E: Drive Economic Vitality, Goal H: Achieve long-term financial sustainability and Goal I: Promote trust and engagement between the community and the City by enhancing responsiveness, communicating broadly about City opportunities and challenges and increasing public participation in municipal affairs. The Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050 will establish the foundational policies and direction for economic growth, community development, housing, transportation, community facilities and services, and open space and conservation.
BACKGROUND:
The current general plan for the City of Modesto was adopted in 1995 and amended in subsequent years. In recent years, however, City leadership has recognized the need for a comprehensive update to the General Plan. Prior efforts to update the General Plan include 2008, where Council and the Planning Commission began to hold workshops regarding a comprehensive update, but those efforts were halted due to the recession. Additionally, in 2009 after the Urban #15..
- 562 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
Growth Review, a land use amendment was attempted but was terminated due to budget reductions. Following Council discussions during the Urban Limit Line workshops in 2020, renewed interest in a comprehensive General Plan update (GPU) was expressed by the Council. The GPU is explicitly prioritized in the City’s 2020 – 2025 Strategic Plan.
On August 11, 2020, by Resolution No. 2020-335, City Council authorized staff to issue a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for the procurement of a consulting firm to support the development of a General Plan update, and in July 2021, the City entered into an agreement with the consulting firm, PlaceWorks.
In coordination with PlaceWorks, City staff undertook community engagement from February 2022 through October 2022, during which a total of thirty-five engagements were held. Staff and the PlaceWorks team distributed a draft of the Vision Statement to participants from the community workshops, listening sessions, small group forums, and to the community at-large to ensure the Vision Statement was consistent with the feedback from community members during the public outreach for the visioning process. Ultimately, staff brought forward a Vision Statement and Guiding Principles for the General Plan, which City Council adopted on May 9, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-214.
The Vision Statement describes the shared community values and goals regarding what Modesto aspires to be in the year 2050. The vision will serve as a foundation for the remaining work to update the General Plan.
DISCUSSION:
The comprehensive General Plan Update is a multi-year effort that began in 2021 and will serve as the City’s “blueprint” for growth and development through 2050.
Through this effort, the City is evaluating its existing planning boundaries, including the General Plan Planning Area and the Sphere of Influence, both adopted in 1995.
We are currently in the Land Use Alternative Phase, where there is significant review of the current land uses in the General Plan, and proposals on where the City would like to plan for growth through 2050. Council will choose one (1) map which will serve as the preferred Alternative in the environmental documentation and guide the development of the rest of the Plan.
In October 2024, staff held seven (7) community workshops that sought feedback regarding the future growth of the City. PlaceWorks compiled all the responses from this outreach and developed three (3) land use alternatives. In the review of the Alternatives, staff held nineteen meetings with local stakeholders, including community-based organizations, to provide feedback on preliminary Land Use Alternative maps in August and September 2025.
#15..
- 563 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
Following the initial feedback, staff then held three (3) community meetings that focused on the three (3) proposed Land Use Alternatives in December 2025 and 108 individuals attended. Following these workshops, staff was invited to and presented to both the Wood Colony and Salida Municipal Advisory Councils.
The three (3) land use alternatives that were presented are outlined below:
Alternative 1:
This alternative proposed the largest Sphere of Influence expansion, increasing the existing boundary by approximately 13,860 acres to a total of 49,650 acres.
Proposed expansions include areas west along the California SR-132 corridor to North Hart Road, bounded by Maze Boulevard and Woodland Avenue, as well as areas north of Beckwith Road, east of Toomes Road and west of California SR-99.
Northern expansion areas are bounded by Stoddard Road, Ladd Road, and Coffee Road, while eastern expansion areas extend along Claribel Road to approximately McGee Avenue, along existing parcel boundaries. This alternative provides the greatest allocation of Regional Commercial, Business Center, and Industrial land use designations, along with substantial low-density residential development, supporting expanded employment and economic growth opportunities (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Land Use Alternative #1
#15..
- 564 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
Alternative 2:
This alternative proposed a Sphere of Influence expansion of 12,380 acres to a total of 48,170 acres. Growth areas include westward expansion along the SR-132 corridor to approximately Texas Avenue, bounded by Maze Boulevard to the south and Woodland Avenue to the north, as well as areas north of Beckwith Road and east of Toomes Road and west of SR-99. Northern expansion areas are bounded by Stoddard Road to the west, a Modesto Irrigation District (MID) lateral to the north, and Coffee Road to the east. Eastern expansion follows Claribel Road and extends slightly beyond McGee Road along existing parcel boundaries. Due to its more compact footprint, this alternative emphasizes higher-density residential and mixed-use development while still accommodating employment and economic growth through Business Center and Industrial land use designations (Figure 2).
Figure 2 : Land Use Alternative #2
#15..
- 565 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
Alternative 3:
This alternative included the smallest Sphere of Influence expansion, increasing the existing boundary by 9.330 acres to a total of 45,120 acres. Western expansion is aligned along the State Route 132 (SR-132) corridor and bounded by Maze Boulevard, Woodland Avenue, and North Dakota Avenue, with additional areas west of the State Route 99 (SR-99) corridor between Beckwith Road and Toomes Road. Northern expansion areas are bounded by Stoddard Road, approximately Crawford Road, and Coffee Road. Eastern expansion extends along Claribel Road and slightly beyond McGee Road. This alternative emphasizes higher-density residential development due to its compact growth area and includes comparatively limited opportunities for Business Center and Industrial development (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Alternative # 3
Fiscal Impact Analysis
A fiscal analysis1 was prepared to evaluate the long-term General Fund impacts of the three (3) Land Use Alternatives at full buildout. The analysis estimates new development potential, assessed value generation, service costs and total General Fund revenues and expenditures under each scenario. The table below presents 1 https://gp2050.modestogov.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Modesto-Fiscal-4.20.26.pdf #15..
- 566 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
the total residential units and square footage of retail, office, and industrial space that would be available at full buildout of the proposed Sphere of Influence (SOI) for each Alternative. As presented during public meetings, Alternative 3 is the smallest SOI footprint, and Alternative 1 is the largest.
Table 1 summarizes the development that would be generated under each alternative at full buildout. Each alternative has the same amounts and types of development within Modesto’s city limits; however, development assumptions differ in each alternative’s proposed sphere of influence.
Table 1: Projected Full Buildout Units/Space
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Residential
Units
53,783 62,459 61,859
Retail, Office,
Industrial
Space
65.1 million sq. ft.
51.7 million sq. ft.
42.6 million sq. ft.
Table 2 below projects General Fund Revenues and Expenditures for each alternative. Revenue sources include sales tax, property tax, business license tax, in-lieu vehicle license fee (ILVLF) revenue, transient occupancy tax (TOT), and other per-capita General Fund revenues. Expenditures are driven primarily by police and fire services, which account for the largest share of variable service costs. These estimates are based on a service population methodology that incorporates both residents and a portion of employment growth. All three (3) alternatives are projected to result in a positive net fiscal impact on the General Fund at buildout.
Table 2: Projected General Fund Revenues
Revenue Source Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Property Tax $29,622,560 $30,823,192 $29,463,795
ILVLF/Vehicle License Tax $4,375,069 $4,618,139 $4,342,922 Sales Tax $54,413,060 $61,681,710 $60,189,538
Business License/Mills Tax $22,973,482 $21,236,396 $18,452,716 Transient Occupancy Tax $3,550,414 $3,970,449 $3,848,780 Other General Fund
Revenue $22,148,889 $24,769,232
$24,010,209
Total Revenue $137,083,474 $147,099,118 $140,307,960
#15..
- 567 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
Total Expenditures $102,481,315 $116,112,591 $112,164,076 Net Fiscal Impact $34,602,159 $30,986,527 $28,143,885
Community Feedback:
Following the Community Workshops regarding the three (3) land use alternatives, the City had a public comment period between December 2025 and February 2026. During that time, a combined total of fifty-four emails and written comments were received. Staff offered to meet with all those who reached out during the public comment period. Nine (9) groups expressed interest in meeting with City staff. These meetings took place in February 2026.
General themes of the comments received throughout the process include:
• Support for Infill Development and Mixed-Use land use designation • Support for incentivizing development, such as Affordable Housing and Workforce Housing
• Preservation of agricultural land
• More clearly delineate public facilities, schools, and existing parks to showcase complete neighborhoods
• Opposition to residential development west of SR-99
• Opposition to Sphere of Influence expansion into Wood Colony • Consider renaming alternatives to avoid bias
• Look at potential conservation easement on a parcel in the West along SR132 • Need to address traffic impacts through adequate public infrastructure along SR-99
A Joint Workshop was held with both the Planning Commission and City Council on March 18, 2026. Staff presented the three (3) land use alternatives, outlined the community outreach efforts, and presented the comments that were received prior to the workshop.
At the workshop, staff received comments from the public who provided the following feedback:
• Landowners who wanted the opportunity to annex into the City in the future and wanted to be included in the Sphere of Influence
• Feedback to ensure staff looked at “complete neighborhoods” • Acknowledgement of a need to grow west, with encouragement for healthy and responsible growth that allows living wages and stopping people being priced out of their own homes
• A need to understand the public health impacts and find a balance that improves one (1) of the worst air quality basins in the country • Recommendation to seek partnerships with the community and find champions within staff and City Council to consider and bring projects to communities that have been left behind over the years
#15..
- 568 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
• Concerns that the fiscal impact analysis requires additional time to consider • A need for shovel ready ground and plans in place that allow the development that has been happening in other communities Following comment from the public, both the Planning Commission and Council provided feedback to staff asking that staff evaluate and consider the following items:
• Review transportation needs on the West area expansion • Look for additional Mixed-Use opportunities
• Find ways to incentivize greater infill development
• Finding industrial space to grow is a necessity
• Staff should work with the landowners on 132 and the west side who want to be included in the SOI
Following the joint workshop, staff compiled all of the feedback and made the following changes to present one (1) draft map as a recommendation to the City Council for adoption as the preferred Land Use Alternative:
• Increase Mixed-Use land designations
• Removal of an agricultural conservation easement south of SR-132 • Boundary changes to the west to accommodate an improved transportation and circulation network west of SR-99
• Boundary changes to the west to accommodate property owners who reached out to be added into the proposed Sphere of Influence • Boundary changes to the north to include Kiernan Avenue (SR-219) and property south of SR-99 to accommodate improved access from SR-219 to SR-99
• Include new land use designations that clearly delineate public facilities, schools and existing parks to more accurately represent the existing uses across the City
• Adjustments to align with existing Specific Plans and proposed developments to ensure compatibility
These changes reflect common priorities expressed across community feedback workshops, including input from the joint Planning and Council workshop. The draft map reflects support for mixed-use and infill land-use designations, while also addressing concerns about transportation traffic circulation west of SR-99 and the need to preserve agriculture land with economic growth opportunities. In addition, the draft map also reflects other priorities expressed by the community including the inclusion of new land use designations depicting schools, parks, and public facilities and boundary changes.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)2 process begins with the selection of the preferred alternative as the proposed project that will be analyzed 2 https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/
#15..
- 569 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Once the City selects a proposed project, the full CEQA review takes approximately fifteen months. However, the selection of proposed project does not bind the City to approve the proposed project. Instead, it is the starting point of a process that includes the examination of changes to the proposed project, mitigation measures for the proposed project and alternatives to the proposed project.
At the end of the process, the Council may choose to approve the proposed project, the proposed project with modifications, or some alternative to the proposed project. That said, Staff recommends that the Council select a proposed project that includes the largest amount of land that the Council would consider adding to the General Plan area. It is far easier, from a CEQA perspective, for the City to analyze the environmental impacts of a larger project and ultimately approve a smaller project than it is for the City to attempt to add land into the General Plan after CEQA review has taken place.
Adding land late in the process would require the City to revise already ongoing or completed environmental analyses to include the impacts from additional land, which, in turn, would add delay and expense to the process. Conversely, removing land from the proposed project at the end of the process would likely result in less environmental impacts than those already analyzed in the EIR and would not require any additional CEQA analysis.
After receiving direction from Council on the preferred Alternative, PlaceWorks and City staff will continue updating the General Plan Policies and begin work on the environmental documentation. Staff anticipates the draft General Plan will be presented to Council in Summer 2027 for consideration and approval.
Following approval from Council, the item will be submitted to Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for approval of the changes to the City’s Sphere of Influence.
FISCAL IMPACT:
On April 8, 2014, by Resolution No. 2014-133, the Council authorized $500,000 from the General Fund Reserves to establish funding for a comprehensive General Plan update.
The City of Modesto received Regional Early Action Plan (REAP) grant funding from the State of California, through StanCOG in the amount of $577,284 to use for the General Plan Update.
On May 25, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-194, the Council approved a recommended spending plan for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds in the amount of $700,000, which have funded a portion of the overall project costs. #15..
- 570 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
Staff has also been notified that the City of Modesto will receive Regional Early Action Plan (REAP) 2.0 grant funds in the amount of $453,977 for the General Plan Update. The REAP 2.0 funding is to be disbursed on a reimbursement basis.
StanCOG staff will prepare a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Modesto, which will set forth the invoicing and documentation process for the City to receive the funding. To account for these funds, the GPU project will be amended by increasing the revenue by $453,977 to account for the grant reimbursement coming from the REAP grant.
Additionally, a General Plan Maintenance fee was established to collect revenue as a component of building permit fees. To date, the City has $456,580 available to support overall project costs.
Funding Type Received Amount
General Fund $500,000
REAP $577,284
ARPA $700,000
GPU Maintenance Fee $456,580
Funding Pending Award Amount
REAP 2.0 $453,977
GRAND TOTAL: $2,687,841
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
This item was considered at a joint workshop of the Planning Commission and City Council on March 18, 2026. The Planning Commission and Council provided feedback to staff that would be considered as part of a potential alternative that would be presented to the City Council for consideration. No formal recommendation was made.
CEQA/NEPA REQUIREMENTS:
The adoption of the preferred alternative is a precursor to the work on an Environmental Impact Report to evaluate environmental impacts of the proposed land use patterns for the overall General Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Staff Recommendations:
Motion to select the preferred Land Use Alternative as presented by staff for the Comprehensive General Plan Update, in order to evaluate all of the environmental impacts, potential mitigation measures and any alternatives. #15..
- 571 -
City Council, April 28, 2026
Comprehensive General Plan Update 2050- Land Use Alternatives
Approved by:
Jessica Hill,
Director of Community and Economic
Development
Joseph P. Lopez, City Manager
#15..
- 572 -
Attachments:
1. Proposed General Plan Update Land Use Alternative
#15..
- 573 -
#15..
- 574 -