City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority
September 22, 2026

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 41
15064.3, subdivision (b), under cumulative conditions, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

G. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. IMPACT 3.14-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT OR COLLECTION FACILITIES OR EXPANSION

OF EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, is discussed on pages 3.14-15 through 3.14-17 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Sanitary sewer will be provided to the Specific Plan Area through the installation of force mains, pump stations, and a network of gravity flow sewer mains.

The installation of the conveyance system improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area, as well as the offsite improvement area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, including the offsite improvement area, have been analyzed throughout this EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). Consistent with the conclusions made throughout this EIR, installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing wastewater collection and conveyance system infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which wastewater infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant

CEQA FINDINGS
42 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 3.14-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE

RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED WATER FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OR RELOCATION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects is discussed on pages 3.14-33 and 3.14-34 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Domestic water service will be provided to the Specific Plan Area through the installation of a pressurized water system made up of onsite wells, water tanks, water mains, and a pressure regulating station.

The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan have been analyzed throughout this EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). Consistent with the conclusions made throughout this EIR, installation of the water distribution system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact. (2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing water distribution system infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which water distribution

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 43
infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

3. IMPACT 3.14-5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE

RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW OR EXPANDED STORMWATER DRAINAGE FACILITIES,

THE CONSTRUCTION OR RELOCATION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, is discussed on pages

3.14-50 through 3.14-55 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measures 3.14-2 and all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Stormwater will be collected through a network of gutters, inlets, and storm drains that will direct storm water to storm water basins constructed within the Specific Plan Area. All stormwaters would be pre-treated in accordance with current NPDES requirements and would be detained prior to discharge into the MID canals or the Stanislaus River. Basins would be capable of storing the 50-year storm volume in accordance with City of Riverbank standards.

The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area. Some physical impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, such as agricultural conversion, etc., have been analyzed throughout this EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). The installation of

CEQA FINDINGS
44 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
improvements would contribute to physical impacts, including those that have been determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure 3.14-2 requires the Project applicant to submit a drainage plan to the City of Riverbank for review and approval. Nevertheless, consistent with the conclusions made throughout this EIR, installation of the stormwater drainage system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Mitigation Measure 3.14-2 is feasible and is hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), the City Council further finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, although those changes do not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. The measure requires that, “[p]rior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the City of Riverbank for review and approval. The plan shall include an engineered storm drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-Project runoff requirements prior to release and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment consistent with the Riverbank Low Impact Development Design and Specifications Manual and the Riverbank Storm Drain System Master Plan.” The other mitigation measures relevant to the construction of stormwater drainage infrastructure do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing such infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which stormwater drainage infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to less than significant levels, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 45
could cause significant environmental effects, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

4. IMPACT 4.21: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON WASTEWATER UTILITIES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts on wastewater utilities is discussed on pages 4.0-29 through 4.0-32 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Sanitary sewer will be provided to the Specific Plan Area through the installation of force mains, pump stations, and a network of gravity flow sewer mains. Figure 2.0-15 illustrates the preliminary sanitary sewer plan.

The City of Riverbank Public Works Department will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the proposed sanitary sewer system upon installation of the improvements. The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area, as well as the offsite improvement area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, including the offsite improvement area, have been analyzed throughout the EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). This is a physical impact for which the installation of wastewater infrastructure will contribute. Consistent with the conclusions made throughout the EIR, installation of the wastewater collection and conveyance system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a cumulatively significant and significant and unavoidable impact. (2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing wastewater collection and conveyance infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which wastewater infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based,

CEQA FINDINGS
46 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on wastewater utilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

5. IMPACT 4.22: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON WATER UTILITIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts on water utilities is discussed on pages 4.0-32 through 4.0-35 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Domestic water service will be provided to the Specific Plan Area through the installation of a pressurized water system made up of onsite wells, water tanks, water mains, and a pressure regulating station. The City of Riverbank Public Works Department will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the proposed water system upon installation of the improvements. The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area, as well as the offsite improvement area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, including the offsite improvement area, have been analyzed throughout the EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). This is a physical impact for which the installation of water infrastructure will contribute. Consistent with the conclusions made throughout the EIR, installation of the water conveyance system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a cumulatively significant and significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing water conveyance infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which water infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 47
earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on water utilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

6. IMPACT 4.23: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON STORMWATER FACILITIES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts on stormwater facilities is discussed on pages 4.0-35 through 4.0-39 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Stormwater will be collected through a network of gutters, inlets, and storm drains that will direct storm water to storm water basins constructed within the Specific Plan Area. The City of Riverbank Public Works Department will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the proposed stormwater system upon installation of the improvements. The installation of the improvements will be within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area, as well as the offsite improvement area. The impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, including the offsite improvement area, have been analyzed throughout the EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact, while in other cases it was determined that development would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). This is a physical impact for which the installation of stormwater infrastructure will contribute. Consistent with the conclusions made throughout the EIR, installation of the stormwater collection system infrastructure to serve the proposed Project would have a cumulatively significant and significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of installing stormwater collection system infrastructure but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which stormwater

CEQA FINDINGS
48 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
infrastructure will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be reduced to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on stormwater facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

IV. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WHICH ARE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
A. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.2-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN CONFLICTS WITH

ADJACENT AGRICULTURAL LANDS OR INDIRECTLY CAUSE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in conflicts with adjacent agricultural lands or indirectly cause conversion of agricultural lands is discussed on pages 3.2-24 through 3.2-26 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.2-3.
(c) Findings. Existing agricultural operations that are located adjacent to the Specific Plan Area may be adversely impacted by the increased human presence in the Specific Plan Area. Additionally, future residents within the Specific Plan Area may be adversely affected by active agricultural operations associated with managing these lands. The General Plan addresses transitional areas between urban uses and ongoing agricultural operations with several land use designations that can serve as a buffer, including use of the Multi-Use Recreation/Resource Management (MUR/R), Agricultural resource Conservation Area (AG), and Reserve (R). For the proposed Project, the City has utilized the Reserve (R) designation as a buffer land use for all areas proximate to the proposed developed within the Plan Area. The areas with a Reserve designation would not be converted to non-agricultural uses under the proposed Project, instead they would be reserved under their agricultural use. If and when development is eventually proposed in the Reserve Area, land planners will have to consider whether to include buffers within the Reserve Area to avoid conflicts with land uses occurring within the Specific Plan area.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 49
Patterson Road provides a buffer between the southern portion of the Plan Area and existing agricultural operations located to the south. The Stanislaus River provides a buffer between the northern portion of the Plan Area and existing agricultural operations located to the north. There are no agricultural uses requiring buffer to the east.

Riverbank General Plan Policy CONS-3.2 includes provisions for protecting agricultural operations from encroachment of urban use using buffers. The buffers protect residential development from the effects of existing agricultural operations, and they are designed to protect the feasibility of ongoing agricultural activities on nearby lands (reduction in the effects of noise, dust, and the application of agricultural chemicals on residential development). This existing policy requires the width of the buffer to be 300 feet, except that the width of the buffer may be reduced where a project applicant demonstrates that a narrower buffer would protect the feasibility of ongoing agricultural activities on nearby lands and reduce the effects of noise, dust and the application of agricultural chemicals on residential development. Buffer areas may remain as open space or may be used for stormwater management; renewable energy production; community recreation amenities; or any other allowed use consistent with this policy. This existing policy provides mitigating effects on this potential impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 requires Right to Farm language be incorporated into the Final Map for approval and recordation against the affected property. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-3, together with the physical buffers described above and the mandatory application of General Plan Policy CONS-3.2, the proposed Project would not result in conflicts with adjacent agricultural lands, and the impact would be less than significant.

The City Council finds that the foregoing conclusion does not rest on an unenforceable commitment or on the deferral of mitigation. Three separate and independently enforceable components support it. First, the Reserve (R) land use designation applied to the areas proximate to proposed development within the Plan Area is a mandatory land use designation that precludes conversion of those areas to non-agricultural uses under the Project; no further discretionary act is required to give it effect, and development within the Reserve would require separate future entitlements and separate environmental review. Second, Patterson Road and the Stanislaus River are existing physical separations that require no implementing action at all. Third, General Plan Policy CONS-3.2 is an adopted, mandatory policy of the Riverbank General Plan.

Under Government Code sections 65454, 65860, and 66473.5, the Specific Plan, its implementing zoning, and every subdivision map within the Plan Area must be consistent with the General Plan, and the City is obligated to deny an inconsistent entitlement. Policy CONS-3.2 is therefore enforced through the City’s ordinary, nondiscretionary consistency obligation and does not depend on voluntary compliance by the applicant.

CEQA FINDINGS
50 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
The City Council further finds that the provision of Policy CONS-3.2 permitting a buffer narrower than 300 feet is a performance standard rather than a grant of discretion to the applicant. The policy establishes 300 feet as the default and places the burden on the project applicant to demonstrate, to the City’s satisfaction, that a narrower buffer would both protect the feasibility of ongoing agricultural activities on nearby lands and reduce the effects of noise, dust, and agricultural chemical application on residential development. The City, not the applicant, determines whether that showing has been made, and the City may reject the showing and require the full 300-foot buffer. The substantive outcome the policy requires, protection of adjacent agricultural operations and of future residents, is fixed regardless of the buffer dimension ultimately approved.

Finally, the City Council finds that reliance on the Reserve designation, the existing physical buffers, and Policy CONS-3.2 has not been used to avoid or truncate the analysis of this impact. The Draft EIR identified and analyzed the potential for agricultural land use conflicts on its own terms and at pages 3.2-24 through 3.2-26 disclosed the impact before accounting for these features. The features described above are separately enforceable requirements considered after the impact was disclosed, not assumptions folded into the significance determination in place of analysis. Mitigation Measure 3.2- 3, which requires Right to Farm language to be incorporated into the Final Map and recorded against the affected property, is likewise self-executing: it is discharged by a recorded instrument at a defined approval milestone, and the City will not approve the Final Map without it.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.2-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to conflict with adjacent agricultural lands or indirectly cause conversion of agricultural lands will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

B. AIR QUALITY

1. IMPACT 3.3-1: PROJECT OPERATIONS COULD RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ANY CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE PROJECT REGION IS IN NONATTAINMENT, AND COULD CONFLICT OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISTRICT’S AIR QUALITY PLAN.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonPage 135 of 730

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 51
attainment and could conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan is discussed on page 3.3-24 through 3.3-25 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3. (c) Findings. Table 3.3-8 in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR shows the proposed Project unmitigated emissions, and Table 3.3-9 shows the proposed Project mitigated emissions. As shown in Table 3.3-8 and Table 3.3-9, operational emissions would exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for ROG, and PM10, even after considering a variety of proposed Project characteristics within the modeling. Therefore, the proposed Project is required to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce criteria pollutant emissions to below the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. The proposed Project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-1, which would ensure that individual Projects within the footprint of the proposed Project would reduce emissions to less than the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants.

Additionally, Table 3.3-10 provides the proposed Project’s mitigated emissions in comparison to this screening threshold. As shown in Table 3.3-10, even after accounting for a variety of proposed Project characteristics that would reduce proposed Project emissions, the overall proposed Project would generate greater than 100 pounds per day of emissions for CO, ROG, and PM10. Therefore, the proposed Project is required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-2, which requires the project applicant(s) for individual development projects to develop an AAQA to determine if increase from an individual development project would cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Air Quality Standards. If the individual development project is shown to cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Air Quality Standards, additional mitigation is required to be implemented (such as those identified under Mitigation Measure 3.3-1), in consultation with the SJVAPCD, to reduce such emissions sufficiently to ensure that the individual development project would not cause or contribute to a violation of State or National Air Quality Standards.

Further, the proposed Project is required to implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, which requires each individual development Project to prepare and submit a Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review application that meets all SJVAPCD requirements, as applicable.

It should be noted that many of the mitigation measures that may be utilized within the Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review application may also overlap with the mitigation measures utilized to comply with Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 and Mitigation Measure 3.3- 2, as applicable. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3, the SJVAPCD Indirect Source Review process will result in significant reductions in air emissions, which will ensure that the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, would be considered to have a less than significant impact.

CEQA FINDINGS
52 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
The City Council further finds that Mitigation Measures 3.3-1, 3.3-2, and 3.3-3 are fully enforceable and do not defer the formulation of mitigation. Each measure is tied to an objective performance standard that the City did not create and cannot waive:

Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 requires that emissions be reduced below the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance; Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 requires preparation of an ambient air quality analysis and, if that analysis shows that an individual development project would cause or contribute to a violation of a State or National Ambient Air Quality Standard, requires additional emission reductions, developed in consultation with the SJVAPCD, sufficient to ensure that no such violation occurs; and Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 requires compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 9510, an independently adopted and independently enforced regulation. The standards are numeric and verifiable, and the District, not the applicant, determines compliance under Rule 9510.

The City Council finds that it is appropriate for these measures to be applied at the individual development project stage rather than at the Specific Plan stage. The Specific Plan establishes land use designations and a development framework; the emissiongenerating characteristics that drive criteria pollutant totals, including building type, square footage, equipment selection, phasing, and construction fleet composition, are not determinable until individual projects are designed. Requiring the analysis at the point at which those variables are known produces a more accurate and more protective result than a single plan-level calculation would. The measures identify the categories of action available to meet the standards, and compliance is verified by the City at defined approval milestones, with the SJVAPCD acting concurrently under its own permitting authority. The City Council accordingly finds that Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3 commit the City to mitigation, adopt governing performance standards, and identify the actions capable of achieving those standards, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (a)(1)(B).

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.3-1 through 3.3-3 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment, and could conflict or obstruct implementation of the District’s air quality plan will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 53

2. IMPACT 3.3-4: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR PUBLIC EXPOSURE TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in public exposure to toxic air contaminants is discussed on page 3.3-37 through 33-41 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.3-4.
(c) Findings. While implementation of the proposed Project, including the Specific Plan, would not result in an increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs, there is a potential for future commercial business activity, as permitted under the Specific Plan, to result in increased exposure of sensitive receptors to localized concentrations of TACs. The emission sources could be stationary sources and/or mobile sources (i.e., diesel truck traffic). Because, at the early stage of land use planning for the Mixed Use areas, the City does not yet know the precise locations, configurations, and sizes of any future business/facility that may generate sufficient levels of TACs to create the possibility of adverse health effects, it is premature, at the Specific Plan stage, to undertake an overall health risk assessment for the Specific Plan.

Future health risk assessments will be performed where warranted, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.3-4. After implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4, the individual development projects within the Plan Area that have the potential to generate significant health risks would be mitigated to below the applicable SJVAPCD health risk thresholds.

The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 is fully enforceable and does not improperly defer mitigation. The measure adopts the SJVAPCD’s health risk thresholds as the governing performance standard, identifies the circumstances that trigger preparation of a health risk assessment, and requires that any individual development project exceeding those thresholds reduce risk below them before the City will approve it. As the Final EIR explains, the locations, configurations, and sizes of the future businesses and facilities that could emit toxic air contaminants within the Mixed-Use designations are not known at the Specific Plan stage, and a plan-level health risk assessment would necessarily rest on assumed source characteristics rather than actual ones. The City Council finds that deferring the risk calculation, but not the standard or the obligation, to the point at which the emission source is actually proposed is both necessary and more protective, and that the measure satisfies CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (a)(1)(B). The City retains discretionary authority over each such individual development project and will withhold approval if the applicable health risk thresholds are not met.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

CEQA FINDINGS
54 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to result in public exposure to toxic air contaminants will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.4-1: THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECT ON

SPECIAL-STATUS INVERTEBRATE SPECIES, INCLUDING THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF

HABITAT, SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OR RESTRICTION IN THE RANGE OF A

LISTED SPECIES, ELIMINATION OF AN ANIMAL COMMUNITY, OR A DROP IN POPULATION LEVELS BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have a substantial direct or indirect effect on special-status invertebrate species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of an animal community, or a drop in population levels below selfsustaining levels is discussed on page 3.4-34 through 3.4-38 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2. (c) Findings. Habitat for California linderiella (Linderiella occidentalis), midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis), Molestan blister beetle (Lytta molesta), Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), and Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), is not found on-site. In its comments on the Notice of Preparation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife did not identify any of these species as ones that might occur in the Project area.

Potential habitat for obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus), crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) is found on-site.

Additionally, three occurrences of VELB have been documented within one mile of the Project Area: 0.1 miles west, 0.75 miles west, and 0.5 miles east. The Specific Plan is designed to place new development in areas that are previously disturbed by agricultural activity, and to conserve those areas that are undisturbed (i.e., riparian corridor along the Stanislaus River and bluff area). There is no elderberry plants located within the agricultural fields that are planned for development. Elderberry plants are located within the Stanislaus River riparian corridor but will remain in open space and will not be disturbed. The Offsite Sewer Line will not directly disturb elderberry plants.

VELB will not be affected by the proposed Project.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 requires a preconstruction survey for VELB habitat and avoidance, and compensatory mitigation measures should habitat be found. Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 requires preconstruction survey for special-status bumble bees and avoidance and mitigation measures should bumble bees be found. With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the proposed Project would have a

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 55
less than significant impact on special-status invertebrate species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of an invertebrate community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.4-1 and 3.4-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for the Project to have a substantial direct or indirect effect on special-status invertebrate species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of an animal community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.4-2: THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS ON

SPECIAL-STATUS REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN SPECIES, INCLUDING THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL

REDUCTION OF HABITAT, SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OR RESTRICTION IN THE

RANGE OF A LISTED SPECIES, ELIMINATION OF A REPTILE OR AMPHIBIAN COMMUNITY, OR A DROP IN POPULATION LEVELS BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to have substantial direct or indirect effects on specialstatus reptile and amphibian species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of a reptile or amphibian community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels is discussed on pages 3.4-38 through 3.4-43 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.4-3 and 3.4-4. (c) Findings. The proposed Project is not anticipated to affect California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Northern California legless lizards, or western spadefoot because appropriate habitat is not present. The Stanislaus River, riparian area, and irrigation ditches provide both aquatic and upland habitat for two special status species:
giant garter snake and western pond turtle. The Stanislaus River and riparian area will remain open space and will not be disturbed. The western pond turtle is a relatively common species in the region and the potential for presence is relatively high. On the other hand, giant garter snakes are an uncommon species in Stanislaus County and is not expected to be present regardless of aquatic or upland habitat in the Project Area and Offsite Sewer Line. These species have not been observed in the Project Area, or in the immediate vicinity.

CEQA FINDINGS
56 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
Filling the irrigation ditches and the land immediately adjacent to the irrigation ditches would present a potential impact on western pond turtles if they were present at the time of construction. Preconstruction surveys would be necessary to ensure that no individuals are present in the construction zone during construction. Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 requires a survey of the area for western pond turtles, and if present, the Project applicant would implement measures to avoid or minimize impacts on individuals of that species. Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 requires avoidance and mitigation measures for giant garter snakes.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.4-3 and 3.4-4 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to have substantial direct or indirect effects on special-status reptile and amphibian species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of a reptile or amphibian community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

3. IMPACT 3.4-3: THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS ON

SPECIAL-STATUS BIRD SPECIES, INCLUDING THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF HABITAT,

SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OR RESTRICTION IN THE RANGE OF A LISTED SPECIES, ELIMINATION OF A BIRD COMMUNITY, OR A DROP IN POPULATION LEVELS BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to have substantial direct or indirect effects on special-status bird species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of a bird community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels is discussed on pages 3.4-43 and 3.4-51 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.4-5 through 3.4-7. (c) Findings. The Project Area is largely undeveloped, and most of the area has been previously used for agricultural uses. The exception is the riparian area, levee, buffer area, and Stanislaus River, which contain mostly undisturbed habitat. Field surveys did not reveal the presence of any special-status species. However, the powerlines throughout the Project Area, and trees found in the riparian and buffer areas can provide nesting opportunities for a variety of birds. During field surveys there was no evidence of nesting; however, new nests can be constructed in future breeding cycles.

Suitable foraging habitat is located on and around the Project Area, and the Offsite Sewer Line. This includes foraging habitat for burrowing owls and Swainson’s hawk,

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 57
among other species of birds. The proposed project would require permanent disturbance to the foraging habitat to develop the Project Area. The Offsite Sewer Line would have a temporary impact given that the sewer line would be undergrounded and the surface area would be restored/revegetated. As such, Mitigation Measures 3.4-5 through 3.4-7 would be required.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5 requires avoidance surveys for burrowing owl and, if needed, avoidance and minimization approaches would be developed in consultation with CDFW. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts to burrowing owl are reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 requires preconstruction surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk and other raptors during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Nesting buffers may be required if found. This measure also requires the Project Applicant to conserve foraging habitat of equal value to the land that will be converted at a 0.5:1,

0.75:1, or 1:1 ratio based on the distance of the portion of the project relative to the closest nest tree. Here, the use of conservation easements at a 0.5:1, 0.75:1, or 1:1 ratio is a legitimate expression of state and local police powers given it is presented in the CDFW Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (1994). It also follows the conservation strategies used locally in the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy, which functions as a dual-purpose agricultural conservation program, while also functionally conserving the habitat qualities of agricultural land for species like the Swainson’s hawk, among others. Although the developed farmland/Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is not replaced and does not necessarily reduce the impact to an insignificant level, an equivalent area of comparable farmland is permanently protected from a similar fate providing mitigation benefits. Further, the requirement of rough proportionality between the mitigation measure and the impact of the development project is met. For every acre of farmland/Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat permanently lost to development within a usable proximity for foraging, another acre of farmland is permanently protected from development. Here, it is intended that Mitigation Measure

3.4-6 mitigates for the loss of foraging habitat following CDFW’s recommendation.

CDFW concludes in their Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts on Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (1994) that incorporation of these mitigation measures into a CEQA document would reduce a project's impact to a Swainson's hawk(s) to less than significant levels. As such, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-7 requires preconstruction surveys for active nests of specialstatus birds in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. If active nests or behaviors indicating that active nests are present, are observed, appropriate buffers around the nest sites would be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid nest failure resulting from project activities. Implementation of the above mitigation

CEQA FINDINGS
58 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
measures would ensure that potential impacts to nesting special status birds are reduced to a less than significant level.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.4-5 through 3.4-7 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for the Project to have substantial direct or indirect effects on special-status bird species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction in the range of a listed species, elimination of a bird community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

4. IMPACT 3.4-4: THE POTENTIAL FOR SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EFFECTS ON SPECIALSTATUS MAMMAL SPECIES, INCLUDING THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF HABITAT,

SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OR RESTRICTION OF THE RANGE OF A LISTED

SPECIES, ELIMINATION OF A MAMMAL COMMUNITY, OR A DROP IN POPULATION LEVELS BELOW SELF-SUSTAINING LEVELS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for substantial direct or indirect effects on special-status mammal species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction of the range of a listed species, elimination of a mammal community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels, is discussed on pages 3.4-51 through 3.4-53 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.4-8.
(c) Findings. Development of the Project Area would eliminate foraging habitat for specialstatus bats by removing the agricultural areas. This has an indirect effect on bat species in the region. Development would not directly affect these bat species because it is not expected to result in injury or death to individual bats or roosts. Nevertheless, mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 requires a survey for bat roosts, as well as buffers, if needed, around the roost sites.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 59
before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for substantial direct or indirect effects on special-status mammal species, including through substantial reduction of habitat, substantial reduction of the number or restriction of the range of a listed species, elimination of a mammal community, or a drop in population levels below self-sustaining levels will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

5. IMPACT 3.4-6: THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON PROTECTED WETLANDS AND JURISDICTIONAL WATERS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters is discussed on pages 3.4-55 through 3.4- 57 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.4-9.
(c) Findings. The Stanislaus River, riparian area, and MID facilities will not be directly affected, and do not require permitting. The network of agricultural ditches is all anticipated to be deemed non-jurisdictional, although the final jurisdictional determination is made by the regulatory agencies during a consultation and/or permit process. The Project applicant for parcels that contain any of these agricultural ditches must consult with the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB to ensure that the regulatory agency does not claim jurisdiction and require a permit for construction activities. If the regulatory agencies take jurisdiction over these facilities, the Project applicant for the parcels with the facilities would be required to obtain a permit and provide compensatory mitigation in accordance with the regulatory agency’s requirements.

There are no other wetlands that are proposed for disturbance. Nevertheless, mitigation is proposed that ensures proper mitigation of any wetlands that might unexpectedly be encountered during the planning and development process.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-9 requires that, if construction activities would disturb the agricultural ditch within the Project Area, the property owner/applicant proposing the activity shall verify with federal and state regulators that the facility is non-jurisdictional or qualifies under the agricultural ditch exemption. If the facilities do not qualify for the exemption and are determined to be jurisdictional by the regulatory agencies, any fill activity would require authorization for fill from the regulatory agencies (USACE-404 permit, RWQCB-401 certification, 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement). These agencies, pursuant to the laws governing their activities, will impose any mitigation requirements necessary to account for the loss of, or adverse impacts to, biologically key features. For example, the Clean Water Act typically requires that there be no net loss of wetland values and functions. And Fish and Game Code 1602 authorize CDFW to impose reasonable measures necessary to protect affected fish and wildlife resources.

With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters.

There would be no substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands.

CEQA FINDINGS
60 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.4-9 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to cause a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

6. IMPACT 3.4-9: THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan is discussed on pages 3.4-60 and 3.4-61 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.4-10.
(c) Findings. The Project Area is not subject to an HCP or NCCP. However, the Offsite Sewer Line is in San Joaquin County, which has an HCP/NCCP in effect. The San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), in accordance with ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) and CESA Section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permits, provides compensation for the Conversion of Open Space to non-Open Space uses which affect the plant, fish and wildlife species covered by the Plan, hereinafter referred to as "SJMSCP Covered Species". In addition, the SJMSCP provides some compensation to offset the impacts of open space land conversions on non-wildlife related resources such as recreation, agriculture, scenic values, and other beneficial Open Space uses.

The Offsite Sewer Line is subject to the SJMSCP given that it is in San Joaquin County.

The proposed Project does not conflict with the SJMSCP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic. Mitigation Measure 3.4-10 requires participation in the SJMSCP for installation of the Offsite Sewer Line.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.4-10 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 61

7. IMPACT 3.4-10: THE POTENTIAL TO CONFLICT WITH LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS A TREE PRESERVATION POLICY OR ORDINANCE. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance is discussed on pages 3.4-59 and 3.4-68 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.4-11.
(c) Findings. The proposed Project is substantially consistent with the local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project has been designed with ample open space, park, and trail areas to maintain open space linkages to the extent feasible. The Project would be required to comply with applicable policies to minimize impacts to special-status species and their associated habitat. Where impacts are identified, mitigation measures are presented to minimize, avoid, or compensate to the extent practicable. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3.4-11 requires compliance with the City’s Oak and Landmark Tree Preservation Ordinance.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.4-11 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

D. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.5-1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE TO AN HISTORICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN CEQAGUIDELINES §15064.5,

A UNIQUE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21083.2, OR A TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE, AS DEFINED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE §21074.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to cause a substantial adverse change to an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, a unique archaeological resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2, or a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074, is discussed on pages 3.5-19 through 3.5-25 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2.

CEQA FINDINGS
62 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
(c) Findings. From the preliminary efforts made in the survey and shovel testing as part of the cultural resources assessment, it can be concluded that there are two significant prehistoric period resources within the Berghill Boundary area: ML-20-02 and ML-20- 03, that may contain information related to the prehistoric use and occupancy of the sites. Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 addresses the potential impacts to these two significant prehistoric period resources. They appear to qualify as “historical resources” within the meaning of CEQA and are treated as such for purposes of mitigation. Although confidentiality laws prevent the City from disclosing the location of these two sites, they can be avoided and preserved. Because Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 will require such avoidance and preservation, potential impacts to Resources ML-20-02 and ML-20-03 would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation.

The portions of the Specific Plan Area that have not been field surveyed will warrant complete coverage surveys if those property owners seek development entitlements beyond the long-range planning effort provided by the Specific Plan. Additionally, all areas outside the Specific Plan Area, but within the Project Area, will warrant complete coverage surveys if those property owners seek development entitlements beyond the long-range planning effort provided by the proposed SOI Expansion. As such, no development or other physical change would occur in areas that have not been subject to a survey. Should these areas be planned for development in the future, a separate environmental review would occur to evaluate the physical environmental changes that they propose and the potential impacts to cultural resources (via field surveys, building evaluations, etc., as applicable) would be analyzed. As with most projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of previously unknown unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, or tribal cultural resources. The locations of any such resources are not yet known, however, it is anticipated that if resources are discovered they will be avoided.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 addresses the potential impacts to Resources ML-20-2 and ML-20-3, which are the only two significant prehistoric period resources known to exist within areas that have been surveyed. Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 provides methods by which any such future discovered subsurface resources can be analyzed before they are potentially destroyed. In some circumstances, such resources could be preserved in place, thereby ensuring that there are no substantial adverse changes in the attributes that make those resources qualify as unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, or tribal cultural resources.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 63
of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to cause a substantial adverse change to an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, a unique archaeological resource as defined in Public Resources Code section 21083.2, or a tribal cultural resource, as defined in Public Resources Code §21074, will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.5-2: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DISTURB HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, is discussed on pages 3.5-24 and 3.5-25 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.5-3.
(c) Findings. While no human remains were found during field surveys of the Berghill Property, and there are no records or literature documenting a previous find in the Project Area, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that all construction activities which inadvertently discover human remains implement staterequired consultation methods to determine the disposition and historical significance of any discovered human remains. Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 provides the appropriate procedures if subsurface deposits believed to be human in origin are discovered during construction and/or ground disturbance. This would include all work being halted within a 100-foot radius of the discovery for the appropriately qualified professionals to evaluate the find and provide recommendations on how to proceed. If the appropriately qualified professional determines that the find is not human remains, work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required. However, if the appropriately qualified professional determines that the find is human remains, procedures are outlined in Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 on how to proceed to ensure that the County Coroner is contacted for an evaluation, and appropriate mitigation or treatment measures are developed based on the findings of the coroner. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that any human remains found is evaluated and protected from significant adverse impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 as previously stated, would ensure that the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be reduced to a less than significant level.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.5-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to disturb human

CEQA FINDINGS
64 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

E. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. IMPACT 3.6-2:IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is discussed on pages 3.6-21 through 3.6-24 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1.
(c) Findings. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Within the Project Area, the erosion factor Kf varies from 0.02 to 0.37, which is considered a low to moderate potential for erosion. Furthermore, because the Project Area is essentially flat, the erosion potential is considered slight. Regardless of the potential for erosion, there is always the potential for human-caused erosion associated with construction activities or through the operational phase of a project. Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and loading activities associated with construction activities temporarily expose soils and increase the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation during rain events. Construction activities can also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that can adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at construction sites and staging areas.

In accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 requires an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, runoff during construction activities. The RWQCB has stated that these erosion control measures are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed. The specific controls are subject to review and approval by the RWQCB and are existing regulatory requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1 would ensure that the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 65
approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for the Project to result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

2. IMPACT 3.6-5: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DESTROY A UNIQUE PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE OR SITE OR UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURE. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature is discussed on pages 3.6-26 through 3.6-28 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.6-2.
(c) Findings. The field surveys have not revealed any surface evidence of paleontological resources. Regardless, it is always possible that undiscovered paleontological resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing activities. Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, state, or federal criteria. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 would ensure steps would be taken to reduce impacts to paleontological resources in the event that they are discovered during construction, including stopping work in the event potential resources are found, evaluation of the resource by a qualified paleontologist and appropriate handling and disposition of any potential resource. To the extent that any unique paleontological resources that might be found cannot be preserved in place, they will be made available for study by experts at the University of California Museum of Paleontology, who will be able to obtain from them any scientific information that they can contribute to ongoing advances in the field of paleontology. This mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.6-2 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential for the Project to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. IMPACT 3.8-1: POTENTIAL TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE

ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS

CEQA FINDINGS
66 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan

MATERIALS OR THROUGH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE UPSET AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS INVOLVING THE RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is discussed on pages 3.8-23 through 3.8-28 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4. (c) Findings. The Phase I ESA for the Berghill Property has revealed evidence of a historical recognized environmental condition and environmental issues in connection with the Project Area. Based on the conclusions of the Phase I ESA, an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program should be implemented to safely manage the suspect ACMs and LBP located at the subject property. Additionally, existing areas containing above ground storage tanks and storage of farm equipment would require soil sampling to assess the soil in these areas. Further, according to the Phase I ESA, the key site manager indicated there are four onsite agricultural water wells and one domestic well for the onsite residence. Should other groundwater wells be present onsite, the proper well abandonment permit would be obtained.

Areas within the Specific Plan Area, but outside the Berghill property, were part of a CEQA Hazards Assessment, which is limited to database searches, aerial reconnaissance, and literature and map review. While there has been no evidence of an environmental concern in these areas based on the Hazards Assessment, these areas did not include a site investigation or property owner questionnaires/interviews. It is anticipated that there are wells, storage tanks, buildings, and agricultural activities that present environmental concerns that warrant additional site investigation and potentially soil and groundwater testing. A Phase I ESA prepared for these areas would provide the additional site-specific information needed to determine if, and where, soil and groundwater testing may be warranted.

There is no evidence of a REC within the Specific Plan Area. Nevertheless, the Phase I ESA and Hazards Assessment has identified potential environmental concerns that should be evaluated further prior to ground disturbance. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will be required.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1, contained in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils, ensures compliance with existing regulatory requirements to prepare a SWPPP designed to control erosion and the loss of topsoil to the extent practicable using best management practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed effective in controlling erosion, sedimentation, and runoff during construction activities.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 67
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 requires the Project applicant for any property in the Specific Plan Area, except for the Berghill property, to submit a Phase I ESA for the property. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to supplement the research and analysis that has already been prepared for this area as part of the CEQA Hazards Assessment which is limited to database searches, aerial reconnaissance, and literature and map reviews. The Berghill property is excluded from this mitigation measure because a Phase I ESA has already been prepared for this property.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-2 requires the Project Applicant to hire a qualified consultant to perform additional soil and site testing. There may be additional areas identified in the Phase I ESAs prepared for areas outside the Berghill Property in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.8-1; however, the following areas of the Berghill Property have already been deemed to have potentially hazardous conditions present:
• The residential units and adjoining structures.
• The remnant construction and/or farming materials (i.e., remnant pipes, etc.). • The soils in the area where farming equipment and above ground tanks have been stored.

A soil sampling and analysis workplan is also required to be submitted for approval by the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources prior to the work. The measure also includes steps to take if the sampling results indicate the presence of agrichemicals that exceed commercial screening levels, or if asbestos-containing materials and/or lead are found in buildings.

Further, Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 requires the applicant to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the Stanislaus County Division of Environmental Resources (CUPA) for review and approval.

Lastly, Mitigation Measure 3.8-4 requires any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well to obtain a well abandonment permit from Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources, and properly abandon the onsite wells, pursuant to review and approval of the City Engineer and the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-4 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,

CEQA FINDINGS
68 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. IMPACT 3.9-1: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO VIOLATE WATER QUALITY

STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OR OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE SURFACE OR GROUND WATER QUALITY.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality is discussed on pages 3.9-27 through 3.9-31 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2. (c) Findings. The ongoing operational phase of the proposed Project requires the final discharge of stormwater into the on-site detention basins. The discharge of stormwater must be treated through BMPs prior to its discharge. The City of Riverbank implements best management practices to the extent they are technologically achievable to prevent and reduce pollutants.

Additionally, there are various non-structural and structural stormwater BMPs that can be implemented to reduce water pollution. Non-structural BMPs are typically aimed at prevention of pollution through public education and outreach. Non-structural BMPs include: school educational programs, newsletters, website information, commercial, billboards/advertisements, river cleanups, and storm drain stenciling. Structural BMPS are aimed at the physical collection, filtering, and detaining of stormwater. Structural BMPs include items such as drop inlet filters, vault filters, hydrodynamic separators, surface detention basins, and underground detention facilities.

The mitigation measures would ensure that BMPs are implemented during construction and operation to reduce the amount of pollution in stormwater discharged from the Project Area into the on-site MID facilities. The management of water quality through obtaining a General Industrial Stormwater Permit and implementing BMPs is intended to ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would violate water quality standards. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 are appropriate changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts these measures, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 69
record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

H. NOISE

1. IMPACT 3.11-2: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY RESULT IN VIBRATION IMPACTS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential to result in construction vibration is discussed on pages

3.11-17 and 3.11-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.11-3.
(c) Findings. Except for vibratory compactors, the Table 3.11-12 data indicates that construction vibration levels anticipated for the Project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at 25 feet. Use of vibratory compactors within 26 feet of the adjacent buildings could cause vibrations more than 0.2 in/sec. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction-related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are potentially located within 26 feet, or less, from future development. It is noted that, due to the size and location of the Specific Plan Area, most construction activities would occur at distances further than 26 feet.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 requires that compaction less than 26 feet from the adjacent residential structures be accomplished by using static drum rollers which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an alternative to this requirement, pre-construction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring could be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 will ensure that these potential impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Sensitive receptors will not be subjected to vibrations more than 0.2 in/sec.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to generate construction vibration will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
70 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
I. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. IMPACT 3.14-2: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN A

DETERMINATION BY THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND/OR COLLECTION PROVIDER WHICH

SERVES THE PROJECT THAT THE PROVIDER DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE CAPACITY TO SERVE THE PROJECT’S PROJECTED DEMAND IN ADDITION TO THE PROVIDER’S EXISTING COMMITMENTS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves the project that the provider does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments is discussed on pages 3.14-14 through 3.14-19 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 3.14-1.
(c) Findings. The proposed Specific Plan would require sewer allocation for each phase of development as the phase is constructed through 2040. Allocation of available sewer capacity would be made at the time payment of the appropriate connection fees is made to the City to cover a pro-rata fair share of the capital cost for the sewer capacity.

The WWTP upgrades, if built, are anticipated to increase capacity of the plant by 0.69 mgd once funding is secured, of which the proposed Specific Plan will require 0.64 mgd at buildout. The first 5-10 years of construction phases may be adequately served by the WWTP upgrades that add 0.69 mgd; however, it may be necessary for additional WWTP upgrades based on other development that occurs throughout the City. Overall, the Specific Plan’s capacity needs may exceed the wastewater discharge requirements from the wastewater treatment provider, which will depend on future project demands and WWTP upgrade implementation. WWTP upgrades are dependent on financing, as well, as design, engineering, and construction schedule that is not yet secure. This is a potentially significant impact, however, mitigation that limits construction to only those units that have secured capacity would ensure that there is no exceedance of sewer capacity. With implementation of the following mitigation measure the proposed project would have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

In accordance with PRC § 21081(a)(1), Mitigation Measure 3.14-1 is an appropriate change or alteration that has been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoids or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The City Council hereby adopts the measure, which, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that the potential to result in a determination by the wastewater treatment and/or collection provider which serves the project that the provider does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 71
V. FINDINGS REGARDING THOSE IMPACTS WHICH ARE LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE
Specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects were found to be less than significant even in the absence of mitigation, as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.1-2 and 3.1-3.

Agricultural Resources: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant:

3.2-2.

Air Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.3-2, 3.3- 3, and 3.3-5.

Biological Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant:

3.4-5, 3.4-7, and 3.4-8.

Geology and Soils: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.6- 1, 3.6-3, and 3.6-4.

Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.7-3, and 3.7-4.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.8-2, 3.8-3, 3.8-4, 3.8-5, and 3.8-6.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.9-2, 3.9-3, 3.9-4, and 3.9-5.

Land Use, Population, and Housing: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.10-1, 3.10-2, and 3.10-3.

Public Services and Recreation: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.12-2, 3.12-4, and 3.12-5.

Transportation and Circulation: The following specific impact was found to be less than significant: 3.13-4.

Utilities: The following specific impacts were found to be less than significant: 3.14-4 and

3.14-6.

The Project was found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to specific impacts within the following categories of environmental effects as set forth in more detail in the Draft EIR.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The following specific impacts were found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.1 and 4.3.

CEQA FINDINGS
72 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
Land Use and Population: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable: 4.15 and 4.16.

Utilities: The following specific impact was found to be less than cumulatively considerable:

4.24. The above impacts are less than significant or less than cumulatively considerable for one of the following reasons:
• The EIR determined that the impact is less than significant for the Project; • The EIR determined that the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact; or
• The EIR determined that the impact is beneficial (would be reduced) for the Project.

VI. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
An EIR is required to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to the project. The “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c).) “Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1).)
The underlying purpose of the proposed Project is the expansion of the City of Riverbank Sphere of Influence, and approval and subsequent implementation of the Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California.

The underlying project purpose of providing housing for the county and state is in part a response to, and is driven by, strong policy direction from the Legislature, which has declared that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5[a][2][A].) “California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state's housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” (Id., Section 65589.5[a][1][B].) “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 73
jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Id., Section 65589.5[a][1][C].) “An additional consequence of the state's cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly workingand middle-class households. California's cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.” (Id., Section 65589.5[a][2][I].) The Project is intended to directly address these legislative concerns.

Consistent with the above-described underlying purpose and state policy considerations, the primary objectives of the Specific Plan are to establish the framework for a new mixed-use community, allowing residents to live in a community where they can enjoy a high quality of life with abundant opportunities for outdoor recreation and social activities. The following goals have been established as a framework to achieving the primary objectives for the Specific Plan and for purposes of satisfying the requirement, in CEQA Guidelines section 15124[b], to identify a “statement of objectives” for the Project:
• Goal 1: Develop a mix of residential housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market.
• Goal 2: Prioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place by remaining in the River Walk community as their housing needs may change.
• Goal 3: Develop a community core area that serves as a central community gathering place for social interaction, recreation, retail, services, and living space. • Goal 4: Promote health and wellness through extensive pedestrian and bicycle trails, outdoor recreation areas, and opportunities for social interaction. • Goal 5: Respect the natural resources (i.e., Stanislaus River), terrain, and character of land by designing a residential community that highlights the scenic views of the Plan Area. • Goal 6: Achieve a safe and efficient circulation system for all users and modes of transportation.
• Goal 7: Highlight village identity while promoting community amenities.

The Project goals and objectives, presented above, were developed by the City in response to the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, and the City’s desire to facilitate the construction of new housing in the face of the housing crisis. In establishing these objectives, the City has given attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of reduced housing density, and has framed the objectives to allow evaluation of a range of development scenarios for the Project site.

CEQA FINDINGS
74 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
B. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS IN EIR
The alternatives analysis provides a summary of the relative impact levels of significance associated with each alternative for each of the environmental issue areas analyzed in the Draft EIR. The environmental analysis for each of the alternatives is included in Chapter 5.0.

1. NO PROJECT (NO BUILD) ALTERNATIVE:

The No Project (No Build) Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-6, 5.0-7, and 5.0-8 through 5.0-17 of the Draft EIR. Under the No Project (No Build) Alternative development of the Plan Area would not occur, and the Plan Area would remain in its current existing condition. The current uses in the Project Area are predominantly agricultural operations, including almond and walnut orchards in the eastern/southeastern portion of the Project Area and cherry orchards and agricultural land in the western/central portion of the Project Area. Under this alternative, the Plan Area would not be annexed to the City and would remain subject to County planning indefinitely. The Stanislaus County General Plan designates most of the Project Area as Agriculture (AG), and a small portion (5 acres including APNs 074-005-012, 074-005-013, 074-005-010, 074-005-011) of the eastern Project Area as Urban Transition (UT). The Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance currently designates the majority of the Project Area for General Agriculture 40 Acre (A-2-40) uses, and a limited portion (APNs 074- 005-012, 074-005-013, 074-005-010, 074-005-011) as General Agriculture 10 Acre (A-2-10). It is noted that the No Project (No Build) Alternative would fail to meet the Project objectives. See Figure

5.0-1, No Project (No Build) Alternative, in Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR which shows the existing site conditions.

Environmental Findings: Environmental benefits of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction of impacts to all impacts and environmental topics, including: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Population, and Housing, Noise, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities.

Feasibility Considerations: While the City recognizes the environmental benefits of the No Project (No Build) Alternative, this alternative would not achieve the underlying purpose of the Project or any of the Project objectives. Specifically, this alternative would not: expand the City of Riverbank Sphere of Influence or approve and implement the River Walk Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California; develop a mix of residential housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market; prioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place; develop a community core area that serves as a central community gathering place for social interaction, recreation, retail, services, and living space; promote health and wellness through extensive pedestrian and bicycle trails, outdoor recreation areas, and opportunities for social interaction; respect the natural resources (i.e., Stanislaus River), terrain, and character of land by designing a residential community that highlights the scenic views of the Plan Area; achieve a safe and efficient circulation system for all users and modes of transportation; or highlight village identity while promoting community amenities.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 75
In short, the No Project (No Build) Alternative represents a lost opportunity to build housing and therefore to make progress towards ameliorating the statewide housing crisis. In the City Council’s judgment, this would be an undesirable outcome from a public policy standpoint. The City Council notes that in 2017, in amending a law known as the Housing Accountability Act (Stats. 2017, ch. 368), the Legislature found that, “[a]ccording to reports and data, California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a).) “California’s overall homeownership rate is at its lowest level since the 1940s. The state ranks 49th out of the 50 states in homeownership rates as well as in the supply of housing per capita. Only one-half of California’s households are able to afford the cost of housing in their local regions.” (Ibid.) This housing crisis “threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” (Ibid.) “The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Ibid.) “An additional consequence of the state’s cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly working- and middle-class households. California’s cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.” (Ibid.) Two years later, the Legislature enacted the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Stats. 2019, ch. 654), the centerpiece of which is Government Code section 66300. In passing this legislation, the Legislature found that “[t]he housing crisis harms families across California and has resulted in all the following:
(A) Increased poverty and homelessness, especially first-time homelessness. (B) Forced lower income residents into crowded and unsafe housing in urban areas. (C) Forced families into lower cost new housing in greenfields at the urban-rural interface with longer commute times and a higher exposure to fire hazard. (D) Forced public employees, health care providers, teachers, and others, including critical safety personnel, into more affordable housing farther from the communities they serve, which will exacerbate future disaster response challenges in high-cost, highcongestion areas and increase risk to life. (E) Driven families out of the state or into communities away from good schools and services, making the ZIP Code where one grew up the largest determinate of later access to opportunities and social mobility, disrupting family life, and increasing health problems due to long commutes that may exceed three hours per day.” (2019 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 654 (S.B. 330), § 2(a)(6).) CEQA takes concerns of these kinds into account. The Legislature intends that public agencies, in regulating private activities affecting the environment, “shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian.” (PRC § 21000(g), italics added.) Public Resources

CEQA FINDINGS
76 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
Code Section 21159.26 states that “[w]ith respect to a project that includes a housing development, a public agency may not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or project alternative for a particular significant effect on the environment if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation measure or project alternative that would provide a comparable level of mitigation. This section does not affect any other requirement regarding the residential density of that project.”
The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not provide any new housing, and thus would not meet, to any degree, the above-described project purpose, project objectives, or statewide policies favoring the production of new housing. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would lead to an undesirable policy outcome. The City Council therefore rejects the No Project (No Build) Alternative as infeasible. (See Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision [a][3].)

2. INCREASED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE:

The Increased Density Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-7, and 5.0-17 through 5.0-27 of the Draft EIR. Under the Increased Density Alternative, the proposed Project would be developed with the same amenities as described in the Project Description, but the density of the residential uses would be increased, and the total development footprint would be equal to the proposed Specific Plan. This alternative would include development of more apartments and auto court multi-family units than under the proposed Project. Under the Increased Density Alternative, the same number of residential units as the proposed Project (2,432 to 2,682 units) would be constructed. However, this alternative would include development of 50 percent medium- and high-density units, and 50 percent low density units. The residential and mixed-use areas would be clustered in the central and southern portions of the Project site at increased densities to allow for an increase in park areas in the northwestern portion of the Plan Area. This alternative would also plan for parks, trails, circulation improvements, and utility improvements in a similar way as the proposed Project.

Additionally, the Mixed-Use areas would provide an estimated 341,000 to 836,000 sf of commercial/retail uses, identical to the proposed Project. Under this alternative, the proposed Mixed Use areas near the northwestern Plan Area entry point would be relocated along Patterson Road where the other proposed Mixed Use areas are proposed. See Figure 5.0-2, Increased Density Alternative, which shows a conceptual site plan for this alternative.

Environmental Findings: The Increased Density Alternative would reduce impacts related to 24 impact statements, increase impacts related to one impact statement, and equal impacts related to 38 impact statements. Impacts related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Transportation and Circulation would be reduced compared to the Project.

The remaining resources areas (Agricultural Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use, Population and Housing, Noise, Public Services, and Utilities) would have equal or greater impacts to the Project.

In general, the physical environmental footprint of the Increased Density Alternative, in terms of areas to be graded and developed, would be approximately the same as that of the Project. As the Draft EIR stated, “the total disturbance area would be equal to the Project.” (DEIR, p. 5.0-20.) The

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 77
primary reason for impact reductions under the Increased Density Alternative is the more compact form of development it embodies, in which many single-family homes would be replaced with medium-density and high-density residential units. As described on page 5.0-7, “[u]nder the Increased Density Alternative, the same number of residential units as the proposed Project (2,432 to 2,682 units) would be constructed. However, this alternative would include development of 50 percent medium and high density units, and 50 percent low density units. The residential and mixed use areas would be clustered in the central and southern portions of the Project site at increased densities to allow for an increase in park areas in the northwestern portion of the Plan Area.” In contrast, assuming a total of up to 2,432 residential dwelling units within its residential designations, the Specific Plan component of the proposed Project would include 1,550 low density units, 702 medium density units, and 180 high density units. (DEIR, p. 2.0-8.) Thus, low density units would make up approximately 64 percent of total residential units.

The discussion of the Increased Density Alternative’s impacts relating to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as found on DEIR page 5.0-24, reveals the main environmental benefit of the more compact form of development that would occur under this alternative. This benefit comes from the facts that “the trip rate[s] for medium and high density residential units are less than for low density residential units,” and that, as a result, total VMT would be reduced under this alternative. On pages

5.0-19 and 5.0-20, the Draft EIR explains that, because of diminished VMT, “[o]verall, the Increased Density Alternative would result in reduced air emissions when compared to the proposed Project.” Feasibility Considerations: Although the alternative would provide the same overall number of housing units as the Project would produce, the mix would be different. As noted above, this alternative includes development of 50% medium and high density units, and 50% low density units, while the proposed Project, in contrast, would result in a greater mix and variety of housing types, with a greater emphasis on lower density units. As noted above, low density units would make up approximately 64 percent of total residential units under the Project.

The Draft EIR explains that, compared with the proposed Project, the Increased Density Alternative would be less effective than the Project in meeting the project objective to “[d]evelop a mix of housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market.” The Draft EIR also concludes that the alternative would also be less effective than the Project in meeting the objective to “[p]rioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place by remaining in the River Walk community as their housing needs may change.” (See DEIR, p. 5.0-50.) Importantly, for residents to be able to age in place, the community in which they live will need to include a variety of housing types and densities consistent with the needs of individuals, couples, and families as they grow older. For example, people often live in multi-family or other high-density housing in their younger years before they can afford to purchase single family homes. At that point in their lives, they are starting their careers, and their purchasing power is limited. Later, as they make a better living, these people opt to purchase, and live in, single family homes in which they can raise children if they choose to do so.

When these people get older (e.g., after their children have grown up), they may lose interest in continuing to bear the burdens of maintaining such homes; or they may find the burdens of home maintenance to be too taxing physically. Older people may want to move into condominiums or

CEQA FINDINGS
78 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
town homes with smaller yards requiring less upkeep (or no yards at all). Ultimately, even older people may choose to move into facilities offering options such as “independent living,” “assisted living,” “skilled nursing care,” “memory care,” and “hospice.” They may seek out facilities that are physically close to where their adult children live. The proposed project has been carefully designed to embody a land use mix that can accommodate all these housing types and options, thereby allowing individuals to live in the same community over the course of several decades. The Increased Density Alternative, in contrast, has not been designed with this approach in mind. Its overabundance of higher density uses would allow younger people to live in apartments but would provide far fewer options for the purchase of single-family homes.

Importantly, the Project site is located within a geographic area in which nearby residential use consists of rural residences and traditional one- and two-story single-family homes. As the Draft EIR states on page 3.10-3, “[t]he Project Area is bounded on the north by the Stanislaus River and Stanislaus County Limits, on the south by Patterson Road, on the west by McHenry Avenue, and on the east by single-family residential subdivisions, one of which is within the city limits and the other is to the north within the unincorporated county. Uses immediately adjacent to the south and southwest of the Project Area include agricultural uses and residential uses, including ranchettes and large estates lots. Uses directly southeast of the Project Area include agricultural uses and a single-family residential subdivision. Other existing uses east of the southerly portion of the Project Area include a single-family residential subdivision and a commercial center. Uses immediately west of the Project Area include active agricultural land and the Del Rio Country Club, including a golf course and associated single-family residential subdivision. Other nearby uses include agricultural uses and residential uses, including ranchettes and large estates lots to the north, northeast, and northwest across the Stanislaus River.

Given the low density character of existing development in the areas close to the Project site, the City Council is concerned that the comparatively larger amount of land planned for higher land use densities in the Increased Density Alternative would make the alternative, in comparison to the Project, less compatible with surrounding uses, which have relatively low densities. For this reason, the City Council considers the policy outcome embodied in the Increased Density Alternative to be undesirable in comparison to the policy outcome embodied in the Project. Although the Project would include 702 medium density units and 180 high density units, these higher density uses would make up only about 36 percent of the total residential units rather than 50 percent. The Project will provide substantial amounts of higher density housing but will predominately be a single-family community. The Project, the City Council believes, is a better “fit” for the general area in which it would be located.

Although the City Council appreciates the environmental benefits associated with a reduction in overall VMT, the City Council notes that the criteria pollutant air quality effects of the Project can be rendered less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-24 – 3.3-41 [air quality impacts], 4.0- 7 [cumulative air quality effects], 5.0-47 [Table 5.0-4].) In the Council’s legislative judgment, foregoing the reductions in VMT that could be achieved through the alternative are an acceptable tradeoff for the benefits of improved compatibility that would occur under the Project. The Council

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 79
has engaged in a reasonable balancing of these competing environmental, economic, and social considerations and has found in favor of land use compatibility concerns.

The City Council recognizes, and does not discount, that the reduction in vehicle miles traveled achievable under the Increased Density Alternative would reduce the severity of impacts that remain significant and unavoidable under the Project, specifically Impact 3.7-1 and Impact 4.9 (greenhouse gas emissions), Impact 3.7-2 (consistency with the Scoping Plan), and Impact 3.13-2 and Impact 4.19 (vehicle miles traveled). The criteria pollutant conclusion described above does not address those impacts, which are separate. The City Council has therefore weighed the alternative’s reduction of those significant and unavoidable impacts directly against the considerations that favor the Project, and finds as follows.

First, the Draft EIR does not conclude that the Increased Density Alternative would reduce any of those impacts to a less than significant level. The alternative would develop the same number of residential units on the same total disturbance area as the Project, and the greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled impacts would remain significant and unavoidable under the alternative.

What the alternative offers is an incremental reduction in the severity of impacts that would remain significant either way, not the avoidance of a significant effect. Second, the reduction the alternative offers is itself uncertain in magnitude, resting on the difference in trip rates between low density and medium and high density residential units rather than on any measured outcome. Third, the alternative would achieve that incremental reduction at the cost of two of the Project’s central objectives, developing a mix of residential housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market, and prioritizing the age-restricted development as a community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age in place, and at the cost of the land use compatibility considerations described above.

Under Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(3), and the authorities discussed in Section II, above, an alternative may be found infeasible on the ground that it is inconsistent with the project objectives, and “feasibility” at the approval stage encompasses desirability based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.

Having weighed the incremental and uncertain reduction in greenhouse gas and vehicle miles traveled impacts that the Increased Density Alternative would deliver against the alternative’s diminished attainment of the Project’s housing mix and aging-in-place objectives and its reduced compatibility with the surrounding low density development pattern, the City Council finds that the balance favors the Project, and it accepts the foregone reduction as a considered tradeoff rather than an overlooked one.

The City Council notes, too, that the Project applicant is seeking approval of the Specific Plan as found in the proposed Project, and is not seeking approval of the Increased Density Alternative. The applicant’s proposal reflects its own assessment of market conditions and financial considerations such as the cost of infrastructure and the rate of return on investment, and the City Council does not purport to make an independent finding of economic infeasibility on this record. The Specific Plan also reflects the professional input from the applicant’s engineers, consultants, attorneys, and other development experts. If the City Council were to approve the Increased Density Alternative,

CEQA FINDINGS
80 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
there would be no certainty that the applicant would pursue that alternative with the same vigor with which it would pursue the Project, or that the applicant would pursue the alternative at all.

Under the circumstances, the City Council is inclined to give weight to the Project applicant’s professional expert judgment regarding the precise housing mix to propose on the subject properties. Approval of a Specific Plan substantially different than the one proposed seems less likely to result in the actual construction of housing, which is a policy imperative for both the City Council and the Legislature. Considering the importance of housing construction, the City Council sees no reason to impose on the applicant a development mix and configuration at odds with what the applicant has proposed. As the courts have said, a local agency decision-making body “may approve a developer’s choice of a project once its significant adverse environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environment has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable.” (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521, italics added.) Importantly, the applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures proposed in the EIR, and all of them have been adopted and will be implemented. As set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to these findings, the City Council finds the remaining significant unavoidable impacts to be acceptable tradeoffs for the benefit of the Project.

For all of these reasons, including (i) the failure of the Increased Density Alternative to meet two key project objectives to the same extent that the Project would, (ii) concerns about the comparative compatibility of the Increased Density Alternative with surrounding land uses, and (iii) the Council’s determination that the policy outcome embodied in the Project is preferable to that embodied in the Alternative, the City Council considers the policy outcome embodied in the Increased Density Alternative to be undesirable in comparison to the policy outcome embodied in the Project and to be infeasible within the meaning of CEQA. (See Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision [a][3].)

3. LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE:

The Lower Density Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-7, and 5.0-27 through 5.0-35 of the Draft EIR. Under the Lower Density Alternative, the proposed Project would be developed in such a way to promote larger lot sizes and to reduce the overall footprint of the developed areas. This alternative would include development of custom homes on approximately 8,000 sf lots, as compared to the 5,000 sf or larger lot sizes for the low density residential units proposed by the Project. Under the Lower Density Alternative, the number of residential units constructed in the Plan Area would be reduced by 25 percent compared to the proposed Project. Under the proposed Project, 2,432 to 2,682 residential units would be constructed; this alternative would result in construction of 1,824 to 2,011 units. This alternative would also plan for parks, trails, circulation improvements, and utility improvements. Additionally, the Mixed Use areas would provide an estimated 341,000 to 836,000 sf of commercial/retail uses, identical to the proposed Project. See Figure 5.0-3, Lower Density Alternative, which shows a conceptual site plan for this alternative.

Environmental Findings: The Lower Density Alternative would reduce impacts related to 30 impact statements and would have equal impacts related to 33 impact statements. Environmental benefits

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 81
of this alternative over the proposed Project include the reduction or slight reduction of impacts related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Transportation and Circulation, and Utilities. The remaining resources areas (Agricultural Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials, Land Use, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, and Utilities) would have equal or similar impacts to the Project.

Feasibility Considerations: While the City Council recognizes the environmental benefits of the Lower Density Alternative, this alternative would not achieve the Project’s underlying purpose as well as the Project would and would not meet all the Project objectives. The underlying project purpose includes the approval and subsequent implementation of the Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California. Under the Lower Density Alternative, the number of residential units constructed in the Plan Area would be reduced by 25 percent compared to the proposed Project. Whereas the proposed Project would yield between 2,432 and 2,682 residential units, the alternative would result in construction of only 1,824 to 2,011 units. This substantial reduction in the number of housing units makes the Lower Density Alternative a substantially less effective vehicle for addressing the statewide housing crisis.

Relatedly, the Lower Density Alternative would fail to meet the project objective to “[d]evelop a mix of housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market” because only low density residential units would be provided. For the same reason, the alternative would be less effective than the Project in meeting the project objective to “[p]rioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place by remaining in the River Walk community as their housing needs may change.” (DEIR, p. 5.0-50.) Large lots would be inappropriate for many people 55 years and older who will not want the maintenance responsibilities that go with large lots.

Considering the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, the City Council has good reason to exercise its legislative discretion to facilitate the construction of as much new housing as is economically feasible consistent with sound land use planning. As noted earlier, Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A), states that “[t]he lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” Subdivision (a)(1)(D) of that section adds that “[m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.”
The applicant has proposed a Specific Plan that would yield between 2,432 and 2,682 residential units. That being the case, the City Council sees no need to reduce the yield by 25 percent. The applicant’s proposal reflects its own assessment of market conditions and financial considerations such as the cost of infrastructure and the need, at the end of the day, to realize a reasonable rate of return on investment. The Specific Plan also reflects the professional input from the applicant’s engineers, consultants, attorneys, and other development experts. If the City Council were to approve the Lower Density Alternative, there would be no certainty that the applicant would pursue

CEQA FINDINGS
82 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
that alternative with the same vigor with which it would pursue the Project, or that the applicant would pursue the alternative at all.

Under the circumstances, the City Council is inclined to give weight to the Project applicant’s professional expert judgment regarding the housing numbers to propose on the subject properties.

Approval of a Specific Plan substantially different than the one proposed would be certain to yield fewer housing units, contrary to state policy strongly encouraging housing construction. Considering the clear social benefits of new housing, the City Council sees no reason to force the applicant to reduce the proposed housing yield. As the courts have said, a local agency decision-making body “may approve a developer’s choice of a project once its significant adverse environmental effects have been reduced to an acceptable level that is, all avoidable significant damage to the environment has been eliminated and that which remains is otherwise acceptable.” (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521, italics added.) Importantly, the applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures proposed in the EIR, and all of them have been adopted and will be implemented. As set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to these findings, the City Council finds the remaining significant unavoidable impacts to be acceptable tradeoffs for the benefits of the Project.

For all of these reasons, including (i) the failure of the Lower Density Alternative to meet the underlying project purpose as well as the Project would, (ii) the alternative’s failure to meet the project objective to “[d]evelop a mix of housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market,” (iii) the alternative’s comparative ineffectiveness in meeting the project objective to “[p]rioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place,” and (iv) the Council’s determination that the policy outcome embodied in the Project is preferable to that embodied in the Alternative, the City Council considers the policy outcome embodied in the Lower Density Alternative to be undesirable in comparison to the policy outcome embodied in the Project and to be infeasible within the meaning of CEQA. (See Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision [a][3].)

4. NO RESERVE ALTERNATIVE:

The No Reserve Alternative is discussed on pages 5.0-7, 5.0-8, and 5.0-35 through 5.0-46 of the Draft EIR. Under the No Reserve Alternative, the proposed Project would be developed with the same amenities as described in the Project Description, but the Reserve Area located outside the Specific Plan Area would be removed from the Project Area. The same number of residential units as the proposed Project (2,432 to 2,682 units) would be constructed. This alternative would also plan for parks, trails, circulation improvements, and utility improvements in a similar way as the proposed Project. Additionally, the Mixed Use areas would provide an estimated 341,000 to 836,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses, identical to the proposed Project. However, the Reserve Area would be removed from the Project area. As such, the Project Area would be reduced from 1,522 acres under the proposed Project to 997 acres. The SOI expansion would include all 997 acres. See Figure 5.0-4, No Reserve Alternative, which shows a conceptual site plan for this alternative.

Environmental Findings: The No Reserve Alternative would result in equal impacts in all areas and for all impacts, except for one Land Use related impact statement (Impact 3.10-3: Potential to Induce

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 83
Substantial Population Growth). (See DEIR, pp. 3.10-33 – 3.10-36, 5.0-48 [Table 5.0-4].) Notably, the effect is less than significant for the proposed project, despite the inclusion of the Reserve area within the overall Project area. (Id. at p. 3-10-36.) The reasons for this conclusion were expanded on page 2.0-161 of the Final EIR (Response G-63):
• On page 3.10-34, the Draft EIR states that “[g]rowth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the growth is not consistent with or accommodated by the land use plans and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local land use plans typically provide for land use development patterns and growth policies that allow for the orderly expansion of urban development supported by adequate urban public services, such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer service, and solid waste service.” Under this description of how growth inducement may result in adverse impacts, the City stands by its conclusion, set forth on page 3.10-36, that the Project’s growth-inducing impacts will be less than significant.
• The expansion of the SOI, by itself, does not per se result in significant growth-inducing impacts, as land within an SOI cannot be developed by the City unless and until, at some future date, the City prezones the property and Stanislaus LAFCo approves the annexation of that territory into the City – an outcome that will have to be preceded by substantial planning efforts and additional environmental review. Such planning and environmental review will ensure that any expansion of the City’s boundaries and the areas in which urban services will be provided will occur on an orderly basis. • Similarly, the assignment of the Reserve (R) designation to additional property does not per se result in significant growth-inducing impacts. The R designation is a City of Riverbank General Plan land use designation that does not denote any specific land use but rather is an overlay designation that specifies additional requirements related to timing of development, analysis required by the City, infrastructure and service standards, and related topics. Before making Reserve areas eligible for consideration for urban development, the City will hold a public hearing and make required findings. The establishment of this as a use is not growth inducing, as it does not propose any growth or guarantee that any growth would occur. The General Plan speaks to this fact on page Land-11 when it states, “This designation does not necessarily imply urban development, but rather could be areas to preserve in natural open space or for agricultural use, for example.” It is speculative to draw a conclusion that the Reserve areas will be urban development before any consideration or evaluation has been performed. It is also considered speculative to draw a conclusion that the Reserve area will not be ultimately become urban development. The only definitive conclusion that can be drawn is that the Reserve areas will undergo more evaluation and consideration. Any environmental analysis conducted in the present would be so general as to not be meaningful, and thus is not required by CEQA. (See, e.g., East Oakland Stadium Alliance v. City of Oakland (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1226, 1250 [“[w]hen the environmental impact from a particular

CEQA FINDINGS
84 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
project feature cannot be reliably ascertained and estimated, it is properly characterized as speculative”]; Rodeo Citizens Assn. v. County of Contra Costa (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 214, 226 [“[a]n EIR is required to evaluate a particular environmental impact only to the extent it is ‘reasonably feasible’ to do so”]; Santa Rita Union School District v. City of Salinas (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 298, 350 [EIR “was not required to engage in ‘“‘sheer speculation’”’ based on non-specific and uncertain information about events or development that might occur in the future”], quoting Marin Municipal Water District v. KG Land California Corporation (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1662.) Here, the City has the right to exercise its legislative discretion to establish land uses in its General Plan, which includes the establishment of a Reserve designation. If there is a proposal for development in the Reserve areas, then it would become a ripe time to perform an analysis of that proposal. There is currently no proposal for development the Reserve area.

Despite the strength and persuasiveness of this reasoning, the City acknowledges that the inclusion of a Reserve area within an expanded SOI would have some limited practical real-world consequences, in that it represents the first step in a possible scenario that could ultimately – with many planning and environmental steps remaining to do – result in additional development such as new housing. As the Draft EIR explains on page 5.0-43, under the No Reserve Alternative “[t]he land in the Reserve Area and outside the Specific Plan Area would not be available for future City land use planning without future entitlements (such as SOI expansion and annexation). As such, the No Reserve Alternative would result in a reduction in indirect environmental impacts related to land use. Therefore, impacts relating to land use would be reduced under this alternative.” In other words, the No Reserve Alternative would leave an additional governmental/political barrier to development in place. From a physical environmental impact standpoint, there is no physical change to the Reserve area under the proposed Project or this alternative, regardless of the SOI boundary, so there are no physical environmental impacts under either alternative.

The main difference between these alternatives is that land within an SOI boundary is less restricted from future land development, whereas land outside of an SOI boundary would be more restricted, and would require more governmental approvals that lead to land development. This is a political impact, not an environmental impact. While the property owners of the Reserve area have not expressed any desire to annex into the City or develop their property, and there is no imminent expectation for development of this area in the foreseeable future, leaving additional governmental/political impediments makes it more likely that the Reserve area would remain undeveloped in the future, or at least for a more extended time frame. This impediment to development, which results in a diminished likelihood of ultimate future development of the Reserve area, would be considered a reduced long-term environmental consequence for essentially all environmental topics.

The City staff has identified McHenry Avenue as a logical and defensible boundary for the City’s Sphere of Influence, regardless of whether the Reserve area is developed or is maintained as open

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 85
space or in agricultural use in the future. The exclusion of the Reserve area under this alternative would conflict with the City’s desire that has been expressed.

Feasibility Considerations: Because the No Reserve Alternative would not reduce the severity of any of the significant and unavoidable physical environmental effects of the Project, adopting the alternative would do little to serve the “substantive mandate” of CEQA, by which agencies should reduce the severity of significant environmental effects where feasible. (See Pub. Resource Code Section 21002; Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134.) Even so, the City Council has determined that the alternative is less desirable than the Project from a public policy standpoint and does not provide the same level of benefits as the proposed Project. In the City Council’s judgment, the alternative is less effective than the proposed Project in meeting the fundamental purpose of expanding the City’s SOI and approving and implementing the Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California. As noted above, the City Council views McHenry Avenue as a logical boundary line for the SOI. The proposed Project would accomplish that objective, while the No Reserve Alternative would not. While the City Council recognizes the potential long-term environmental benefits of this alternative, this alternative would not achieve the fundamental project purpose as well as the proposed Project.

Thus, though nothing in CEQA requires the City Council to address the feasibility of the No Reserve Alternative, the City Council has determined that the alternative is infeasible insofar as it represents a public policy outcome less desirable than what would occur under the proposed Project. (See Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision [a][3].) The City Council acknowledges the discussion above concerning the possibility that inclusion of the Reserve area within an expanded Sphere of Influence could, over a long horizon and after further entitlements and further environmental review, make eventual development of that area somewhat more likely, and that removal of the Reserve area would leave an additional governmental impediment to such development in place. The City Council does not treat that acknowledgment as inconsistent with its conclusion here. The Draft EIR identified no physical change to the Reserve area under either the Project or this alternative, and it identified a reduction under this alternative in a single land use impact, Impact 3.10-3, which is less than significant under the Project. The alternative would not reduce any of the impacts identified in these Findings as significant and unavoidable. To the extent the alternative offers a speculative long-term benefit arising from the retention of a procedural barrier to development that no property owner has sought to cross, the City Council has weighed that consideration and finds it outweighed by the value of establishing a coherent Sphere of Influence boundary and by the Project’s attainment of its underlying purpose.

5. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE:

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative be identified among the alternatives that are analyzed in the EIR. If the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, an EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(2)). The environmentally superior alternative is that alternative with the least adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project.

CEQA FINDINGS
86 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
As shown on Table 5.0-4 of the Draft EIR (on pages 5.0-47 through 5.0-49), a comparison of alternatives is presented. As shown in the table, the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. As indicated above, however, the City Council has rejected that alternative as infeasible.

As required by CEQA, when the No Project (No Build) Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the environmentally superior alternative among the others must be identified. The Increased Density Alternative would reduce impacts related to 24 impact statements, increase impacts related to one impact statement, and equal impacts related to 38 impact statements. The Lower Density Alternative would reduce impacts related to 30 impact statements and would have equal impacts related to 33 impact statements. The No Reserve Alternative would result in equal impacts in all areas and for all impacts, except for one Land Use related impact statement. Therefore, the Lower Density Alternative would be the next environmentally superior alternative. The City Council recognizes that this comparison rests in part on the number of impact statements affected and that the count alone does not weigh the relative severity of the impacts reduced. The City Council has therefore also considered severity. The Lower Density Alternative would reduce impacts across a broader set of resource areas, including aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, transportation and circulation, and utilities, and would do so principally by reducing the overall development footprint and the number of residential units by 25 percent.

The Increased Density Alternative would reduce a narrower set of impacts on the same total disturbance area, would increase one impact, and would achieve its reductions principally through a shift in housing mix rather than a reduction in the area disturbed. Neither alternative would reduce any of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level. Weighing both the breadth and the character of the reductions, the City Council concurs that the Lower Density Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative among those other than the No Project (No Build) Alternative. As indicated above, however, the City Council has rejected that alternative as infeasible.

VII. STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As described in detail in Section III of these Findings, the following significant and unavoidable impacts could occur with implementation of the Project:
• Impact 3.1-1: Project implementation may result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character. • Impact 3.2-1: The proposed Specific Plan has the potential to result in the conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses. • Impact 3.7-1: Project implementation could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. • Impact 3.7-2: Project implementation could conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. • Impact 3.11-1: Construction of the proposed Project may generate significant noise.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 87
• Impact 3.11-3: The proposed Project may generate unacceptable traffic noise levels at existing receptors.
• Impact 3.11-4: The proposed Project may be subject to shooting range noise at new sensitive receptors.
• Impact 3.12-3: The proposed Project has the potential to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, and it will require the construction of park and recreational facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts.
• Impact 3.13-1: Implementation of the Specific Plan could conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
• Impact 3.13-2: Implementation of the Specific Plan could conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
• Impact 3.13-3: Implementation of the Specific Plan could substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
• Impact 3.14-1: The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. • Impact 3.14-3: The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Impact 3.14-5: The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. • Impact 4.2: Cumulative Degradation of the Existing Visual Character of the Region. • Impact 4.4: Cumulative Impact on Agricultural Resources. • Impact 4.9: Cumulative Impact on Climate Change from Increased Project-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Impact 4.17: Cumulative Exposure of Existing and Future Noise-Sensitive Land Uses to Increased Noise Resulting from Cumulative Development.
• Impact 4.18: Cumulative Impact on Public Services and Recreation. • Impact 4.19: Under Cumulative conditions, the proposed Project would conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). • Impact 4.21: Cumulative Impact on Wastewater Utilities. • Impact 4.22: Cumulative Impact on Water Utilities.
• Impact 4.23: Cumulative Impact on Stormwater Facilities.

The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City Council's judgment, the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial evidence supporting the enumerated benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding findings, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined in Section II. Each of the overriding considerations set forth

CEQA FINDINGS
88 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh its significant adverse environmental effects and is an overriding consideration warranting approval. Thus, if a court were to find that any particular benefit is not supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would rely on whatever benefit(s) that the court did find were supported by substantial evidence.

The City Council finds that the Project would have the following economic, social, and environmental benefits, each of which the City Council has weighed against the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental effects:

1. Expansion of the City's Housing Stock. One objective of the Project references developing a mix of residential housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market.

Considering the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, the State has provided the City with good reason to exercise its legislative discretion to facilitate the construction of new housing. Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A), states that “[t]he lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” Subdivision (a)(1)(D) of that section adds that “[m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.” The Project will provide housing resources to meet the demands of a growing population of the region, thereby helping to lessen upward pressure on housing costs. By adding new residential units in the City, the Project directly addresses the crisis, thereby furthering state housing policy while providing additional places for Riverbank residents to live.

Another objective of the Project references prioritizing age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-inplace. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, “[i]t is critical that individuals have access to housing that suits their needs during each stage of their lives. As people age, they often find themselves facing new or additional housing challenges. Senior households often have special housing needs related to physical disabilities/limitations, fixed incomes, and healthcare costs.” Additionally, Government Code Section 65583(a)(7)) requires “[a]n analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families, farmworkers, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter…”2 The 2 See: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/buildingblocks/seniors

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 89
Project would provide age-restricted housing for seniors, which is an identified special housing need in California.

2. Create Employment Opportunities for Local Residents. The Project will have a positive impact on employment levels in the City by generating diversity in employment opportunities, including near-term construction, home sales, and materials sales jobs. In the longer term, employment opportunities will include maintenance, contracting/renovation, landscaping, home resales, retail and food services, and other services. The Project population will also generate demand for local goods and services, increasing economic activity in the City. Consequently, it is reasonably expected that the City and its residents will enjoy the economic and social benefits from added employment opportunities and economic activity created by the Project. The River Walk Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis (EPS #252024, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., November 2025) (“FIA”) quantifies these employment and economic activity benefits. At full Project buildout, the Project is estimated to add over 5,000 new residents and over 1,100 new permanent employees in the commercial mixed-use areas, for a total of over 6,100 “persons served,” a metric the FIA derives by counting all residents and one-half of employees. (Persons served comprises 100% of residents plus 50% of employees). The residential population will generate approximately $72.1 million in annual retail expenditures within the region, of which approximately 70% is estimated to be captured within the City of Riverbank. The commercial component of the Project alone is projected to generate approximately $95.4 million in annual taxable retail sales from onsite retail activity at full buildout, supporting jobs in food and beverage, food services, general merchandise, clothing and apparel, and other retail and service categories. These figures represent a substantial and sustained addition to the City’s economic base.

3. Contribute to and Fund Needed Infrastructure Improvements. The Project consists of new development that will be required to contribute to needed infrastructure improvements by paying its fair share towards infrastructure improvements. The Project will also construct or contribute to funding other infrastructure improvements that will benefit additional development projects and City residents and visitors. Such infrastructure improvements include, without limitation: (i) extension and improvement of water supply, wastewater collection, and stormwater drainage systems needed to serve the Project and surrounding development; (ii) roadway improvements and new street connections, including improvements to Patterson Road and McHenry Avenue, that will benefit existing and future residents and businesses; (iii) a new pedestrian and bicycle trail system providing connectivity along the Stanislaus River bluff and through the Project Area; (iv) a Modesto Irrigation District trail and multi-use path crossing; (v) new and expanded parks and recreational facilities, including neighborhood parks, a regional trail system, and a community clubhouse; and (vi) regional utility infrastructure, including offsite sewer lines designed to serve capacity beyond the Project itself. These improvements advance the City’s General Plan goals and provide lasting public benefit.

CEQA FINDINGS
90 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan

4. Increase Customer Base for Retail Activity. The Project will provide additional residents to the City who will have disposable income to support the City's retailers and increase retail activity.

5. Generate Economic Benefits from Taxes. The Project will provide increased property tax revenue to the City, local schools, and other agencies. Additionally, residents will purchase items that will generate additional sales tax revenue. The Project also includes 76.76 acres of mixed uses, which would generate sales tax revenue. These revenues will benefit the City and other local governmental agencies, and their residents and constituencies, by providing needed revenue for the provision of required services and amenities. Specific to the City of Riverbank, these revenues will go to the City's General Fund, which is the primary source of funding for the construction, operation and maintenance of a number of essential City services, programs and facilities, including fire and police services, recreation programs, transit operations and administrative functions, among other things. These economic benefits are quantified in the River Walk Specific Plan Fiscal Impact Analysis (EPS #252024, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., November 2025) (“FIA”), which was prepared using the City’s FY 2024–25 Adopted Budget as the base fiscal year. The FIA finds the following at full Project buildout (2,707 residential units and 644,000 square feet of nonresidential commercial space): (a) the Project will generate approximately $4.01 million in annual General Fund revenues for the City of Riverbank, against approximately $2.23 million in annual General Fund expenditures attributable to the Project, producing an annual General Fund surplus of approximately $1.78 million (approximately $658 per residential unit) that can be used to fund City services benefiting all residents; (b) the Project will generate approximately $2.09 million per year in additional revenues to the City’s Community Facilities District (CFD) 2016-1, which funds ongoing services and maintenance costs including police services and street, parks, storm drainage, and landscaping maintenance; (c) when General Fund and CFD 2016-1 revenues are combined, the Project is projected to generate a net annual benefit to the City of approximately $1,430 per residential unit at buildout; (d) the Project will generate approximately $1.23 billion in new assessed valuation at buildout, with approximately $1.23 million in annual property tax revenue allocated to the City’s General Fund and an additional $686,000 per year allocated to the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District; (e) the Project will generate approximately $147.7 million in annual taxable sales at full buildout (combining market-support sales from new residents and employees with onsite retail activity), yielding approximately $1.48 million per year in Bradley-Burns local sales tax revenue to the City at the 1% rate; and (f) the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District, which currently operates at a deficit relative to Project-generated costs during the residential-only phases of development, is projected to achieve an annual surplus of approximately $210,000 at full buildout once the nonresidential component is developed and special assessment revenues are fully realized.

The FIA is part of the record before the City Council and constitutes substantial evidence supporting these fiscal benefit findings.

6. Positive Long-Term Fiscal Impact on City and Fire District Services. According to the FIA, the Project will produce a positive net fiscal impact for the City of Riverbank at full buildout.

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 91
The Project generates more revenue than it requires in City services—producing an annual General Fund surplus of approximately $1.78 million (approximately $658 per residential unit) and a combined General Fund and CFD 2016-1 annual net benefit of approximately $1,430 per residential unit. This means that the Project will contribute to the fiscal health of the City rather than creating a fiscal burden, allowing the City to sustain and improve the quality of services it provides to all residents. The FIA also finds that the Project will generate approximately $2.09 million annually for CFD 2016-1, which funds police services, parks and street maintenance, storm drainage, and landscaping. These are services that directly benefit all City residents. The Project’s fiscal contribution to CFD 2016-1 will help ensure that these services can be maintained at adequate levels as the City’s population grows.

With respect to the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District, the FIA acknowledges that the Project will create a short-term operating deficit during the residential-only phases of development (approximately $346,000 annually at 50% residential buildout). However, at full buildout—when the Project’s approximately 644,000 square feet of nonresidential commercial space is occupied and special benefit assessment revenues from commercial parcels are fully realized—the Fire District is projected to achieve an annual operating surplus of approximately $210,000. This trajectory reflects the importance of timely nonresidential development and is consistent with the Project’s mixed-use design, which pairs residential growth with commercial development to ensure long-term service funding adequacy. The City Council finds that the Project’s overall positive fiscal impact—as documented in the FIA and supported by substantial evidence in the record—constitutes a significant economic benefit that weighs in favor of approving the Project notwithstanding its significant unavoidable environmental effects.

7. Permanent Conservation of Agricultural Land, Open Space, and Public Trails. The Project would also produce environmental benefits, which the City Council has weighed in the balance. First, Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 requires the Project applicant to conserve farmland of equal value to the land converted, at a 1:1 ratio, in perpetuity, or to pay in-lieu fees that functionally achieve that conservation purpose. The Project will therefore result in the permanent protection of agricultural land that is presently unprotected and available for conversion, and Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 will require consistency with the Stanislaus LAFCo Agricultural Preservation policy and the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy. Second, the Reserve designation applied within the Project Area retains those lands in agricultural use under the Project and precludes their conversion absent separate future entitlements and separate environmental review. Third, the Specific Plan provides extensive open space and landscaping, a pedestrian and bicycle trail system providing connectivity along the Stanislaus River bluff and through the Project Area, a Modesto Irrigation District trail and multi-use path crossing, and new neighborhood and regional park and recreational facilities, all of which will be available to City residents and visitors. Fourth, as discussed in Section VI in connection with the Increased Density Alternative, the Specific Plan’s mixed-use retail areas would provide shopping and service destinations within the community and would incrementally reduce the length of trips made in this area. Fifth, the Project would locate new housing adjacent to the existing City limits, served by the extension of municipal water, wastewater, and stormwater systems, rather than dispersing that housing to locations more

CEQA FINDINGS
92 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
remote from existing infrastructure, employment, and services. The City Council finds that each of these considerations constitutes an environmental benefit of the Project that weighs in favor of its approval notwithstanding the Project’s significant unavoidable environmental effects.

CONCLUSION
The City Council has balanced these benefits and considerations against the significant unavoidable environmental effects of the Project and has concluded that the impacts are outweighed by these benefits. After balancing environmental impacts against Project benefits, the City Council has concluded that the benefits the City will derive from the Project, as compared to existing and planned future conditions, outweigh the risks. The City Council believes the Project benefits outlined above override the significant and unavoidable environmental costs associated with the Project.

In sum, the City Council adopts the mitigation measures in the Final EIR, adopts the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and approves the Project, after finding that any residual or remaining effects on the environment resulting from the Project, identified as significant and unavoidable in the preceding Findings of Fact, are acceptable due to the benefits set forth in the preceding Statement of Overriding Considerations.

FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-1 This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (FMMRP) for the River Walk Specific Plan (Project). This FMMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to “adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A FMMRP is required for the proposed Project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts.

The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the Draft EIR.

6.1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The FMMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in this Final EIR.

The City of Riverbank will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures and will continue to monitor mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the proposed Project.

The FMMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the FMMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR in the same order that they appear in that document.
• Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the agency that is responsible for mitigation monitoring.
• Compliance Verification: This is a space that is available for the monitor to date and initial when the monitoring or mitigation implementation took place.

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan TABLE 6.0-1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.2-1: The proposed
Specific Plan has the potential to
result in the conversion of
Farmlands, including Prime Farm
land, Unique Farmland, and
Farmland of Statewide
Importance, as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California
Resources Agency, to nonagricultural uses.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project applicant shall secure permanent protection of offsite farmland based on a 1:1 ratio to the amount of gross Farmland converted as a result of development, consistent with the requirements of the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy.

The acreage requiring agricultural mitigation shall be equal to the portion of the site dedicated to residential uses which would be subject to the discretionary development entitlement and lands designated as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. Permanent preservation shall consist of the purchase of agricultural conservation easements granted in perpetuity from willing seller(s), enforceable deed restrictions, purchase of banked mitigation credits, or other conservation mechanisms acceptable to the City. Land set aside for permanent preservation shall: (1) be of equal or better soil quality, have a dependable and sustainable supply of irrigation water, and be located within Stanislaus County; and (2) not be previously encumbered by a conservation easement of any nature.

The permanent protection of farmland shall be accomplished by either: (1) the landowner/developer working directly with an established farmland trust or similar organization, such as the Central Valley Farmland Trust, and providing certification satisfactory to the City that such lands have been permanently preserved at the specified ratio; or (2) working with a qualified land trust or similar organization, such as the Central Valley Farmland Trust, to establish a fee for agricultural land conservation easements.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-2: Prior to the conversion of agricultural lands in the Specific Plan Area, the Project applicant shall participate in the Stanislaus LAFCo’s Agricultural Preservation Policy (as amended on March 27, 2019), consistent with the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy. The Project applicant shall prepare a “Plan for Agricultural Preservation”, which shall include information such as the Project’s direct and indirect impacts to agricultural resources, the availability of other lands in the City of Riverbank’s existing boundaries, and relevant General Plan policies. The Plan shall also specify the method or strategy proposed to minimize the loss of agricultural City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Prior to Grading

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-3

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
lands. The information provided in the Plan shall be consistent with the environmental documentation prepared by the City.

Impact 3.2-3: The proposed
Project has the potential to result
in conflicts with adjacent
agricultural lands or indirectly
cause conversion of agricultural
lands.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-3: Prior to approval of any Final Maps, “Right to Farm” language shall be incorporated on the Final Map for approval and recordation against the affected property. The proposed language shall contain the following statement: “All persons purchasing lots within the boundaries of this approved map should be prepared to accept the inconveniences associated with agricultural operations, such as noise, odors, flies, dust or fumes. Stanislaus County has determined that such inconveniences shall not be considered to be a nuisance if agricultural operations are consistent with accepted customs and standards.” City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Prior to Grading

AIR QUALITY
Impact 3.3-1: Project operations
could result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
Project region is in nonattainment, and could conflict or obstruct implementation of the
District’s air quality plan.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-1:
(a) Overall Obligation of River Walk Specific Plan Project. The collective present and future applicants for the development approvals within the overall River Walk Specific Plan Project shall together be required to ensure that criteria pollutant emissions for the overall River Walk Specific Plan Project do not exceed the SJVAPCD criteria pollutant thresholds for a single year. This obligation will be ensured, as described in greater detail below, based on the requirement for each “Site” within the Overall Project to not exceed the proportional share of criteria pollutant emissions allowed by the SJVAPCD under their operational criteria pollutant thresholds. The required reductions can be achieved through a combination of on-site and/or off-site mitigation strategies. (b) Individual Criteria Pollutant Reduction Plans (CPRPs). i. Obligations of Each “Site” Within Overall Project. The obligation to reduce the overall operational criteria pollutant emissions of the River Walk Specific Plan Project may be achieved over time and incrementally in connection the City’s approvals of discrete phases of development that are consistent with, and reflect, differing ownership interests within the overall Project area at the time of overall Project approval. These individual phases consist of each of the 18 individual villages and the San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District
City of
Riverbank
Planning
Prior to Building
Permit

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
four mixed use areas (i.e. Sites). Based on the respective levels of development being approved within these respective Sites, each Site’s proportional share of required overall reduction is set forth in the Table below.
ii. Process for Approval of Individual CPRPs. Each applicant for development approvals for each Site, or part of a Site, shall propose a Criteria Pollutant Reduction Plan (CPRP) that would achieve the entire Site’s proportional share of the overall required reduction of operational criteria pollutant emissions (as established by the SJVAPCD operational criteria pollutant thresholds), consistent with the percentages shown in the Table, which correspond with the acreages of each Site as a proportion of all Sites. City approval of the CPRP for a Site shall be required prior to City approval of the first grading permit for any property within the Site. Each individual CPRP shall be approved, with modifications if deemed necessary, by the City’s Community Development Director in consultation with SJVAPCD and/or a specialist Air Quality consultant retained by the Director at the applicant’s expense. Prior to each individual CPRP’s submittal to the City’s Community Development Director, each individual CPRP shall be provided to the SJVAPCD for their review.

Site Acreage Percentage
Contribution (%)
Village A 83.08 12.74%
Village B 25.21 3.87%
Village C 59.76 9.17%
Village D 47.86 7.34%
Village E 34.51 5.29%
Village F 39.39 6.04%
Village G 22.62 3.47%
Village H 20.62 3.16%
Village I 10.02 1.54%
Village J 24.02 3.68%
Village K 37.16 5.70%
Village L 48.08 7.38%
Village M 19.11 2.93%
Village N 10.28 1.58%

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-5

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Village O 24.89 3.82%
Village P 18.09 2.77%
Village Q 25.35 3.89%
Village R 25.21 3.87%
Mixed Use Area 1 44.02 6.75%
Mixed Use Area 2 8.07 1.24%
Mixed Use Area 3 7.28 1.12%
Mixed Use Area 4 8.01 1.23%
Mixed Use Area 5 5.35 0.82%
Mixed Use Area 6 4.04 0.62%
Mixed Use Area 6 4.04 0.62%
ROW 63.37 0%
Community Park 15.42 0%
BGOS, Park, Basin,
Reserve 790.60 0%
Total 1,521.41 100.0%
• Note: Right of way, community park, and bluff acreage were not included as a contribution, since this table is only designed to apportion responsibility for the overall required reduction in criteria pollutant emissions for each site/applicant.
iii. Appeals of CPRPs to Planning Commission and City Council. After the Community Development Director has approved a CPRP, the document shall be posted in a prominent place on the City’s website, along with notice to the public that any interested party may file, within 10 business days of such approval, a written appeal of the Community Development Director’s approval to the City Planning Commission. The CPRP approval and notice of the right to appeal shall be included within that portion of the City’s website devoted to activities of the Planning Division (https://www.riverbank.org/211/Planning-Division). Upon the timely filing of such an appeal, the Planning Commission shall promptly schedule and hold a duly-noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the CPRP. Any decision of the Planning Commission approving, conditioning, or denying a CPRP may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission decision. Upon appeal, the City Council shall promptly schedule and hold a duly noticed public hearing on the adequacy of the CPRP. The decision of the City Council shall be final, but may include directives to the Community Development Director regarding changes to be made to the CPRP if deemed necessary.

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
iv. Possible Adjustments to Mandatory Emissions Reductions. The level of proportionate criteria pollutant reductions required for the CPRP for a particular Site may be adjusted downward or upward if the applicant seeking development approvals for a Site is proposing a greater or lesser amount of development than was assumed in the EIR. Any such adjustments, however, shall be supported by rigorous technical analysis and/or other substantial evidence deemed sufficient by the Community Development Director. Adjustments may also be made in response to an evidentiary showing, based on substantial evidence persuasive to the Community Development Director, that the calculations of overall required criteria pollutant reductions used in the EIR are no longer accurate, or no longer represent the best available information, in light of improved criteria pollutant emissions modeling methodologies and/or improved energy conservation technologies, more stringent building codes, cleaner electricity sources, or other relevant factors. v. Possible Strategies for Achieving Mandatory Reductions. The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential criteria pollutant mitigation strategies that could be implemented by individual Site applicants in their CPRPs in order to reduce the Sites’ proportional shares of the overall requirement that the River Walk Specific Plan Project’s CPRP emissions:
• Implement cool roofs on project buildings.
• Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.
• Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules. • Provide a bus rapid transit system.
• Require that all residential units be constructed to use electric appliances exclusively, including water heaters.
• Except for commercial retail uses, design and orient a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the Site’s total non-residential building footprint such that one axis of the building is at least one-and-onehalf (1.5) times longer than the other, and the other axis is within fifteen (15) degrees of geographical east-west.
• Require that one-hundred percent (100%) of non-residential roof area be constructed with either vegetated (‘green’) roof, or roofing

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-7

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
materials with a high solar reflectance value, or a combination of both, provided that nothing in this subsection shall limit the use of roof area for renewable energy generation systems, such as solar thermal collectors or photovoltaics.
• Pre-wire residential structures so that future homeowners or residents can elect to purchase and install electric car charging equipment.
• Provide induction stoves in new residential units.
• Pre-wire parking lots for multi-family, business
professional/commercial, and retail/commercial land uses to allow for more electric vehicle charging facilities than are required by building codes.
• Provide more electric vehicle charging facilities within parking lots for multi-family, business professional/commercial, and
retail/commercial land uses than are required by building codes. • Prepare a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA), in coordination with the SJVAPCD.
• Applicable measures identified in guidance from the SJVAPCD, if any, and/or in guidance provided by CARB, other regional air districts such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
vi. Flexibility to Consider Improving Technologies. Due to ever-changing technologies, any other quantifiable criteria pollutant reduction measures shall be allowed under this measure, subject to the approval by the City Community Development Director in consultation with the SJVAPCD and/or an air quality GHG consultant retained by the Director at the applicant’s expense.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: The SJVAPCD recommends an Ambient Air Quality Analysis (AAQA) be developed for individual development projects that exceed 100 pounds per day of any pollutant. Prior to the approval of each individual development project (i.e. final maps, improvement plans, site plan review, etc.), each project applicant shall develop an AAQA (including both permitted

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
and non-permitted equipment and activities) using dispersion modeling to determine if increases from the individual development project would cause or contribute to violation of State or National Air Quality Standards. The project applicant(s) shall consult with the SJVAPCD to determine the appropriate model and input data to use in the analysis for each individual project.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Prior to the commencement of construction activities for the project each individual development project, the project applicant(s) for each development project shall prepare and submit a Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review application that meets all SJVAPCD requirements, as applicable.

Impact 3.3-4: The proposed
Project has the potential for public
exposure to toxic air
contaminants.

Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: Prior to issuance of building permits or commencing operation of any commercial building/use that would emit toxic air contaminants (such as gas stations or dry cleaning operations), the project applicant(s) for each individual development project shall, at a minimum, perform prioritization screening in accordance the SJVAPCD’s CEQA Guidelines.

The prioritization screening shall also be conducted consistent with the guidance provided by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), which will be responsible for determining which facilities, based on their prioritization screening score, must perform a health risk assessment. In determining the need to prepare a health risk assessment, the SJVAPCD considers the potency, toxicity, quantity, and volume of hazardous materials released from the facility, the proximity of the facility to potential receptors, and any other factors specific to the facility that indicate that it may pose a significant health risk.
• If a health risk assessment is warranted for a facility based on its prioritization score, the project applicant shall assess the facilities for the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants in excess of the applicable thresholds (utilizing an air dispersion modelling program such as AERMOD). As of the time of this writing, the commonly accepted threshold for cancer risk is 10 in a million for carcinogens, and the reference exposure level for non-carcinogens (HI = 1). Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) have the potential to expose the public to toxic air contaminants levels that would be considered significant.

San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District
City of
Riverbank
Planning
Prior to Building
Permit

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-9

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Facilities that exceed the applicable threshold(s) must incorporate mitigation to reduce the risks from emission of toxic air contaminants to an acceptable level (i.e., to a level that does not exceed the applicable threshold[s]). Potential mitigation includes: reducing the size of the facility area; rearranging the site to reduce the potential for impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors; and utilizing products that reduce the level of toxic air contaminants, or removal of such products from the operational phase of the project.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.4-1: The potential to
have a substantial direct or
indirect effect on special-status
invertebrate species, including
through substantial reduction of
habitat, substantial reduction of
the number or restriction in the
range of a listed species,
elimination of an animal
community, or a drop in
population levels below selfsustaining levels.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Prior to disturbance of each village, the Project applicant shall conduct a survey of the area to be disturbed for VELB habitat (elderberry), and if present, including a stem count and an assessment of VELB use (presence of bore holes);
• All VELB habitat should be avoided within a natural open space area except where such habitat is located either within the Project’s approved development footprint or in an area that must be disturbed in order to facilitate approved development; and • Where elderberry shrubs occupied with VELB cannot be avoided because it is located either within the Project’s approved development footprint or in an area that must be disturbed in order to facilitate approved development, then the applicant shall notify the City and consult with USFWS in order to develop a VELB mitigation plan in accordance with the most current USFWS mitigation guidelines for unavoidable take of VELB habitat pursuant to either Section 7 or Section 10(a) of the Federal Endangered Species Act. At a minimum, the removal of elderberry shrubs found to be occupied with VELB shall be mitigated through the purchase of one (1) VELB mitigation credit from an agency-approved mitigation bank for each occupied shrub removed or through the planting of five (5) elderberry seedlings and five (5) native California trees or shrubs at a USFWS-approved location for each shrub removed. If the City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
latter option is selected, then the seedlings and associated natives shall achieve an 80% survival rate measured at the end of a five (5) year monitoring period.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: The Project applicant shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status bumble bees:

1. A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment to determine if there is habitat suitable to support CBB. Potential nesting sites, which include all small mammal burrows, perennial bunch grasses, thatched annual grasses, brush piles, old bird nests, dead trees, and hollow logs would need to be documented as part of the assessment.

2. If potentially suitable habitat is identified, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for CBB, and their requisite habitat features following the methodology outlined in the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) protocol, during the blooming period immediately prior to ground disturbance activities.

3. If surveys cannot be completed, all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunch grasses be avoided by a minimum of 50 feet to avoid take and potentially significant impacts. If ground-disturbing activities will occur during the overwintering period (October through February), consultation with CDFW is warranted to discuss how to avoid take. Any detection of CBB warrants consultation with CDFW to discuss how to avoid take.

4. If CBB is identified during surveys, and all small mammal burrows and thatched/bunched grasses are unable to be avoided by 50 feet, consultation with CDFW is warranted to obtain take authorization for CBB through issuance of an ITP, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b).

Impact 3.4-2: The potential to
have substantial direct or indirect
effects on special-status reptile
and amphibian species, including
Mitigation Measure 3.4-3: Prior to grading of each village, the Project applicant shall conduct a survey of the area to be graded for western pond turtle, and if present, the Project applicant shall implement the following City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Prior to Grading

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-11

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
through substantial reduction of
habitat, substantial reduction of
the number or restriction in the
range of a listed species,
elimination of a reptile or
amphibian community, or a drop
in population levels below selfsustaining levels.
measures to avoid or minimize impacts on western pond turtle:
• A preconstruction survey for western pond turtles within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. In aquatic habitats which may be dewatered during project construction, surveys shall be conducted immediately after dewatering and before any subsequent disturbance. Elsewhere, surveys shall be conducted within 24 hours before project disturbance.
• If pond turtles are found during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, shall move the turtles to the nearest habitat of equivalent or greater value (e.g., upland habitats may include riparian wetlands or riparian woodlands, and aquatic habitats may include irrigation ditches or the Stanislaus River) outside the area subject to project disturbance. The construction area shall be reinspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more has occurred.
• Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize western pond turtle, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.
• Construction personnel shall observe a 15-miles-per-hour speed limit on unpaved roads.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4: The Project applicant shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on giant garter snake (GGS):
• In areas within 200 feet of any irrigation ditch (potential GGS aquatic habitat) construction will occur during the GGS active season of May 1 through October 1.
• Construction personnel shall receive worker environmental Works
Qualified
Biologist

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
awareness training to instruct workers to recognize giant garter snake and their habitats.
• Within 24 hours before construction activities, areas within 200 feet of any irrigation ditch (potential GGS aquatic habitat) shall be surveyed by the qualified biologist for giant garter snake. The survey shall be repeated if a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or greater has occurred. If a giant garter snake is encountered during construction, activities within 200 feet of the irrigation ditches shall cease until appropriate corrective measures have been completed or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the giant garter snake shall not be harmed. Appropriate corrective actions could involve installation of exclusion fencing, a full-time monitor, establishing a “tractor keep out zone”, or other measures specifically designed by the biologist based on the circumstances of the construction site. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately by the qualified biologist.
• A biological onsite monitor will be present during initial grounddisturbing activities within 200 feet of any irrigation ditch or potential GGS habitat within the Plan Area
• Construction vehicles would require low-speed limits within such sites to lessen the probability that the species could be run over by vehicles and equipment.
• Any aquatic habitat for the snake that is dewatered shall remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after April 15 and before excavating or filling of the dewatered habitat. If complete dewatering is not possible, potential snake prey (e.g., fish and tadpoles) will be removed so that snakes and other wildlife are not attracted to the construction area.
• Giant garter snake aquatic habitat to be avoided (i.e., irrigation ditches) within or adjacent to construction areas will be fenced and

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-13

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
designated as environmentally sensitive areas. These areas shall be avoided by all construction personnel.

Impact 3.4-3: The potential to
have substantial direct or indirect
effects on special-status bird
species, including through
substantial reduction of habitat,
substantial reduction or restriction
in the range of a listed species,
elimination of a bird community,
or a drop in population levels
below self-sustaining levels.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5: The Project applicant shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on western burrowing owl:
• No less than 14 days before initiating ground disturbance activities, the Project applicant shall complete an initial take avoidance survey.

Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered if the initial take avoidance survey results in positive owl presence in the Project Area where project activities shall occur. If needed, the development of avoidance and minimization approaches shall be developed in coordination with CDFW.
• Permanent loss of burrowing owl foraging habitat shall be compensated for by preservation and management of foraging habitat of at least a similar quality and equivalent acreage at a biologically appropriate location. An example of similar quality shall be cropland for cropland, grassland for grassland, etc. An example of an appropriate location would be within the breeding range of burrowing owl in the Central Valley. The mitigation shall be documented in a mitigation plan that identifies the mitigation site, compensation acreage, performance criteria, and monitoring and management requirements to ensure the site provides suitable habitat for the applicable species. Long-term protection of mitigation lands shall be ensured through fee title acquisition, conservation easement, or other suitable mechanisms. Long-term management of mitigation lands shall be ensured by establishing a management endowment or other suitable funding source. It is anticipated that mitigation land would also function to mitigate for other species requiring mitigation land with similar characteristics (i.e. Swainson’s hawk). In other words, the same acreage could function as mitigation for more than one species.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6: The Project applicant shall implement the following City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
measures to avoid or minimize impacts on Swainson’s hawk:
• No more than 30 days before the commencement of construction, a qualified biologist shall perform preconstruction surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawk and other raptors during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31).
• Appropriate buffers shall be established and maintained around active nest sites during construction activities to avoid nest failure as a result of project activities. A ½-mile no-disturbance buffer from active Swainson’s hawk nests. If such a buffer is not feasible, consult with CDFW prior to any ground disturbing activities to determine if an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081 subdivision (b) is necessary to avoid an unauthorized take of Swainson’s hawk. The appropriate size and shape of the buffers shall be determined by a qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW, and may vary depending on the nest location, nest stage, and construction activity. In determining the size of the buffers, the qualified biologist shall take into consideration the natural history of the Swainson’s hawk, the proposed activity level adjacent to the nest, the nest occupants’ habituation to existing or ongoing activity, nest concealment (i.e., whether there are visual or acoustic barriers between the proposed activity and the nest), and what (if any) nest monitoring is proposed. The buffers may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines, based on these same considerations, that a change in the buffer size would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Monitoring shall be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects on nesting birds or their young. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest site is otherwise no longer in use. • Before the commencement of construction, the Project applicant shall provide compensatory mitigation for the permanent loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. Loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat shall be compensated for by preservation and management

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-15

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
of foraging habitat of at least a similar quality at an appropriate location. An example of similar quality shall be cropland for cropland, grassland for grassland, etc. An example of an appropriate location would be within the breeding range of Swainson’s hawk in the Central Valley. The mitigation shall be documented in a mitigation plan that identifies the mitigation site, compensation acreage, performance criteria, and monitoring and management
requirements to ensure the site provides suitable habitat for the applicable species. Long-term protection of mitigation lands shall be ensured through fee title acquisition, conservation easement, or other suitable mechanisms. Long-term management of mitigation lands shall be ensured by establishing a management endowment or other suitable funding source. It is anticipated that mitigation land would function to mitigate for other species requiring such mitigation land (i.e. burrowing owl).
• To mitigate for the loss of foraging habitat (as specified in this document), the project applicant shall compensate based on the following ratios:
(a) Portions of the project within 1 mile of an active nest tree shall provide: ·
▪ one acre of either lands protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the CDFW) on
agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk for each acre of
development authorized (1:1 ratio); or ·
(b) Portions of the project within 5 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 1 mile from the nest tree shall provide 0.75 acres of either lands protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the CDFW) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk for each acre of development authorized for each acre of urban development authorized (0-75:1 ratio).

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
(c) Portions of the project within 10 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 5 miles from an active nest tree shall provide 0.5 acres of either lands protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the CDFW) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-7: The Project applicant shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on other protected bird species that may occur on the site:
• If ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 - September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct preactivity surveys for active nests no more than one week prior to the start of ground disturbance to maximize the probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. Surveys shall cover a sufficient area around the work site to identify nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially affected by a project. In addition to direct impacts (i.e., nest destruction), noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment could also affect nests. Prior to initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist conduct a survey to establish a behavioral baseline of all identified nests.
• Once construction begins, a qualified biologist shall continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, the work causing that change shall cease and CDFW shall be consulted for additional avoidance and minimization measures. If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified biologist is not feasible, a minimum nodisturbance buffer of 250 feet around active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the birds have fledged and are no longer reliant

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-17

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
upon the nest or parental care for survival. Variance from these nodisturbance buffers is possible when there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the construction area would be concealed from a nest site by topography. A qualified biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers and notify CDFW in advance of implementing a variance.

Impact 3.4-4: The potential to for
substantial direct or indirect
effects on special-status mammal
species, including through
substantial reduction of habitat,
substantial reduction of the
number or restriction of the range
of a listed species, elimination of a
mammal community, or a drop in
population levels below selfsustaining levels.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-8: Prior to grading of each village, the Project applicant shall conduct a survey of the area to be graded for bat roosts, and if present, the Project applicant shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on special-status bats:
• If removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e., buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31), surveys for active maternity roosts shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The surveys shall be conducted from dusk until dark.
• If a special-status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist and implemented to avoid destruction or abandonment of the roost resulting from habitat removal or other project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until the end of the pupping season (August 1) or until a qualified biologist confirms the maternity roost is no longer active.

If a non-maternal roost is located, eviction and exclusion techniques shall be conducted as recommended by the qualified biologist. Methods may include opening the roosting area to change the air flow and lighting, installing oneway doors, or other appropriate methods that allow the bats to exit and find a new roost. After eviction is believed to be completed, acoustic monitoring, and an evening emergence survey shall be performed by the qualified biologist to ensure eviction is complete. For tree removal, a two-step tree removal process involving removal of all branches that do not provide roosting habitat on the first day, and then the next day cutting down the City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
remaining portion of the tree.

Impact 3.4-6: The potential to
cause a substantial adverse effect
on protected wetlands and
jurisdictional waters.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-9: If construction activities would disturb the agricultural ditch within the Project Area, the property owner/applicant proposing the activity shall verify with federal and state regulators that the facility is non-jurisdictional or qualifies under the agricultural ditch exemption.

If the facilities do not qualify for the exemption and are determined to be jurisdictional by the regulatory agencies, any fill activity would require authorization for fill from the regulatory agencies (USACE-404 permit, RWQCB401 certification, 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement). All requirements of a permit shall be adhered to throughout the construction phase. Any compensatory mitigation would be specified by the regulatory agency through the permit process.

City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading
Impact 3.4-9: The potential to
conflict with an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-10: Prior to commencement of any ground disturbance activities associated with the Offsite Sewer Line, the Project proponent shall obtain coverage under the SJMSCP to mitigate for habitat impacts to covered special status species for the portion of the Offsite Sewer Line within San Joaquin County. Coverage involves compensation for habitat impacts on covered species through implementation of incidental take and minimization Measures (ITMMs) and payment of fees for conversion of lands that may provide habitat for covered special status species. These fees are used to preserve and/or create habitat in preserves to be managed in perpetuity. Obtaining coverage for a Project includes incidental take authorization (permits) under the Endangered Species Act Section 10(a), California Fish and Game Code Section 2081, and the MBTA. Coverage under the SJMSCP would fully mitigate all habitat impacts on covered special-status species.

City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading
Impact 3.4-10: The potential to
conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-11: Prior to and during construction, the Project applicants shall comply with Chapter 156, Oak and Landmark Tree Preservation, of the Riverbank Municipal Code, which calls for the conservation and protecting of existing landmark trees and oak trees within the City.

Landmark trees are defined under Section 156.02 of the Code as: Trees that are: (1) six inches or greater in diameter at breast height (DBH); and (2) in good health; and (3) of preferred species in order: (a) oak, (b) deciduous and (c) City of
Riverbank
Planning / Public
Works
Qualified
Biologist
Prior to Grading

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-19

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
evergreen; (4) other such trees with significant impact (including but not limited to: age, size, location, outstanding habitat value, superior beauty, historical and/or cultural significance) on the surrounding area. Landmark Tree may also mean an “oak tree.” Fruit trees and other trees used for agricultural purposes and production on existing lots created prior to June 8, 2006, are specifically excluded as being landmark trees. Additionally, oak trees are defined as a valley oak tree (Quercus lobata) with a trunk diameter of two inches or greater at a point 4.5 feet above the root crown (also referred to as “two inches diameter breast height [DBH]”). Oak tree may also mean a “landmark tree.”
Pursuant to Section 156.12, prior to submission of an application for development, the applicant is encouraged to meet with the Community Development Director to discuss the tree protection ordinance as it relates to the applicant's property. Should removal of protected trees be required, the permit applicant requirements in Section 156.12 of the Code shall be followed.

Further, pursuant to Section 156.14 of the Code, the following methods and standards for tree protection shall be implemented during construction activities:
(A) Trees identified to be preserved shall have four-foot, orangecolored tree-protection fencing installed at the critical root zones. (B) (1) No person engaged in the construction of any structure(s) or improvement(s) or any activity shall encroach or place solvents, material, construction machinery or temporary soil deposits within six (6) feet of the area outside the critical root zone, as defined herein, of any existing significant tree within a tree save area, transitional or undisturbed buffer zone.
(2) When proposed developments encroach into the crown
dripline area of any landmark/oak tree, special construction to allow the roots to breathe and obtain water shall be engineered and implemented, as determined by the Community Development Director.

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
(C) All tree protection devices must remain in functioning condition until the project is completed or until the certificate of occupancy is issued.
(D) (1) Any tree designated in the plan to be saved, which is negligently damaged during construction or as a result of negligent construction, as determined by the arborist, shall be treated according to accepted National Arborists Association Standards. (2) If fatally damaged, trees shall he replaced with six-inch-caliper trees equal to five times the diameter of the tree removed

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.5-1: Project
implementation has the potential
to cause a substantial adverse
change to an historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5, a unique archaeological
resource as defined in Public
Resources Code section 21083.2,
or a tribal cultural resource, as
defined in Public Resources Code
§21074.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Resources ML-20-2 and ML-20-3 shall be avoided and protected in some manner either through design, site capping, and/or inclusion in a park. Protection shall be provided prior to initiation of the construction phase, with long term measures designed for permanent preservation. Consultation shall occur with appropriate Native American groups to ensure the selected measures are acceptable to appropriate groups with ethnic ties to the area. Any construction in this area shall require a qualified archaeologist to monitor ground disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: All construction workers shall receive a cultural resources sensitivity training session before they begin site work in order to identify any potentially significant cultural or similar resources that may result during construction. The sensitivity training session shall be instructed by a professional archaeologist, and shall include discussion of the statutory criteria for defining unique archaeological resources, historical resources of an archaeological nature, and tribal cultural resources. The sensitivity training shall inform the workers of their responsibility to identify and protect any cultural resources, including prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indications of archaeological resources, discovered during construction. The sensitivity training shall cover laws pertaining to cultural resources, examples of cultural resources that may be discovered, and what to do if a cultural resource, or anything that may be a cultural resource, is discovered.

If any cultural resources, including prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other City of
Riverbank
Planning
Qualified
Archaeologist
If any cultural
resources,
including
prehistoric or
historic
artifacts, or
other
indications of
archaeological
resources are
found during
grading and
construction
activities

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-21

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
indications of archaeological resources, are found during grading and construction activities during any phase of the Project, all work shall be halted immediately within a 200-foot radius of the discovery until an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology, as appropriate, has evaluated the find(s).

The following notifications and measures shall apply to potential unique archaeological resources, potential historical resources of an archaeological nature, and potential tribal cultural resources, depending on the nature of the find:
• If the professional archaeologist determines that the find clearly does not represent a cultural resource that might qualify as a unique archaeological resource, an historical resource of an archaeological nature, or a tribal cultural resource, work may resume immediately and no agency notifications are required.
• If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource that might qualify as a unique archaeological resource, an historical resource of an archaeological nature, or a tribal cultural resource, he or she shall immediately notify the City’s Community Development Director (CDD) and applicable landowner, and, in the case of a potential tribal cultural resource, a tribal representative from an ethnically appropriate group with Northern Valley Yokuts heritage that is recognized by the NAHC in order to give such a person an opportunity to participate. • With respect to finds that may qualify as a unique archaeological resource or an historical resource of an archaeological nature (but not a tribal cultural resource), the professional archaeologist and a representative from the City CDD shall consult to determine whether any unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature are present, in part based on a finding of eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. If it is determined that unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature are present, the qualified archaeologist shall develop mitigation or treatment measures for consideration and approval by the City CDD. Mitigation shall be developed and implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If approved by the City CDD, such measures shall be implemented and completed prior to commencing further work for which grading or building permits were issued, unless otherwise directed by the City CDD. Avoidance or preservation of unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature shall not be required where such avoidance or preservation in place would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures, as determined by the City CDD. Where avoidance or preservation are not appropriate for these reasons, the professional archaeologist, in consultation with the City CDD, shall prepare a detailed recommended a treatment plan for consideration and approval by the City CDD, which may include data recovery. If employed, data recovery strategies for unique archaeological resources that do not also qualify as historical resources of an archaeological nature shall follow the applicable requirements and limitations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Data recovery will normally consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim of recovering important scientific data contained within the unique archaeological resource or historical resource of an archaeological nature. The data recovery plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. If data recovery is determined by the City CDD to not be appropriate, then an equally effective treatment shall be proposed and implemented. Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City CDD, in consultation with the professional archaeologist, determines that the site either: 1) does not contain unique archaeological resources or historical resources of an archaeological nature; or 2) that the preservation and/or treatment measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the City CDD.
• With respect to finds that may qualify as a tribal cultural resource, the professional archaeologist and a representative from the City

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-23

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
CDD shall consult with a tribal representative from an ethnically appropriate group with Northern Valley Yokuts heritage, if one has chosen to participate, to determine whether any tribal cultural resources are present, in part based on the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 21074. If it is determined that tribal cultural resources are present, the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with any participating tribal representative, shall develop mitigation or treatment measures for consideration and approval by the City CDD. In doing so, the qualified archaeologist shall give great weight to the wishes of the tribal representative, if one is participating.

Mitigation shall be developed with a preference for preservation in place and with reference to the Guidelines for Monitors/Consultants of Native American Cultural, Religious, and Burial Sites established by the Native American Heritage Commission. Preservation in place may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If approved by the City CDD, measures involving avoidance and/or preservation in place shall be implemented and completed prior to commencing further work for which grading or building permits were issued, unless otherwise directed by the City CDD. Avoidance or preservation of a tribal cultural resource shall not be required where such avoidance or preservation in place would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures, as determined by the City CDD. Where avoidance or preservation are not appropriate for these reasons, the professional archaeologist, in consultation with the City CDD and any participating tribal representative, whose input shall be given great weight, shall prepare a detailed recommended a treatment plan for consideration and approval by the City CDD, which may include data recovery. Data recovery may consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim of recovering important scientific data contained within the unique archaeological resource or historical resource of an archaeological nature. The data recovery plan shall

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data to an institution identified by the participating tribal representative, if any, or at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. If data recovery is determined by the City CDD to not be appropriate, then an equally effective treatment shall be proposed and implemented.

Work may not resume within the no-work radius until the City CDD, in consultation with the professional archaeologist, determines that the site either: 1) does not contain tribal cultural resources; or 2) that the preservation and/or treatment measures have been completed to the satisfaction of the City CDD.

Impact 3.5-2: Project
implementation has the potential
to disturb human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-3: If human remains are discovered during the course of construction during any phase of the Project, work shall be halted at the site and at any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Stanislaus County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required. If the remains are of Native American origin, either of the following steps, subject to statutory time limitations, will be taken:
• The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission in order to ascertain the proper descendants from the deceased individual. The coroner shall make a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, which may include obtaining a qualified archaeologist or team of archaeologists to properly excavate the human remains.
• The landowner shall retain a Native American monitor, and an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native American monitor, and rebury the Native American human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, in a location that is not subject to further subsurface disturbance when any of the following City of
Riverbank
Planning
Qualified
Archeologist
If any cultural
resources,
including
prehistoric or
historic
artifacts, or
other
indications of
archaeological
resources are
found during
grading and
construction
activities

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-25

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
conditions occurs:
o The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to
identify a descendent.
o The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation.

The City of Riverbank or its authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact 3.6-2: Implementation and
construction of the proposed
Project may result in substantial
soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Mitigation Measure 3.6-1: Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation for each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ amended by 2010-0014-DWQ & 2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP shall be designed with Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the RWQCB has deemed as effective at reducing erosion, controlling sediment, and managing runoff. These include:
covering disturbed areas with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizers, binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding.

Sediment control BMPs, installing silt fences or placing straw wattles below slopes, installing berms and other temporary run-on and runoff diversions.

These BMPs are only examples of what should be considered and should not preclude new or innovative approaches currently available or being developed.

Final selection of BMPs will be subject to approval by City of Riverbank and the RWQCB. The SWPPP will be kept on site during construction activity and will be made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.

City of
Riverbank
Planning
Qualified
Paleontologist
Prior to Grading
Impact 3.6-5: The proposed
Project has the potential to
directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
Mitigation Measure 3.6-2: If subsurface deposits believed to be paleontological in origin are found during grading and construction activities of the Project, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery and the City of Riverbank Community Development Director (CDD) shall be notified. Work shall not continue at the City of
Riverbank
Planning
Qualified
Prior to Grading

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
site or unique geologic feature. discovery site until a qualified paleontologist evaluates the find to determine whether it includes or constitutes a unique paleontological resource and, if it is, formulates mitigation recommendations for consideration and approval by the City CDD. A unique paleontological resource means a paleontological resource about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one of the two following criteria: (1) contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; or (2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. Mitigation options shall include preserving the resource in place or recovering data and creating documentation for transmission to the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Avoidance or preservation in place of unique paleontological resources shall not be required where such avoidance or preservation would preclude the construction of important structures or infrastructure or require exorbitant expenditures, as determined by the City CDD.

Paleontologist

GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY
Impact 3.7-1: Project
implementation would not
generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment or to conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-1:
a) Project-Specific Requirements. The Project applicants shall be required to reduce Project GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible by incorporating the following onsite measures:
a) Construction Emissions. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Project sponsor or its designee shall provide evidence to the City of Riverbank that the following strategies are implemented:
i. Use electric or hybrid powered equipment for generators and other small pieces of equipment (e.g., forklifts and saws), as commercially available.
ii. Use cleaner-fuel equipment such as replacing diesel fuel with compressed natural gas (CNG) or renewable diesel, as
commercially available.
iii. Reduce idling time of heavy-duty trucks either by shutting San Joaquin
Valley Air
Pollution
Control District
City of
Riverbank
Planning
Prior to Grading

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-27

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
them off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than 3 minutes (5-minute limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure 13 CCR 2485).
• Commercially available equipment is herein defined as equipment sourced within 50 vehicle miles of the Project site and within 10% of the cost of the diesel-fueled-equivalent equipment.

The Project Applicant must contact at least 3 contractors or vendors within Stanislaus County and submit to the City justification if the specified equipment is not commercially available.
b) Operational Emissions.
i. Require Energy Efficient Appliances. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project sponsor or its designee shall provide evidence to the City that exclusively ENERGY STARcertified appliances shall be installed, which exceed the energy efficiency of conventional appliances.
ii. Outdoor Electrical Outlets. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project sponsor or its designee shall provide evidence to the City of Riverbank that the design plans include electrical outlets in the front and rear of the structure to facilitate use of electrical lawn and garden equipment. iii. Tree Planting. Prior to the applicable certificates of occupancy, the Project sponsor or its designee shall plant, at a minimum, one tree per every new residential dwelling unit proposed. Tree species should be black or valley oak, or another broad leaf species with at least an equivalent carbon sequestration rate. The Project sponsor shall demonstrate that at least 75% of species planted are native to California or drought tolerant and appropriate for the climate zone region.

These trees can be planted roadside, in medians, or in other commonly landscaped areas.
iv. Water Use Efficiency and Water Conservation. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project sponsor or its designee shall provide evidence to the City that the residential

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
building design plans include the following water use
efficiency and conservation measures, including:
•High-efficiency appliances/fixtures to reduce water use, and/or include water-efficient landscape design
•Low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures
•Water-efficient landscapes with lower water demands than required by the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) 2015 Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance (MWELO)
•Planting of drought-tolerant plant species only
•Provide a copy of the educational materials that will be provided to future homeowners and tenants about
water saving behaviors and water-conserving
landscaping with sales material for City review.
•Installation of piping to allow future use of reclaimed water for landscaping purposes in all park areas.
v. Circulation. The Project sponsor or its designee shall include the following features to reduce VMT:
•Install sidewalks and crosswalks where appropriate and consistent with City requirements.
•Install new or improved bicycle paths and bicycle racks at community destination locations such as parks and
community recreation areas.

Sales and rental packets shall include information about local public transit.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 3.8-1: Potential to create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials or through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-1.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Prior to approval of a final map on any property in the Specific Plan Area, with the exception of the Berghill property, the Project Applicant shall submit a Phase I ESA for the property. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to supplement the research and analysis that has already been City of
Riverbank
Planning
Prior to Grading

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-29

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
into the environment.
prepared for this area as part of the CEQA Hazards Assessment which is limited to database searches, aerial reconnaissance, and literature and map review.

While no evidence of an environmental concern has been encountered, the Hazards Assessment did not include site investigation or property owner questionnaires/interviews of property outside the Berghill property. The Berghill property is excluded for this mitigation measure because a Phase 1 ESA has already been prepared for this property.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Prior to approval of a final map on all properties in the Specific Plan Area, the Project Applicant shall hire a qualified consultant to perform additional soil and site testing. There may be additional areas identified in the Phase I ESAs prepared for areas outside the Berghill Property in accordance with Mitigation Measure 3.8-1; however, the following areas of the Berghill Property have already been deemed to have potentially hazardous conditions present:
• The residential units and adjoining structures.
• The remnant construction and/or farming materials (i.e. remnant pipes, etc.).
• The soils in the area where farming equipment and above ground tanks have been stored.

The intent of the additional testing is to investigate whether any buildings, facilities, or soils contain hazardous materials, including petroleum products, agrichemical (including pesticides, herbicides, diesel, petrochemicals, etc.), asbestos, etc.

A soil sampling and analysis workplan shall be submitted for approval the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources prior to the work.

The sampling and analysis plan shall meet the requirements of the Department of Toxic Substances Control Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (2008), and the County Department of Environmental Resources Recommended Soil and Groundwater Sampling for Underground Tank Investigations (2013).

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
If the sampling results indicate the presence of agrichemicals that exceed commercial screening levels, a removal action workplan shall be prepared in coordination with Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources.

The removal action workplan shall include a detailed engineering plan for conducting the removal action, a description of the onsite contamination, the goals to be achieved by the removal action, and any alternative removal options that were considered and rejected and the basis for that rejection. A no further action letter shall be issued by Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources upon completion of the removal action. The removal action shall be deemed complete when the confirmation samples exhibit concentrations below the commercial screening levels, which will be established by the agencies.

If asbestos-containing materials and/or lead are found in buildings, an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program shall be implemented in order to safely manage the suspect ACMs and LBP located at the subject property, and a California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) certified asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) and lead based paint contractor shall be retained to remove the asbestos-containing materials and lead in accordance with EPA and Cal/OSHA standards. In addition, all activities (construction or demolition) in the vicinity of these materials shall comply with Cal/OSHA asbestos and lead worker construction standards. The ACBM and lead shall be disposed of properly at an appropriate offsite disposal facility.

Mitigation Measure 3.8-3: Prior to bringing hazardous materials onsite, the applicant shall submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the Stanislaus County Division of Environmental Resources (CUPA) for review and approval. If during the construction process the applicant or any subcontractors generates hazardous waste, the applicant must register with the CUPA as a generator of hazardous waste, obtain an EPA ID# and accumulate, ship and dispose of the hazardous waste per Health and Safety Code Ch. 6.5. (California Hazardous Waste Control Law).

Mitigation Measure 3.8-4: Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a well, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well demolition permit from the City of Riverbank, and

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-31

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
properly abandon the onsite wells, pursuant to review and approval of the City Engineer.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 3.9-1: The proposed
Project has the potential to violate
water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality.

Mitigation Measure 3.9-1: The Project applicant shall implement the following nonstructural BMPs that focus on preventing pollutants from entering stormwater:
● Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping
o Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation in each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall develop a spill response and prevention plan as a component of (1) SWPPPs
prepared for construction activities, (2) SWPPPs for
facilities subject to the NPDES Stormwater Permit, and (3) spill prevention control and countermeasure plans for
qualifying facilities. The spill response and prevention plan shall be implemented during all construction activities. o Streets and parking lots in all non-residential portions of the Project site shall be swept at least once every two weeks.
● Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of Treatment Controls o Prior to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation in each phase of the Project, the Project proponent shall develop an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the storm drainage
facilities to ensure long-term performance. The O&M plan shall incorporate the manufacturers’ recommended
maintenance procedures and include (1) provisions for
debris removal, (2) guidance for addressing public health or safety issues, and (3) methods and criteria for assessing the efficacy of the storm drainage system. An annual report shall be submitted to the City certifying that maintenance of the facilities was conducted according to the O&M plan.

City of
Riverbank Public
Works
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Mitigation Measure 3.9-2: The Project applicant shall implement the following structural BMPs that focus on preventing pollutants from entering stormwater, or alternative BMPs approved by the City of Riverbank. Implementation of BMPs apply to all new development including the right-of-way as appropriate. ● Extended Detention Facilities: Extended detention refers to the facilities proposed for the Project site that would detain and temporarily store stormwater runoff to reduce the peak rates of discharge to the storm drainage system. Detention of stormwater allows particles and other pollutants to settle and thereby potentially reduce concentrations and mass loading of contaminants in the discharge.
● Grassed Swales: A swale is a vegetated, open channel management practice designed to treat and attenuate stormwater runoff for a specified water quality volume. Stormwater runoff flowing through these channels is treated by being filtered through vegetation in the channel, through a subsoil matrix, and/or through infiltration into the underlying soils. Swales can be used throughout the proposed Project area where feasible in the landscape design to treat parking lot runoff.

Proprietary Devices: There are a variety of commercially available stormwater treatment devices designed to remove contaminants from drainage once flows enter the conveyance systems. StormFilter™ units, or equivalent filtration-type systems, are recommended within the commercial and industrial areas as the main structural BMP for these areas. Bioswales are also recommended for streets and parking areas. Drop inlet filters should also be used to control drainage runoff water quality.

NOISE
Impact 3.11-1: Construction of the
proposed Project may generate
significant noise.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-1: Construction activities shall not occur between 6:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays or 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekends and legal holidays, as required by the City of Riverbank Municipal Code. This requirement shall be noted in the improvements plans prior to approval by the City’s Public Works Department. Any construction activities requiring work outside of the normal construction times specified by this code (i.e. wells that City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-33

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
require continuous 24-hour drilling) shall only be authorized after consideration of the noise generated by the work, which shall be below the standards for exterior noise.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-2: In an effort to comply with the City General Plan standards contained in Table 3.11-6 (Table N-3 of the General Plan), all equipment shall be fitted with factory equipped mufflers, and in good working order. In addition, all staging areas shall be located as far as feasibly possible from residential areas. This requirement shall be noted in the improvements plans prior to approval by the City’s Development Services Department.

Impact 3.11-2: Construction of the
proposed Project may result in
vibration impacts.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-3: Any compaction required less than 26 feet from the adjacent residential structures shall be accomplished by using static drum rollers which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an alternative to this requirement, pre-construction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring could be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures. This requirement shall be noted in the improvements plans prior to approval by the City’s Development Services Department.

City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans
Impact 3.11-4: The proposed
Project may be subject to shooting
range noise at new sensitive
receptors.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-4: The following noise control measures shall be required in the improvements plans for Villages D, E, F, H, I, or J (or any other on-site areas which may be subject to noise resulting from the shooting range), prior to approval by the City’s Public Works Department:

1. Typical masonry type sound walls shall be constructed in the Specific Plan Area. Figure 3.11-5 shows the locations of the recommended sound walls.

Mitigation Measure 3.11-5: The project proponent shall request the owner of the Modesto Rifle Club to make the following improvements on the Modesto Rifle Club’s property, at the project proponent’s own expense. It is noted that these noise control measures are not located within the boundary of the Project, and are not controlled by the Project proponent. As such, it cannot be guaranteed that the owners of the shooting range will allow these improvements to be made on their property by the Project proponent:

City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)

1. Two 180-foot-long sound walls with acoustically absorptive treatment should span the eastern boundary of the rifle range. The first wall should be 20 feet tall and connect directly to the shooting range enclosure, allowing no gaps. The second wall should be 25 feet tall and be located directly north of the first wall and offset approximately 20 feet to the east (along the eastern boundary of the rifle range). The base elevation for the walls should be greater than or equal to the elevation of the shooting line. The inner side of the newly constructed walls (facing west) must be acoustically absorptive to prevent reflection of shooting noise.

Figure 3.11-4 shows the proposed location of the sound walls. This measure specifically assumes use of Kinetics NOISEBLOCK perforated metal acoustical panels.

2. The existing rifle shooting range cover should be enclosed on the eastern side as shown in Figure 3.11-4. The enclosure should span from the floor to ceiling and have no gaps or penetrations that would allow sound to pass though. The enclosure should consist of minimum ¾” plywood with acoustical panels covering the inside walls, facing the shooting line. This measure specifically assumes use of Kinetics KNP perforated metal acoustical panels.

3. The left sound wall of the pistol range should be treated with an acoustically absorptive treatment, as shown on Figure 3.11-4. This measure specifically assumes use of Kinetics KNP perforated metal acoustical panels.

4. Acoustic absorption should be added above the shooting line and at the rear wall of the left side of the rifle shooting line, as shown on Figure

3.11-4. This measure specifically assumes use of Kinetics KNP perforated metal acoustical panels.

5. Fully enclose the rear (south) side of the rifle shooting line. A 4-foot-wide covered exit walkway may be constructed which allows access from the south, as shown on Figure 3.11-6. The enclosure should span from the floor to ceiling and have no gaps or penetrations that would allow sound to pass though. The enclosure should consist of minimum ¾”

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-35

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
plywood with acoustical panels covering the inside walls, facing the shooting line. This measure specifically assumes use of Kinetics KNP perforated metal acoustical panels.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impact 3.12-1: The proposed
project may result in, or have the
potential to require the
construction of police department
facilities which may cause
substantial adverse physical
environmental impacts.

Mitigation Measure 3.12-1: Prior to final map approval, the Project applicant shall annex mapped property into Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 2016- 01 for operational services with the Riverbank Police Department (Stanislaus County Sheriff), or create a new CFD for the proposed Plan Area.

Mitigation Measure 3.12-2: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each dwelling unit (and prior to issuance of building permits for non-residential uses), the applicant shall pay all applicable project impact fees per the impact fee schedule.

City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans
Prior to
certificate of
occupancy

TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 3.13-1: Implementation of
the Specific Plan would conflict
with a program, plan, ordinance,
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Mitigation Measure 3.13-1: The Project Applicant shall work with the City of Riverbank and Caltrans to design improvements to create an all-weather route to the MID trail and to address the gap in facilities east of the Project Area on SR 108 and shall fund these improvements. The mitigation shall include a safe crossing on SR 108 which may be incorporated into a traffic signal or roundabout at one of the River Walk Specific Plan access intersections, or may take the form of a pedestrian hybrid beacon, subject to approval of Caltrans.

This mitigation shall be installed when directed by the Riverbank City Engineer with Caltrans approval.

In addition, the Project Applicant shall work with the County to design access road improvements to McHenry Avenue from the Specific Plan area. The Project Applicant shall fund these access improvements. The improvement design may consider stop-controls, traffic signals, and/or roundabout at the access intersection based on traffic volumes and safety considerations. The final design is subject to the County approval, including encroachment permits. This mitigation shall be installed when directed by the Riverbank City Engineer with County approval.

City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to
occupancy

6.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

6.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact 3.13-2: Implementation of
the Specific Plan would not conflict
with or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guideline section 15064.3,
subdivision (b).

Mitigation Measure 3.13-2: The Project Applicant shall implement the following VMT related mitigation measures / strategies which could reduce the VMT generated by the proposed land uses. These VMT related mitigation measures / strategies shall be noted on the improvement plans. • Shuttle Bus Service. The proponents shall provide shuttle bus service linking the project with an applicable StaRT stop(s) and with key destinations in Riverbank and Modesto.
• Provide Transit Passes. The project proponents shall provide off project residents and employees subsidized transit passes. • Install Park‐and‐Ride Lots. A portion of the parking supply in mixed use areas shall be designated for park-and-ride use.
• Increase Pedestrian / Bicycle Connectivity. Install off site pedestrian facilities to promote this mode and reduce VMT.

City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to
occupancy
Impact 3.13-3: Implementation of
the Specific Plan would not
substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment).

Mitigation Measure 3.13-3: Prior to approval of a Final Map or improvement plans, the Project Applicant shall contribute its pro rata fair share to the cost of improvement to the McHenry Avenue / Ladd Road / Patterson Road intersection.

Mitigation Measure 3.13-4: The Project Applicant shall construct a westbound left turn lane on SR 108 at the Skittone Road intersection. This roadway design shall be noted on the improvement plans.

City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to
approval of final
map

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact 3.14-2: The proposed
project has the potential to result
in a determination by the
wastewater treatment and/or
collection provider which serves
the project that the provider does
not have adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.

Mitigation Measure 3.14-1: Prior to the issuance of an occupancy certificate, the Project applicant shall secure the appropriate sewer allocation from the City of Riverbank. Securing the sewer allocation shall be on a first come first serve basis and shall be limited to those sewer allotments that are paid via sewer connection fees, and/or other fees that may be charged related to the sewer allocation.

City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to
occupancy

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-37

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURE

MONITORING

RESPONSIBILITY
TIMING

VERIFICATION
(DATE/INITIALS)
Impact 3.14-5: The proposed
Project has the potential to
require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded stormwater drainage
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects.

Mitigation Measure 3.14-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the City of Riverbank for review and approval. The plan shall include an engineered storm drainage plan that demonstrates attainment of pre-Project runoff requirements prior to release and describes the volume reduction measures and treatment controls used to reach attainment consistent with the Riverbank Low Impact Development Design and Specifications Manual and the Riverbank Storm Drain System Master Plan.

City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to Grading

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 6.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – River Walk Specific Plan 6.0-38 This page left intentionally blank.

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION NO. 2026- __

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK,

CALIFORNIA APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE RIVER

WALK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION MAPS (DEPARTMENT FILE NO. 20-0026) WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) encompasses an overall Project Area of approximately 1,522 acres in unincorporated Stanislaus County adjacent to the City of Riverbank. The Project Area is generally located north of Patterson Road/State Route 108, east of McHenry Avenue, south of the Stanislaus River and approximately two miles northwest of downtown Riverbank; and WHEREAS, the Project includes an approximately 997.18-acre Specific Plan Area proposed for annexation and development. The remaining approximately 525 acres within the overall Project Area would be included within the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment and retained under the Reserve designation for possible longrange planning, subject to any additional approvals and environmental review required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan, including land-use designations established through the 2009 General Plan planning process and subsequent amendments, applies multiple residential, mixed-use, civic, open-space, agricultural and Reserve designations within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan currently anticipates the Project Area as a location for possible future growth. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not establish an entirely new growth area but refines the existing land-use pattern to reflect the more detailed planning completed through the River Walk Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the location and distribution of residential, mixed-use, park, open-space, drainage and Reserve uses established by the River Walk Specific Plan. The amendment would retain the Reserve designation on lands within the overall Project Area that are outside the approximately 997.18-acre Specific Plan Area; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment would amend the General Plan Circulation Map to refine and relocate certain planned roadway alignments consistent with the circulation network established by the River Walk Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan is a long-range plan anticipated to guide development over approximately 15 to 20 years. The Final EIR evaluates a maximum of 2,682 dwelling units and approximately 341,000 to 836,000 square feet of nonresidential development within the Specific Plan Area; and

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65454 provides that a specific plan may not be adopted or amended unless it is consistent with the applicable general plan.

Accordingly, the General Plan Amendment must be adopted before or concurrently with the River Walk Specific Plan so that the two documents remain internally consistent; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65358 authorizes the City Council to amend all or part of an adopted general plan when the City Council determines that the amendment is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed special public hearing at which it received and considered the staff report, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the River Walk Specific Plan, the Final Environmental Impact Report, staff and applicant presentations, public testimony and all other evidence submitted into the record. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the Project; and
WHEREAS, notice of the September 22, 2026 City Council public hearing was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall and mailed on August 19, 2026 to property owners within 500 feet of the Project Area and interested parties in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and received and considered the staff report, the proposed General Plan Amendment, the River Walk Specific Plan, the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff and applicant presentations, public and agency testimony and all other evidence in the administrative record; and WHEREAS, before taking action on this Resolution, the City Council adopted a separate resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, adopting CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the proposed General Plan Amendment and the entire administrative record and has determined that the amendment should be approved based on the findings contained in this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The City Council of the City of Riverbank, California does hereby resolve as follows:

1. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporates them into this Resolution by reference.

2. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report and the environmental information contained in the administrative record before approving the General Plan Amendment. Approval

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___
and implementation of the General Plan Amendment are subject to the CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City Council.

3. The City Council has considered the Planning Commission's recommendation and, based on the entire record and the findings contained in this Resolution, determines that the General Plan Amendment should be approved.

4. The City Council finds that the General Plan Amendment is in the public interest because it provides a comprehensive long-range land-use and circulation framework for an area previously identified for possible future growth. The amendment replaces the broader land-use pattern established through the General Plan with a more detailed distribution of residential, mixed-use, park, open-space, drainage and Reserve uses based on the planning and environmental analysis completed for the River Walk Specific Plan.

5. The City Council finds that the General Plan Amendment supports orderly and contiguous growth by coordinating the proposed land-use pattern with annexation, infrastructure, public services, circulation, parks, trails, open space, drainage and long-term implementation requirements.

6. The City Council finds that the General Plan Amendment furthers the General Plan's goals and policies concerning the provision of a range of housing opportunities, development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods, establishment of connected streets and trails, provision of parks and recreational amenities, protection of natural and open-space features and the coordinated extension of public infrastructure and services.

7. The City Council finds that the General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the other elements, goals and policies of the General Plan. The proposed land-use and circulation map amendments are coordinated and establish a consistent policy framework for implementation of the River Walk Specific Plan.

8. The City Council finds that adoption of the General Plan Amendment before or concurrently with the River Walk Specific Plan makes the River Walk Specific Plan consistent with the General Plan as required by Government Code section 65454.

9. Based on the General Plan Amendment, the River Walk Specific Plan, the Final Environmental Impact Report, the staff report, public and agency testimony and other substantial evidence in the administrative record, the City Council finds that the General Plan Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.

10.The City Council approves the General Plan Amendment and amends the General Plan Land Use Map in accordance with Exhibit A and the General Plan Circulation Map in accordance with Exhibit B. Exhibits A and B are attached to and incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___

11.The approximately 525 acres shown as Reserve outside the Specific Plan Area are not approved for annexation or development through this Resolution. Any future development proposal within the Reserve area remains subject to all required land-use approvals, infrastructure and service analysis and environmental review.

12.The General Plan Amendment does not approve a subdivision map, grading plan, improvement plan, building permit or development beyond the maximum land-use program evaluated in the Final EIR. Subsequent development within the Specific Plan Area remains subject to the River Walk Specific Plan, the Development Agreement, applicable City standards, the adopted mitigation measures and all required discretionary and ministerial approvals.

13.The Community Development Director is authorized to update the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Maps to reflect this action and to make non-substantive conforming or clerical corrections to the maps, legends, labels and General Plan references that do not materially alter the General Plan Amendment approved by the City Council, subject to review by the City Attorney.

14.If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase and portion thereof regardless of the fact that any one or more portions are declared invalid.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of September, 2026; motioned by Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
Exhibit B – Proposed General Plan Circulation Map

EXHIBIT A

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP

Mc Henry Av
Burwoo
R
Burwood Ln
Patterson Rd
Skittone Rd
Mc Henry Ave
Stewart Rd
Hartley Dr
Patterson Rd
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Hogue Rd

RIVERWALK SPECIFIC PLAN
Exhibit A:

Proposed General Plan Map
Legend
Project Area
City of Riverbank
Specific Plan Area
Reserve
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use
Park
Dual Use Park/Ponding Basin
Buffer/Greenway/Openspace - Bluff
Buffer/Greenway/Openspace - Canal
Buffer/Greenway/Openspace - River Park
Sources: Stanislaus County GIS. Map date: June 28, 2023. 0 500 1,000
Feet
Stanisl au s River
River Rd
MID Drainage
MID Main Canal

EXHIBIT B

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP

Mc Henry Av
R
Burwood Ln
Patterson Rd
Skittone Rd
Mc Henry Ave
Stewart Rd
Hartle y Dr
Patterson Rd
Coffee Rd
Ladd Rd
Hogue Rd

RIVERWALK SPECIFIC PLAN
Exhibit B: Circulation Network
Legend
Project Area
Specific Plan Area
City of Riverbank
Riverwalk Trail
Arterial Street
Collector Street
Sources: Stanislaus County GIS. Map date: June 28, 2023. 01 500 ,000
Feet
Sta nisl aus River
River Rd
Land Use
Reserve
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use
Park
Dual Use Park/Ponding Basin
Buffer/Greenway/Open Space - Bluff
Buffer/Greenway/Open Space - Canal
Buffer/Greenway/Open Space - River Park
MIDDrainage
MID Main Canal

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION NO. 2026- __

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK,

CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN
(DEPARTMENT FILE NO. 20-0026)
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) includes an approximately 997.18-acre Specific Plan Area located in unincorporated Stanislaus County adjacent to the City of Riverbank. The Specific Plan Area is generally located north of Patterson Road/State Route 108, east of McHenry Avenue and south of the Stanislaus River; and
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan is a comprehensive, long-range planning document intended to guide development of the Specific Plan Area over approximately 15 to 20 years. The Specific Plan provides for conventional and age-restricted residential neighborhoods, mixed-use areas, a community core, a private active-adult clubhouse, parks, trails, open space, drainage facilities, roadways, public utilities and supporting infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR evaluates a maximum of 2,682 dwelling units within the Specific Plan Area. This represents the upper limit of residential development analyzed under CEQA for the Project and includes up to 2,432 units within 18 residential villages, consisting of 1,550 Low Density Residential units, 702 Medium Density Residential units and 180 High Density Residential units, together with residential development permitted within the Mixed-Use areas; and
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan allows residential units to be transferred among villages and parcels in accordance with the criteria and procedures established by the Specific Plan. These transfers do not create additional residential development capacity and may not cause total development within the Specific Plan Area to exceed 2,682 dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan identifies a nonresidential Mixed-Use program ranging from approximately 341,000 to 836,000 square feet. The ultimate combination of residential and nonresidential uses within the Mixed-Use areas may vary only within the land-use program and environmental impact analysis approved for the Project; and
WHEREAS, Government Code sections 65450 through 65457 authorize the preparation and adoption of specific plans to systematically implement a city's general plan. A specific plan may establish detailed land uses, development standards, circulation and infrastructure systems, implementation programs, financing measures and the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan; and

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___
WHEREAS, before or concurrently with adoption of this Resolution, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment modifying the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Maps to reflect the River Walk Specific Plan. The General Plan Amendment makes the River Walk Specific Plan consistent with the General Plan as required by Government Code section 65454; and
WHEREAS, the approximately 997.18-acre Specific Plan Area is outside the City limits. Implementation of the River Walk Specific Plan is dependent upon approval of the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation by the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission. The City will separately consider an ordinance prezoning the Specific Plan Area to Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5), which would become operative only upon annexation; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed special public hearing at which it received and considered the staff report, the Final River Walk Specific Plan, the proposed prezoning, the Final Environmental Impact Report, staff and applicant presentations, public testimony and all other evidence submitted into the record. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the Project; and
WHEREAS, notice of the September 22, 2026 City Council public hearing was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall and mailed on August 19, 2026 to property owners within 500 feet of the Project Area and interested parties in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and received and considered the staff report, the Final River Walk Specific Plan, the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff and applicant presentations, public and agency testimony and all other evidence in the administrative record; and
WHEREAS, before taking action on this Resolution, the City Council adopted a separate resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, adopting CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final River Walk Specific Plan and the entire administrative record and has determined that the Specific Plan should be adopted based on the findings contained in this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The City Council of the City of Riverbank, California does hereby resolve as follows:

1. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporates them into this Resolution by reference.

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___

2. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report and the environmental information contained in the administrative record before adopting the River Walk Specific Plan. Adoption and implementation of the Specific Plan are subject to the CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City Council.

3. The City Council has considered the Planning Commission's recommendation and, based on the entire record and the findings contained in this Resolution, determines that the River Walk Specific Plan should be adopted.

4. The City Council finds that the River Walk Specific Plan contains the detailed land uses, development standards, design guidelines, circulation system, utilities, parks, open space, drainage facilities, infrastructure program, phasing provisions, financing concepts and administrative procedures necessary to guide the orderly development of the Specific Plan Area.

5. The City Council finds that the River Walk Specific Plan is consistent with and implements the goals, policies, land-use designations and circulation framework of the General Plan, as amended by the General Plan Amendment approved before or concurrently with this Resolution.

6. The City Council finds that the River Walk Specific Plan is in the public interest because it provides a comprehensive and coordinated framework for a range of housing types, mixed-use development, parks, recreation, trails, open space, public infrastructure and community amenities within a long-range development program.

7. The City Council adopts the Final River Walk Specific Plan, dated May 15, 2025, as revised by any applicable errata and/or conforming edits approved in conjunction with this Resolution, in the form attached as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

8. The City Manager and Community Development Director are authorized to make non-substantive conforming edits, correct typographical errors and update internal references in the Final River Walk Specific Plan, provided that the edits do not alter the development program adopted by the City Council, change the 2,682-unit residential limit, increase the maximum nonresidential development analyzed in the Final EIR or result in environmental effects not analyzed in the Final EIR. Any such corrections are subject to review by the City Attorney.

9. Adoption of the River Walk Specific Plan does not approve any tentative subdivision map, final map, improvement plan, grading plan, architectural and site plan review, conditional use permit, building permit or other subsequent development application. Future development remains subject to applicable City

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___
review procedures, the Development Agreement, adopted mitigation measures, conditions of approval and any additional environmental review required by law.

10.If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase and portion thereof regardless of the fact that any one or more portions are declared invalid.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of September, 2026; motioned by Councilmember ______, seconded by Councilmember ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Final River Walk Specific Plan, dated May 15, 2025

EXHIBIT A

RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN
DATED MAY 15, 2025
AVAILABLE AT:
https://www.riverbank.org/DocumentCenter/View/5433
HARD COPIES AVAILABLE AT:

CITY HALL NORTH AND SOUTH: 6707 THIRD STREET
RIVERBANK LIBRARY: 3442 SANTA FE STREET

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___

CITY OF RIVERBANK
ORDINANCE NO. 2026- __

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA PREZONING THE APPROXIMATELY 997.18-ACRE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 5 (SP-5)
(DEPARTMENT FILE NO. 20-0026)
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) includes an approximately 997.18-acre Specific Plan Area located in unincorporated Stanislaus County adjacent to the City of Riverbank. The Specific Plan Area is generally located north of Patterson Road/State Route 108, east of McHenry Avenue and south of the Stanislaus River; and
WHEREAS, the Specific Plan Area is outside the Riverbank city limits and is proposed for annexation to the City through proceedings before the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo); and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 56375(a)(7) requires, as a condition of annexation, that a city prezone territory proposed for annexation or provide other evidence satisfactory to LAFCo that existing development entitlements are vested or built out and consistent with the city's general plan; and WHEREAS, Riverbank Municipal Code sections 153.308 and 153.309 require an area governed by a specific plan to be zoned Specific Plan (SP) and assigned a number that distinguishes it from other specific plan areas. Accordingly, the River Walk Specific Plan Area would be designated Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5); and WHEREAS, the SP-5 zoning designation would implement the River Walk Specific Plan by making the land uses, development standards, design guidelines and administrative procedures contained in the Specific Plan applicable to future development within the Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed special public hearing to consider the River Walk Specific Plan Project, including the proposed General Plan Amendment, River Walk Specific Plan and prezoning of the Specific Plan Area. After receiving staff and applicant presentations, public testimony and other evidence submitted into the record, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines; and

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
WHEREAS, before approving this Ordinance, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-_____ certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopting CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, before or concurrently with approving this Ordinance, the City Council approved the General Plan Amendment and adopted the River Walk Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of the September 22, 2026 City Council public hearing was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall and mailed on August 19, 2026 to property owners within 500 feet of the Project Area and interested parties in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which it received and considered the staff report, the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Final Environmental Impact Report, the General Plan Amendment, the River Walk Specific Plan, the proposed prezoning, public and agency testimony and all other evidence in the administrative record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the proposed prezoning and the entire administrative record and has determined that the Specific Plan Area should be prezoned SP-5 based on the findings in this Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The City Council of the City of Riverbank, California does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS
Based on the entire administrative record, the City Council finds as follows:

A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.

B. The City Council has considered the Planning Commission's recommendation and, based on the entire record and the findings in this Ordinance, determines that the proposed prezoning should be approved.

C. The prezoning is consistent with the Riverbank General Plan, as amended, and implements the land-use and circulation framework established by the River Walk Specific Plan.

D. The prezoning facilitates orderly annexation and development by establishing the zoning regulations that will apply to the Specific Plan Area upon annexation.

E. The SP-5 zoning designation is consistent with the River Walk Specific Plan because it requires future development within the Specific Plan Area to comply with the land uses, development standards, design guidelines and administrative procedures contained in the Specific Plan.

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance No. 2026-___
F. The potential environmental effects of the prezoning were evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Report. All applicable mitigation measures shall be implemented and enforced in accordance with the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

G. The prezoning is in the public interest and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.

SECTION 2. PREZONING APPROVAL
The approximately 997.18-acre River Walk Specific Plan Area shown on the prezoning map attached as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Ordinance by reference is hereby prezoned Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5).

The River Walk Specific Plan, as adopted by the City Council, shall constitute the governing land-use regulations, development standards, design guidelines and administrative procedures for property within the SP-5 zoning district. Nothing in this Ordinance authorizes development exceeding the cumulative residential or nonresidential limits established by the River Walk Specific Plan and analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

SECTION 3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
The Official Zoning Map of the City of Riverbank is hereby amended to identify the River Walk Specific Plan Area as Specific Plan No. 5 (SP-5), as shown in Exhibit A.

The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to update the Official Zoning Map to reflect the SP-5 designation following annexation of the affected property.

SECTION 4. EFFECT OF ANNEXATION
This Ordinance establishes the prezoning required for the proposed annexation.

The SP-5 zoning designation shall become operative for property within the Specific Plan Area only upon completion of annexation of that property to the City of Riverbank.

If LAFCo approves annexation of less than the entire Specific Plan Area, the SP-5 zoning designation shall become operative only for the property included within the completed annexation. Property not included in the completed annexation shall retain its prezoned status pending any subsequent annexation.

For two years after completion of annexation, the City may not make a change to the General Plan or zoning for the annexed territory that does not conform to this prezoning, except in accordance with Government Code section 56375(e).

SECTION 5. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
Adoption of this Ordinance does not approve any tentative subdivision map, final map, improvement plan, grading plan, architectural and site plan review, conditional use