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)
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 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 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)
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 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 City of
Riverbank
Planning
Qualified
Paleontologist
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)
made available upon request to representatives of the RWQCB.
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.
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 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.
City of
Riverbank
Planning
Qualified
Paleontologist
Prior to Grading
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
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 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)
of greenhouse gases. 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 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
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)
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 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
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)
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
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
into the environment.
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 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.
City of
Riverbank
Planning
Prior to Grading
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)
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).
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
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)
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 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
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)
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.
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
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)
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 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.
City of
Riverbank
Planning/Public
Works
Prior to
approval of
improvements
plans
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 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)
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:
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.
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)
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” 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 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)
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.
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
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 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)
not have adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments.
sewer allocation.
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.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
CITY OF RIVERBANK
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2026- ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT FOR THE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT, INCLUDING
AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION MAPS 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 (“Project Area”). 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-acre Specific Plan Area proposed for annexation and development. The remaining land within the overall Project Area would be included within the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment and retained under the Reserve designation for possible long-range 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, openspace, drainage and Reserve uses established by the River Walk Specific Plan. The amendment would also retain the Reserve designation on lands within the overall Project Area that are outside the approximately 997-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 system established by the River Walk Specific Plan; and 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 proposed General Plan Amendment must be adopted before or concurrently with the River Walk Specific Plan to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Specific Plan; and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65353 requires the Planning Commission to hold at least one noticed public hearing before making a recommendation concerning a proposed General Plan amendment; 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, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Riverbank News on July 1, 2026, and mailed through the United States Postal Service on July 1, 2026, to interested parties and owners of property located within 500 feet of the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was posted at City Hall North, City Hall South and the Riverbank Community Center, and the project applicant posted public-notice signs on the Project property along McHenry Avenue and near the intersection of Patterson Road and Coffee Road; 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; and
WHEREAS, before making its recommendation on the General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, and adopted a separate resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment and finds that it may be recommended for approval based on the findings contained in this Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RIVERBANK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporates them into this Resolution by reference.
2. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report and the environmental information contained in the administrative record before making its recommendation on the General Plan Amendment. Approval and implementation of the General Plan Amendment shall be subject to certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, adoption of the applicable CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and adoption and implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by the City Council.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
3. The Planning Commission 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 would replace 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.
4. The Planning Commission 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.
5. The Planning Commission 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.
6. The Planning Commission 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 amendments are coordinated and establish a consistent policy framework for implementation of the River Walk Specific Plan.
7. The Planning Commission finds that adoption of the General Plan Amendment before or concurrently with the River Walk Specific Plan would make the River Walk Specific Plan consistent with the General Plan, as required by Government Code section 65454.
8. Based on the General Plan Amendment, the River Walk Specific Plan, the Final Environmental Impact Report, the staff report, public testimony and other substantial evidence in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the General Plan Amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
9. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment and amend the General Plan Land Use Map in accordance with Exhibit A and the General Plan Circulation Map in accordance with Exhibit B, each of which is attached to and incorporated into this Resolution by reference.
10. This recommendation does not constitute final approval of the General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment may be approved only by the City Council following its review and consideration of the Project and completion of all actions required by CEQA.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
11. 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 Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 4
th day of August, 2026; motioned by Commissioner ______, seconded by Commissioner ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Joshua E. Mann Michael “Syd” Halterman
Director of Community Development Planning Commission Chair Attachments:
Exhibit “A” – Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
Exhibit “B” – General Plan Circulation 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
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
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
CITY OF RIVERBANK
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC
PLAN AND PREZONE THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN
ZONING DESIGNATION
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) includes an approximately 997-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 residential villages, an age-restricted active-adult component, mixed-use areas, a community core, parks, trails, open space, drainage facilities, roadways, utilities and supporting infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan establishes a cumulative development program of no more than 2,682 dwelling units and approximately 341,000 to 836,000 square feet of nonresidential mixed-use development. The Specific Plan also establishes applicable land uses, development standards, design guidelines, infrastructure requirements, phasing provisions and administrative procedures; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 65450 through 65457 authorize the preparation and adoption of specific plans to systematically implement a city’s general plan. Government Code section 65454 requires a specific plan to be consistent with the applicable general plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by separate resolution adopted concurrently with this Resolution, recommended that the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment modifying the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Maps to reflect the River Walk Specific Plan. If approved before or concurrently with the Specific Plan, the General Plan Amendment would make the Specific Plan consistent with the General Plan, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area is outside the City limits and must be prezoned before annexation. The proposed prezoning would apply the Specific Plan zoning designations to the entire Specific Plan Area and would become effective upon annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, in accordance
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines. By separate resolution, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Riverbank News and mailed through the United States Postal Service on July 1, 2026, to interested parties and owners of property located within 500 feet of the Project Area. Notice was also posted at public locations and on the Project property; 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporates them into this Resolution by reference.
2. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the Final Environmental Impact Report and the environmental information contained in the administrative record. Approval of the River Walk Specific Plan and prezoning shall be subject to the City Council’s certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the applicable CEQA findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the River Walk Specific Plan contains the land-use plan, development standards, design guidelines, circulation system, infrastructure program and implementation provisions necessary to guide the orderly development of the Specific Plan Area.
4. The Planning Commission finds that, upon approval of the related General Plan Amendment, the River Walk Specific Plan would be consistent with and implement the goals, policies, land-use designations and circulation framework of the General Plan, as amended.
5. The Planning Commission finds that the River Walk Specific Plan is in the public interest because it provides a comprehensive framework for housing, mixed-use development, parks, recreation, trails, open space, public infrastructure and community amenities within a coordinated long-range development program.
6. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Final River Walk Specific Plan, dated May 15, 2025, as revised by the Final EIR errata and any approved conforming edits, in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
7. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council introduce and adopt an ordinance prezoning the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area to the Specific Plan zoning designations, effective upon annexation, substantially in the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B.
8. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council authorize staff to make non-substantive conforming edits, correct typographical errors and update internal references in the Final River Walk Specific Plan, provided that those edits do not alter the approved development program or result in environmental effects not analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
9. Adoption of the River Walk Specific Plan and prezoning would not approve any subdivision map, improvement plan, grading plan, design review, use permit, building permit or other subsequent development application. Future development shall remain subject to applicable City review procedures, mitigation measures, conditions of approval and any additional environmental review required by law. Annexation and the related Sphere of Influence amendment remain subject to review and approval by the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission.
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 Planning Commission declares that it would have adopted this Resolution and each portion thereof regardless of the fact that any one or more portions are declared invalid.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 4
th day of August, 2026; motioned by Commissioner
______, seconded by Commissioner ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Joshua E. Mann Michael “Syd” Halterman
Director of Community Development Planning Commission Chair Attachments:
Exhibit “A” – River Walk Specific Plan, dated May 2025
Exhibit “B” – Draft City Council Pre-Zone Ordinance
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-__
Exhibit A
River Walk Specific Plan, dated May 2025
AVAILABLE AT:
https://www.riverbank.org/DocumentCenter/View/5433
/River-Walk-Specific-Plan_-Final
HARD COPIES AVAILABLE AT:
CITY HALL NORTH AND SOUTH: 6707 THIRD STREET
RIVERBANK LIBRARY: 3442 SANTA FE STREET
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-__
Exhibit B
Draft City Council Pre-Zone Ordinance
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT
CITY OF RIVERBANK
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK PREZONING THE APPROXIMATELY 997-ACRE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 4 (SP-4)
_______________________
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) includes an approximately 997-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; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 56375 requires, as a condition of annexation, that a city prezone territory proposed for annexation or provide other evidence satisfactory to the Local Agency Formation Commission that the 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 land governed by a specific plan to be zoned Specific Plan and assigned an identifying number. Accordingly, the River Walk Specific Plan Area would be designated Specific Plan No. 4 (SP-4); and
WHEREAS, the SP-4 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; and
WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt the associated CEQA findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, approve the General Plan Amendment, adopt the River Walk Specific Plan and prezone the Specific Plan Area to the SP-4 zoning designation; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
EXHIBIT B
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 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 City Council public hearing concerning the River Walk Specific Plan Project and proposed prezoning was published, posted and mailed in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on __________, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at which it received and considered the staff report, Planning Commission recommendations, Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, River Walk Specific Plan, proposed prezoning, public testimony and other evidence submitted into the record; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL 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 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.
C. The prezoning would facilitate orderly annexation and development by establishing the zoning regulations that will apply to the Specific Plan Area upon annexation.
D. The SP-4 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.
E. 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
EXHIBIT B
F. 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-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. 4 (SP-4).
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-4 zoning district.
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. 4 (SP-4), as shown in Exhibit A.
The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to update the Official Zoning Map to reflect this prezoning following annexation of the affected property.
Section 4 - EFFECT OF ANNEXATION: This Ordinance establishes the prezoning required for the proposed annexation. The SP-4 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 the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission approves annexation of less than the entire Specific Plan Area, the SP-4 zoning designation shall become operative only for the affected property included within the completed annexation. The remaining property shall retain its prezoned status pending any subsequent annexation.
Section 5 – SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS: Adoption of this Ordinance does not approve any tentative subdivision map, final map, improvement plan, grading plan, design review, use permit, building permit or other subsequent development application. Future development within the SP-4 zoning district shall comply with the River Walk Specific Plan, applicable provisions of the Riverbank Municipal Code, the Development Agreement, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and all other applicable requirements.
Section 6 – CEQA COMPLIANCE: The City Council has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopted CEQA Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the River Walk Specific Plan Project. The documents and other materials constituting the administrative record for the City’s environmental review are maintained by the City Clerk and are available for public review at the City of Riverbank Planning Division.
Section 7 – SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
EXHIBIT B
Ordinance.
The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase and portion thereof regardless of the fact that any one or more portions are declared invalid.
Section 8 – EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its final passage and adoption. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published in accordance with Government Code section 36933.
The foregoing ordinance was given its first reading and introduced by title only at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Riverbank on the ______ day of ______, 2026. Said ordinance was given a second reading by title only and adopted.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting on the ___ day of ________, 2026, as motioned by Councilmember _________, seconded by Councilmember _________, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote ___:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________ ___________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
Attachments:
Exhibit “A” – Pre-Zone to Specific Plan 4
Mc Henry Av
Burwoo
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 A:
Pre-Zone to Specific Plan 4
Legend
Project Area
Specific Plan Area
City of Riverbank
Proposed Zoning Designation
Mixed Use (CX-1)
Single Family Residential (R-1)
Specific Plan Area
Unassigned
Sources: Stanislaus County GIS. Map date: June 15, 2022. q 01 500 ,000
Feet
Sta nisl aus River
S at nislaus Cou nty
San Joaquin County
River Rd
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
CITY OF RIVERBANK
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS TO STANISLAUS LAFCO FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND ANNEXATION OF THE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA
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; and WHEREAS, the Project proposes to amend the City’s Sphere of Influence to include the approximately 1,522-acre Project Area and annex the approximately 997-acre River Walk Specific Plan Area to the City; and
WHEREAS, land within the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment but outside the Specific Plan Area would retain the Reserve designation. Inclusion within the Sphere of Influence would not approve annexation or development of that land; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to initiate proceedings under the CorteseKnox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Government Code section 56654 authorizes the City Council to initiate proceedings through adoption of a resolution of application, and Government Code section 56658 governs submittal of the application to LAFCo; and
WHEREAS, Stanislaus LAFCo is the final decision-making body for the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, which evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment, annexation and development of the Specific Plan Area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, River Walk Specific Plan and prezoning at a duly noticed special public hearing held on August 4, 2026, and adopted separate resolutions making recommendations to the City Council regarding those actions; and WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Riverbank News and mailed on July 1, 2026, to interested parties and property owners located within 500 feet of the Project Area.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporates them into this Resolution by reference.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
2. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution of application authorizing the City to submit the following requests to Stanislaus LAFCo:
a. Amendment of the City’s Sphere of Influence to include the approximately 1,522- acre area shown in Exhibit A.
b. Annexation of the approximately 997-acre River Walk Specific Plan Area shown in Exhibit B.
c. Any Municipal Service Review update or other supporting application required by Stanislaus LAFCo.
3. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council authorize City staff to prepare, execute and submit the LAFCo applications, plans for services, maps, legal descriptions and other supporting documents necessary to process the requests.
4. Technical corrections to the application materials may be made by City staff, provided that the corrections do not materially expand the requested boundaries, increase the approved development program or result in environmental effects beyond those analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
5. This Resolution constitutes a recommendation to the City Council and does not approve the Sphere of Influence amendment or annexation. Final approval of those actions remains subject to review and action by Stanislaus LAFCo.
6. 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 4
th day of August, 2026; motioned by Commissioner ______, seconded by Commissioner ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Joshua E. Mann Michael “Syd” Halterman
Director of Community Development Planning Commission Chair Attachments:
Exhibit A: Sphere of Influence Area Map
Exhibit B: Annexation Area Map
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
Exhibit A
Sphere of Influence Area Map
¬«19
¬«2
¬«52
¬«1
¬«47
¬«39
¬«5
¬«18
¬«15
¬«28
¬«3
¬«29
¬«13
¬«30
¬«41
¬«48
¬« ¬«55
50 ¬«10
¬«40
¬«14
¬«27
¬«44 ¬«53
¬«32
¬«46 ¬«43
¬«36
¬«34
¬«45
¬«42
¬«33
¬«22
¬«8
¬«49
¬«31
¬«7
¬«12
¬«35
¬«54
¬«6
¬«4
¬«51
¬«23
¬«21
¬«26
¬«37
¬«20
¬«38
¬«11
¬«24
¬«17
¬«9
¬«16
¬«25
¬«58
¬«57
¬«56
Patterson Rd ¬«59
Oakdale Rd
Candlewood Pl
Mc Henry Ave
Rkr a P idge Dr
Patterson Rd
Hogue Rd
Stanislaus River
MID Main Canal
MID Drainage
RIVERWALK SPECIFIC PLAN
Exhibit A
Sphere of Influence
Area Map
Sources: Stanislaus County GIS. Map date: June 7, 2022. q 0 500 1,000
Feet
Legend
Project Area
Specific Plan Area
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Sphere of Influence
(SOI)
Proposed SOI Expansion
Parcels within the Project Area
Other Stanislaus County
Parcels
Map
Label
Assessor Parcel
Number
Map
Label
Assessor Parcel
Number
Map
Label
Assessor Parcel
Number
1 074-001-001 11 074-001-009 31 074-002-007
2 074-001-015 12 074-001-010 32 074-002-033
3 074-001-016 13 074-002-020 33 074-002-032
4 074-001-003 14 074-002-019 34 074-002-001
5 074-001-011 15 074-002-018 35 074-003-022
6 074-001-012 16 074-002-017 36 074-003-021
7 074-001-013 17 074-002-025 37 074-003-020
8 074-001-005 18 074-002-024 38 074-003-016
9 074-001-014 19 074-002-014 39 074-003-013
10 074-001-008 20 074-002-013 40 074-003-012
21 074-002-011 41 074-003-023
22 074-002-028 42 074-003-002
23 074-002-026 43 074-003-015
24 074-002-006 44 074-003-014
25 074-002-010 45 074-003-011
26 074-002-031 46 074-003-010
27 074-002-021 47 074-003-019
28 074-002-030 48 074-003-018
29 074-002-029 49 074-003-024
30 074-002-034 50 074-003-008
51 074-003-007
52 074-003-006
53 074-003-005
54 074-003-004
55 074-003-003
56 074-005-012
57 074-005-013
58 074-005-010
59 074-005-011
¬«X
Mc Henry Ave
River Rd
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
Exhibit B
Annexation Area Map
River Rd
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:
Annexation Area
Legend
City of Riverbank
Riverbank Sphere of Influence (SOI)
Proposed SOI Expansion
County Boundary
Project Area
Annexation Area
Berghill Boundary
Sources: Stanislaus County GIS; San Joaquin County GIS; ArcGIS Online World Imagery Map Service 6/18/2021. Map date: June 7, 2022. q 0 500 1,000
Feet
Stanislaus River
Stanislaus Cou nty
San Joaquin County
River Rd
Stanislaus River
ATTACHMENT “I”
Annexation Alternatives for Application to
Stanislaus County LAFCo
MCHENRY AVE PATTERSON RD. MID MAIN CANAL MID DRAINAGE CANAL
STANISLAUS RIVER
MCHENRY AVE
HOGUE ROAD
MID
MAIN
CANAL LADD RD. PATTERSON RD.
SKITTONE RD.
COFFEE RD.
STANISLAUS RIVER
STEWART RD.
CITY OF RIVERBANK
STANISLAUS COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY N BERGHILL PROPERTY LEGEND
MCHENRY AVE PATTERSON RD. MID MAIN CANAL MID DRAINAGE CANAL
STANISLAUS RIVER
MCHENRY AVE
HOGUE ROAD
MID
MAIN
CANAL LADD RD. PATTERSON RD.
SKITTONE RD.
COFFEE RD.
STANISLAUS RIVER
STEWART RD.
CITY OF RIVERBANK
STANISLAUS COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY N BERGHILL W/FRIEDBERGER, PAREGIAN, RIBIERO LEGEND
MCHENRY AVE PATTERSON RD. MID MAIN CANAL MID DRAINAGE CANAL
STANISLAUS RIVER
MCHENRY AVE
HOGUE ROAD
MID
MAIN
CANAL LADD RD. PATTERSON RD.
SKITTONE RD.
COFFEE RD.
STANISLAUS RIVER
STEWART RD.
CITY OF RIVERBANK
STANISLAUS COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY N PREFERRED ANNEXATION BOUNDARY LEGEND
MCHENRY AVE PATTERSON RD. MID MAIN CANAL MID DRAINAGE CANAL
STANISLAUS RIVER
MCHENRY AVE
HOGUE ROAD
MID
MAIN
CANAL LADD RD. PATTERSON RD.
SKITTONE RD.
COFFEE RD.
STANISLAUS RIVER
STEWART RD.
CITY OF RIVERBANK
STANISLAUS COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY N ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVE #1 (EXLUDE PARK RIDGE) LEGEND
MCHENRY AVE PATTERSON RD. MID MAIN CANAL MID DRAINAGE CANAL
STANISLAUS RIVER
MCHENRY AVE
HOGUE ROAD
MID
MAIN
CANAL LADD RD. PATTERSON RD.
SKITTONE RD.
COFFEE RD.
STANISLAUS RIVER
STEWART RD.
CITY OF RIVERBANK
STANISLAUS COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY N ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVE #2 (EXLUDE PARK RIDGE & FULLY DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL LOT LEGEND
MCHENRY AVE PATTERSON RD. MID MAIN CANAL MID DRAINAGE CANAL
STANISLAUS RIVER
MCHENRY AVE
HOGUE ROAD
MID
MAIN
CANAL LADD RD. PATTERSON RD.
SKITTONE RD.
COFFEE RD.
STANISLAUS RIVER
STEWART RD.
CITY OF RIVERBANK
STANISLAUS COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY N ANNEXATION ALTERNATIVE #3 (UNINHABITED BOUNDARY) LEGEND
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
CITY OF RIVERBANK
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE RIVER
WALK SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) includes an approximately 997-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 residential villages, an age-restricted active-adult component, mixed-use areas, a community core, parks, trails, open space, drainage facilities, roadways, utilities and supporting infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the California Legislature adopted Government Code section 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes the City and an individual with an interest in real property to enter into a development agreement that establishes certain development rights in real property that is subject to a development agreement application; and
WHEREAS, City and the applicant of the River Walk Specific Plan Project seek to enter into a Development Agreement pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute and all applicable local and state laws; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement would provide vested rights to develop the project in accordance with the land uses and development standards applied to the affected properties, subject to provisions contained in the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, in conjunction with this resolution, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed special public hearing at which it received and considered the staff report, a General Plan Amendment, the River Walk Specific Plan, the proposed prezoning, the Final Environmental Impact Report, this Development Agreement, the proposed applications for Stanislaus LAFCO, staff and applicant presentations, public testimony and all other evidence submitted into the record; and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
WHEREAS, City staff conducted a full analysis of the Development Agreement to ensure compliance and consistency with the General Plan, the River Walk Specific Plan, the applied zoning, and other applicable laws, regulations, and standards; and WHEREAS, City Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following findings:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the Riverbank General Plan, the zoning for the affected properties, and all other applicable standards and ordinances of the City of Riverbank.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098) applies to the Development Agreement in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines.
3. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, that the Development Agreement:
a. Is compatible with the authorized land uses and zoning for the affected properties; and
b. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, and programs specified in the General Plan and the River Walk Specific Plan; and
c. Will provide for the orderly development of the affected properties and preserve surrounding property values; will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing in the immediate area nor detrimental to the general welfare of the residents of the City of Riverbank as a whole; and will be compatible with surrounding land uses; and
d. Provides sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into the Development Agreement, which includes the provision of housing, mixed-use development, parks, recreation, trails, open space, public infrastructure and community amenities within a coordinated longrange development program, receipt of City fees, and provision of public infrastructure; and
e. Contains an adequate legal description of the affected properties that is the subject of the Development Agreement, and is in all other respects consistent with the provisions of Government Code, sections 65864 through 65869.5.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Riverbank, after due deliberation and based on its independent review and analysis, the staff analysis, and oral and written testimony presented at the public hearing, that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the findings as stated in the above Recitals and staff report, and recommends to the City Council adoption of the attached Ordinance approving and authorizing execution of the Development Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting held on the 4th day of August, 2026; motioned by Commissioner ______, seconded by Commissioner ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Joshua E. Mann Michael “Syd” Halterman
Director of Community Development Planning Commission Chair Attachment – Exhibit A (Development Agreement Ordinance)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
EXHIBIT A
City Council Ordinance
Development Agreement
ORDINANCE NO. ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR THE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN AND ANNEXATION
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) includes an approximately 997-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 residential villages, an age-restricted active-adult component, mixed-use areas, a community core, parks, trails, open space, drainage facilities, roadways, utilities and supporting infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by separate actions adopted concurrently with this Resolution, approved a General Plan Amendment modifying the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Maps to reflect the River Walk Specific Plan; introduced an ordinance prezoning the Specific Plan area; and adopted a resolution of application authorizing City staff to commence filings with Stanislaus LAFCO for Sphere of Influence and annexation applications;
WHEREAS, by separate resolutions adopted concurrently with this Ordinance, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, adopted CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the California Legislature adopted Government Code section 65864 et seq. (the “Development Agreement Statute”), which authorizes the City and an individual with an interest in real property to enter into a development agreement that establishes certain development rights in real property that is subject to a development agreement application; and
WHEREAS, City and the applicant for the River Walk Specific Plan Project seek to enter into a Development Agreement pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute and all applicable local and state laws; and
4932-0036-5720, v. 2
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement would provide vested rights to develop the project in accordance with the land uses and development standards applied to the affected properties, subject to provisions contained in the Development Agreement; 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 River Walk Specific Plan, the proposed prezoning, the Final Environmental Impact Report, this Development Agreement, the proposed applications for Stanislaus LAFCO, staff and applicant presentations, public testimony and all other evidence submitted into the record; and
WHEREAS, on _____________, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and recommended approval of the attached Development Agreement to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on _____________, 2026, the City Council introduced the above ordinance to approve and authorize execution of the attached Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, based on its independent review and analysis, the staff analysis, and all oral and written testimony contained in the record, the City Council finds, after due study, deliberation and public hearing that the following circumstances exist:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the Riverbank General Plan, the zoning for the affected properties, and all other applicable standards and ordinances of the City of Riverbank.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098) applies to the Development Agreement in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines.
3. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statute, the City Council finds as follows in regard to the Development Agreement:
a. That its provisions are compatible with the authorized land uses and zoning for the affected properties; and
b. That it is consistent with the objectives, policies, and programs specified in the General Plan and the River Walk Specific Plan; and c. That it will provide for the orderly development of the affected properties and preserve surrounding property values; will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons
4932-0036-5720, v. 2
residing in the immediate area nor detrimental to the general welfare of the residents of the City of Riverbank as a whole; and will be compatible with surrounding land uses; and
d. That it provides sufficient benefit to the City to justify entering into the Development Agreement, which includes the provision of housing, mixed-use development, parks, recreation, trails, open space, public infrastructure and community amenities within a coordinated longrange development program, receipt of City fees, and provision of public infrastructure; and
e. That it contains an adequate legal description of the affected properties that is the subject of the Development Agreement, and is in all other respects consistent with the provisions of Government Code, sections 65864 through 65869.5.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section One: The recitals and findings contained in this Ordinance are hereby incorporated and made part of this Ordinance.
Section Two: The City Council of the City of Riverbank hereby approves and authorizes execution of the Development Agreement attached and incorporated hereto as Exhibit A, subject to minor revisions required and approved by the City Attorney.
Section Three: The City shall review the Development Agreement for compliance with its terms and conditions not less than once every twelve (12) months from the effective date of the Development Agreement.
Section Four: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its passage and shall be published or a summary thereof within (15) days after its final passage as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Riverbank at a regular meeting on the ___ day of ________, 2026, as motioned by Councilmember _________, seconded by Councilmember _________, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote ___:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4932-0036-5720, v. 2
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________ ___________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
Attachments:
Exhibit “A” – Development Agreement
4932-0036-5720, v. 2
EXHIBIT A
Development Agreement
River Walk Specific Plan Project
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Document entitled to free recording
Government Code Section 6103
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Attn: City Clerk
Ph: (209) 863-7122
Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder’s Use.
Exempt from Recording Fee. (Government Code
sections 6103 and 27383)
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF RIVERBANK
AND
RIVER WALK, LLC
THE RIVER WALK PROJECT
Adopted by City Council Ordinance No. , on
_________________
River Walk Development Agreement
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between River Walk, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”), and the City of Riverbank, a California municipal corporation (“City”), as of ____________________________, 2026 (the “Effective Date”). City and Developer may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” or collectively as the “Parties.” There are no other parties to this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Authorization. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Government Code Section 65864, et seq. (the "Development Agreement Statute"), which authorizes the City and any person having a legal or equitable interest in the real property to enter into a development agreement, establishing certain development rights in the property which is the subject of the development project application. As the Legislature found at the time, “[a]ssurance to the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, will strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development.” (Gov. Code, § 65864(b).) As the courts have observed, a development agreement “allows a city or county to freeze zoning and other land use regulation applicable to specified property to guarantee that a developer will not be affected by changes in the standards for government approval during the period of development.” (Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 221, 226–227, citing City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc. (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1184, 1193, fn. 6, and Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1213.) B. Housing Crisis. In recent years, the Legislature has also emphasized the importance of facilitating the development of new housing. “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, § 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., § 65589.5(a)(1)(C).) “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against lowincome and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Id., § 65589.5(a)(l)(B).)
C. Property. Developer represents that, upon approval of this Agreement, it has legal title to or an equitable interest (i.e., contractual acquisition right) in that certain real property located on the north side of Patterson Road, south of the Stanislaus River, and east of McHenry Boulevard, consisting of approximately 769 gross acres, located in the County of Stanislaus, State of California and, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated
River Walk Development Agreement
herein (the "Property"). Developer represents that all persons holding legal or equitable interests in the Property shall be bound by this Agreement.
D. Project. The Property is located within that certain specific plan area consisting of approximately 997 gross acres known as the Specific Plan, an area for which the City will apply for reorganization (“Annexation”) to Stanislaus County LAFCO (“LAFCO”) pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov. Code § 56000 et seq.), with such approval to be effective upon LAFCO’s recordation of a certificate of completion.
Development of the River Walk Specific Plan pursuant to this Agreement and all such other entitlements contained herein shall be referred to as the “Project.” The Project also includes a Sphere of Influence amendment (the “SOI Amendment”) of approximately 1,522 acres and which includes the entire area of the River Walk Specific Plan. A copy of the Project’s Proposed Specific Plan Conceptual Land Use Diagram is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
E. Project Approvals. Numerous actions must be taken by the City in connection with the Project for the Project to proceed, which include, but are not limited to, the following, as may be modified or amended from time to time as provided for in this Agreement (collectively, the “Project Approvals”).
1. Planning Commission. On ______________________, Planning Commission for the City of Riverbank (“Planning Commission”) adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. _______________________, recommending that the City Council for the City of Riverbank (“City Council”) certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project. The Planning Commission further recommended that the City Council approve the following for the Project: (1) Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution No. _____________), (2) The Specific Plan (the “Specific Plan”) (Resolution No. _____________), (3) Pre-Zoning (Resolution No. _________________); (4) a request for SOI Amendment and annexation (Resolution No. _____________); and (5) this Agreement (Resolution No. _________________).
2. Certified Final Environmental Impact Report. On
______________________, the City Council adopted Resolution No. _____________, certifying as adequate and complete, the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (SCH #: 2021060098) for the Project. Mitigation measures as contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (“MMRP”) have been established to reduce the levels of identified impacts to less than significant, with the exception of those that remain significant and unavoidable. The City Council also considered and adopted Resolution No. _____________, granting a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to these potentially significant impacts. The mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project and into the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as reflected by the findings adopted by the City Council concurrently with this Agreement. As that document explained, it provided “project-level” analysis for some portions of the Project area and “program-level” analysis for other areas. In particular, “the component of the proposed Project that includes a Specific Plan includes a very high level of design detail for that portion of the proposed Project. To the extent that sufficient detail is available in the Specific Plan, a full projectlevel analysis is provided in this EIR.” (Draft EIR, p. 1.0-2.) No further formal environmental documentation is anticipated through the buildout of the Specific Plan portion of the Project. The EIR goes on to explain that “[s]ubsequent individual development that requires further discretionary approvals will be examined in light of this EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared.” (Id.)
River Walk Development Agreement
3. Specific Plan. On ______________________, the City Council adopted Resolution No. _____________, approving the Specific Plan.
4. Prezoning. On ______________________, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. _____________, approving the pre-zoning for the Specific Plan area.
5. Annexation and SOI Amendment. On ______________________, the City Council adopted Resolution No. _____________, authorizing the filing of an application, or applications, with the Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”), for modification of the City’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”), and annexation of the Specific Plan area.
6. Development Agreement. On ______________________, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. _________________, approving this Agreement.
F. Need for Services and Facilities. Development of the Property will result in a need for municipal services and facilities, some of which services and facilities will be provided by the City to the Project subject to the performance of Developer’s obligations hereunder. In entering into this Agreement, the Parties acknowledge that this Agreement and the Project Approvals shall be the primary instrument whereby the timing, phasing, and construction of the entirety of the major infrastructure improvements and all other terms and conditions pertinent thereto shall be set forth and agreed to by the Parties. In exchange for these benefits to City, together with the public benefits provided by the development of the Project pursuant to this Agreement and the Project Approvals, Developer desires to receive the vested right that it may proceed with development of the Project in accordance with applicable laws in effect as of the Approval Date, and the Project Approvals, including without limitation, the existing Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals. The Parties intend that, except as qualified in Article 4 below, this vested right would protect Developer against future actions of the City, including the City’s electorate through mechanisms such as initiative and referenda, to modify the operative General Plan and zoning designations, subdivision standards and criteria, including design standards, and other laws, ordinances, resolutions, initiatives, rules, regulations, or other measures described in more detail in Article 4 below, in a manner that reduces the permitted density and intensity of use authorized by the operative General Plan and zoning designations, subdivision standards and criteria, including design standards, laws, ordinances, resolutions, initiatives, rules, regulations, or other measures in place and in effect at the time of the approval of this Agreement.
G. Intent of the Parties; Benefit to Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement relating to the Property in conformance with the applicable provisions of state and local law in order to achieve development of the Project in accordance with the Project Approvals, City ordinances and resolutions, the City Code, and the Zoning Code, which together assure the health, safety, and general welfare of the City and its existing residents.
In addition, the Parties want to provide clear public benefits not usually obtained through the land development approval process and to achieve the development permitted under this Agreement and the provision of public services, public uses, and infrastructure all in the promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. City has determined that as a result of the development of the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals, including this Agreement, clear public benefits will accrue to the City and its residents that may not otherwise be obtained to the same extent through applicable development approval processes.
River Walk Development Agreement
H. Contribution to Costs of Facilities and Services. Developer agrees to contribute to the costs of such public facilities and services as may be required herein to mitigate impacts on the community resulting from the development of the Property, and City agrees to provide such public facilities and services, as required under its municipal responsibilities, as may be required herein to assure that Developer may proceed with and complete development of the Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. City and Developer recognize and agree that, but for Developer’s contributions to mitigate the impacts arising from the development entitlements granted pursuant to this Agreement, City would not and could not approve the development of the Property as provided by this Agreement and that, but for City's covenant to provide certain facilities and services for development of the Property, Developer would not and could not commit to provide the mitigation as provided by this Agreement. City's vesting of the right to develop the Property as provided herein is reliant upon and in consideration of Developer’s agreement to make contributions toward the cost of public improvements as herein provided to mitigate the impacts of development of the Property as development occurs.
I. Development Agreement. City and Developer have taken all actions mandated by, and fulfilled all requirements set forth in the Development Agreement Statute establishing procedures for consideration of Development Agreements.
J. Intent of the Parties: Application of Development Agreement. In order to achieve the level of certainty needed to justify the major investments that Developer must make to finance and build the key backbone infrastructure needed for the Project, the City has agreed to extend the vesting of development rights under the Agreement even to properties not subject to the control or ownership of Developer, provided such properties join this Agreement or execute a separate development agreement with City. Without such broad vesting, development as contemplated by the Specific Plan, with all of its necessary infrastructure, would not be financially feasible. By law, “Specific plans are required … to identify proposed major components of infrastructure needed to support planned land uses.” (The Planner’s Guide to Specific Plans (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2001) (“Planner’s Guide”), p. 6, italics added.) Among the required contents of any Specific Plan are text and diagrams specifying all of the following: “[t]he proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan”; and “[a] program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures[.]” (Gov. Code, §§ 65451(a)(2), (a)(4).) A key goal for a Specific Plan is to size the infrastructure so that it is sufficient to serve the new development while functioning within a larger planning framework created by the local General Plan. “A specific plan may be used to implement the policies of an optional economic development element of a general plan. Policies of the general plan which are specific to financing infrastructure improvements and extensions, or cost recovery programs may be implemented by matching land uses with supporting public facilities. This is done to assist development engineering departments and developers avoid ineffective or undersized streets, sewers, water lines, and other necessary improvements. In addition, it may directly impose exactions in association with the general plan’s capitol improvement policies.” (Planner’s Guide, p. 4.) Here, Developer’s burden to finance and build key infrastructure to support the entire Specific Plan area requires that all of the land uses authorized by the Specific Plan will be fully vested. An internal patchwork within the Specific Plan by which certain land uses in certain areas are fully vested while others are not vested would be totally unworkable. Such an approach would thwart the City’s policy objective of facilitating the development of large numbers of new housing
River Walk Development Agreement
units in furtherance of State policies intended to create such housing. The legal requirement that Specific Plans provide for the financing and construction of all needed infrastructure is commendable public policy, but it imposes very substantial burdens on the entrepreneurs who assume the primary responsibility for obtaining the regulatory approvals, engineering plans, and on-the-ground physical improvements needed to set the stage for constructing new development, including housing. Here, Developer is the primary actor facilitating development within the Specific Plan.
K. Consistency with General Plan and State Law. City has determined that development of the Project, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, is consistent with the City of Riverbank’s General Plan and Government Code Section 65867.5, and that the City has conducted all necessary proceedings in accordance with City and state rules and regulations. Development of the subject Property pursuant to the Project Approvals, the Specific Plan, as applicable to the Project and as set forth in Subsequent City Approvals and conditions of approval, will provide for orderly growth and development consistent with City’s General Plan, and other applicable development policies and programs of City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
ARTICLE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.1. Effective Date of Development Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement ("Effective Date") is ______________, which is the effective date of City Ordinance No. _________________, approving this Agreement. If annexation of the Property (or any portion thereof) is not completed within five (5) years of the Effective Date, then this Agreement shall become null and void. The tolling period for any legal challenge, as set forth in Section 2.3 of this Agreement, shall apply to and extend such five-year period for the duration of the legal challenge.
Section 1.2. Recitals. The Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the Recitals and the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail.
Section 1.3. Exhibits. The following (“Exhibits”) are attached hereto and incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement:
Designation Description
Exhibit A Legal Description of River Walk Property
Exhibit B Proposed Specific Plan Conceptual Land Use Diagram Exhibit C Development Phasing Plan
Exhibit D Water Supply Plan
Exhibit E Wastewater Collection Plan
Exhibit F Wastewater River Crossing
River Walk Development Agreement
Exhibit G Storm Drainage Plan
Exhibit H Park Plan
Exhibit I Sample Disclosure Form
Exhibit J Assignment & Assumption Form
Section 1.4. Project is a Private Undertaking. It is understood that this Agreement is a contract that has been negotiated and voluntarily entered into by City and Developer, and that Developer is not an agent of City. City and Developer hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making City and Developer joint venturers or partners.
Section 1.5. Project Subject to Municipal Code and Policies. Various provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and numerous development policies, regulations, standards, and specifications have been adopted by City that affect the development of the Project (collectively, “Municipal Code and Policies”). Development of the Project shall be subject to the Municipal Code and Policies that are in effect Citywide during development of the Project. The Municipal Code and Policies shall be applied and construed consistent with the purpose of this Agreement.
Amendments to the Municipal Code and Policies after the Effective Date may only apply to the Project if they are: (a) not in conflict with the terms of this Agreement and they would not unduly increase the cost of, delay, or prevent, the development of the Project, or (b) are expressly authorized by this Agreement or mutually agreed to by the Parties in signed writing.
Section 1.6. Covenant Running with the Land. Developer represents that it has a legal or equitable interest in the Property, as identified in Exhibit A. This Agreement shall constitute a covenant running with the land, and the burdens and benefits of this Agreement shall bind and inure to all successors-in-interest to Developer, until such time that the Agreement terminates.
Section 1.7. Recordation of Development Agreement. City shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be recorded against the title to the Property subject to this Agreement within ten (10) business days of the Effective Date. City shall deliver a recorded copy of the Agreement to Developer following recordation of the Agreement.
Section 1.8. Priority of Enactment. In the event of conflict in interpreting between the various land use documents that govern development and use of the Property, the Parties agree that the following sequence of approvals establishes the relative priority of the approvals, each approval superior to the approvals listed thereafter: (1) This Agreement; (2) the Specific Plan; (3) Project Approvals (not including the foregoing); and (4) the Municipal Code and Policies.
Section 1.9. Agreement Costs/Ongoing Project Administration. Developer agrees to reimburse City for all necessary expenses incurred by City related to preparation of this Agreement, including recording fees, publishing fees, legal fees, staff time, and consultant fees and costs not otherwise included in Developer’s application fees or deposit/funding agreement for the Project. Payments under this Section shall be due and payable within thirty (30) calendar days of presentation from City to Developer of a written statement of charges. At any time, Developer may request that City issue an accounting of costs and expenses paid. Developer shall further be obligated to pay all ongoing costs and expenses of City staff, the City Attorney, and consultants of City required to process, administer, and implement the Project throughout the
River Walk Development Agreement
life of the Project. City shall send Developer periodic invoices for reimbursement of the charges incurred for such administration of the Project. Developer’s failure to pay the costs required hereunder shall be cause for City to not process applications, issue building permits or occupancy certificates, and schedule public hearings required for subsequent Project applications or approvals.
ARTICLE 2
TERM AND TERMINATION
Section 2.1. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and extend for a period of twenty (20) years (“Term”). Upon written request by the Developer, the City may, in its reasonable discretion, approve one or more extensions of the Term for additional five (5) year periods, provided that as of the date of each such extension: (a) Developer is not in material default under the Agreement; and (b) Developer has completed, and obtained City acceptance, of at least Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) in new qualifying public infrastructure during the immediately preceding 5-year extension period, as documented by Developer and verified by City. “Qualifying public infrastructure” shall refer to the major improvements required for development of the Specific Plan as described in this Agreement and shall not include in-tract improvements. In no event will the cumulative Term go beyond thirty-five (35) years. Following the expiration of the Term, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force or effect. At all times during the life and development of the Project, Developer shall be required to have an effective Development Agreement with City.
Section 2.2. Term for Project Maps. Pursuant to California Government Code section 66452.6(a), City will automatically extend the term of any parcel map or tentative subdivision map subject to this Agreement for the Term of this Agreement.
Section 2.3. Legal Challenge Tolling. In the event that this Agreement or any of the Project Approvals are the subject of legal challenge or any subsequent approvals or permits required to implement the Project Approvals are subjected to legal challenge by a third party, the terms, timing of obligations imposed, and the requirement to perform any obligations pursuant to this Agreement shall be tolled during the pendency of the litigation, deemed to commence upon service of lawsuit on the City. The tolling shall terminate upon the earlier of the two following dates:
(1) the date of entry of a final order or judgment upholding this Agreement, the Project Approvals, or the challenged approvals with no further appeals remaining, or (2) the date of entry of dismissal of the litigation pursuant to stipulation of the Parties. In the event a court enjoins either City or Developer from taking actions with regard to the Project as a result of such litigation that would preclude either or any of them from enjoying the benefits of this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically tolled during the period of time such injunction or restraining order is in effect. Similarly, if Developer is unable to develop the Project due to a development moratoria for a health or safety reason unrelated to the performance of Developer’s obligations hereunder, the Term of this Agreement and timing for obligations imposed pursuant to this Agreement shall, upon written request of Developer, be extended and tolled for the period of time that such moratoria prevents development of the Project.
Section 2.4. Termination Upon Completion and Sale of Lots/Parcels. This Agreement shall be considered terminated with respect to any lot designated by the Project Approvals upon (a) completion of construction of all required improvements to serve the lot, (b) issuance by City of a final occupancy permit, (c) conveyance of such improved lot by Developer to a bona-fide goodPage 282 of 335 Page 642 of 730 River Walk Development Agreement
faith purchaser thereof, and (d) all fees and charges owed to City pertaining to applicable lot(s) are paid. In connection with its issuance of a final inspection and occupancy for such improved lot, City shall confirm the foregoing conditions are satisfied and that all improvements, which are required to serve the lot, as determined by City, have been installed and accepted by City.
Termination of this Agreement for any such lot or parcel, as provided for in this Section shall in no way be construed to terminate or modify any assessment district, services or maintenance district, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District lien, area of benefit obligation, or such other continuing obligation affecting such lot at the time of termination. The Parties shall use commercially reasonable efforts to record a notice of termination, in a form agreed to by the Parties, on all parcels which have satisfied all obligations under this Agreement.
Section 2.5. Survival After Termination. The rights and obligations of the Parties set forth in the terms and conditions of this Agreement, which by their express terms or nature and context are intended to survive termination of this Agreement, will survive any such termination under this Article.
ARTICLE 3
SUBSEQUENT APPROVALS
Section 3.1. Subsequent City Approvals. Development of the Project will require Developer to obtain additional approvals and permits from City, in addition to the Project Approvals (collectively, the “Subsequent Approvals”). Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation, tentative subdivision maps, final maps, parcel maps, subdivision improvement plans and agreements, design review for architectural and site plan reviews, encroachment permits, building permits, landscaping plans, grading plans and permits, lot line adjustments, use permits, and occupancy certificates. Subsequent Approvals shall also include any conditions of approval adopted in conjunction with or made a part of any Subsequent City Approvals. In the course of taking action on these applications and requests, and except for ministerial actions, City may exercise discretion in imposing conditions of approval required for orderly development of the Specific Plan area, including but not limited to, the major backbone improvements required for each Subsequent City Approval, and fair share obligations of benefitting parcels pursuant to areas of benefit or oversized improvements.
Section 3.2. Further Discretionary Actions. The exercise of City's authority and independent judgment is recognized under this Agreement, and nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as limiting City’s discretion to approve or deny any Subsequent Approvals or impose any conditions on Subsequent Approvals, where allowed by law or necessary for consistency with the Project Approvals, to require additional information or studies from Developers, or to hold legally required public hearings. Except as otherwise set forth herein, such discretion and action taken by City shall be reasonable and not prevent development of the Property for the uses set forth herein or limit the rate or timing of development as contemplated in this Agreement.
Section 3.3. Cooperation Between City and Developer. City shall use its best efforts to process, within a reasonable time, any Subsequent Approvals requested by Developer during the Term of this Agreement. City agrees to cooperate with Developer, on a timely basis, to secure permits or licenses that may be required by any other public agency with permitting or licensing jurisdiction over the Project.
River Walk Development Agreement
Section 3.4. City's Right to Withhold Subsequent Approvals. City reserves the right to withhold any Subsequent Approvals or schedule hearings for such applications if any portion of the Project owned or controlled by a party (including successors of Developer) seeking such Subsequent Approvals fails to conform to the Project Approvals, or has not complied with its obligations under this Agreement, or if City reasonably determines that additional information is required in accordance with CEQA. City’s rights under this Section include if Developer is delinquent on any City fees, City processing costs (in accordance with Section 1.9 above), or reimbursements owed to other landowners or developers within the Specific Plan area.
Section 3.5. Government Code section 66473.7 Compliance. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Project includes a subdivision within the meaning of Government Code section 66473.7. Any phased maps prepared for the Project shall comply with section 66473.7 and shall include as a condition of approval of any such map that, among other things, written verification from the City that sufficient water supply infrastructure is available to serve the subdivision subject to the phased map.
ARTICLE 4
RIGHT TO DEVELOP AND APPROVED LAND USES
Section 4.1. Right to Develop. Developer shall have the right to develop the Property and Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals. Developer is assured, and City agrees, that the development rights, obligations, terms, and conditions specified in the Project Approvals and Subsequent Approvals are fully vested in Developer and may not be modified or terminated by City, except as set forth in this Agreement or with Developer’s written consent (collectively, Developer’s “Vested Rights”).
Except where provided otherwise in this Agreement, including Section 4.4, no ordinance, resolution, growth control measure, initiative, referendum, or other land use restriction adopted or enacted after the Effective Date, whether by action of City or otherwise, which reduces the development rights conferred by the Project Approvals or Subsequent City Approvals shall apply to development of the Property. For reasons explained in Recital J above, in the event Developer acquires other parcels within the Specific Plan which are not included in the Property as defined herein, the vesting provided by this Agreement shall extend to those parcels that are not controlled or owned by Developer.
Section 4.2. Permitted Uses and Development Standards. The permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the location, design and maintenance of on-site and off-site improvements, location of public utilities, and other terms and conditions of development applicable to the Property shall be those set forth in the Project Approvals and the Subsequent Approvals. City acknowledges that the Project Approvals provide for the land uses and approximate acreages shown in the Specific Plan.
Section 4.3 Minor Amendment of Project Approvals. Developer may provide written request for a minor amendment or modification to any of the Project Approvals, including, but not limited to (a) the location of buildings, streets and roadways and other physical facilities, or (b) the configuration of the buildings, the site plan, elevations, the configuration and number of parcels, lots or development areas. To the extent allowable by law, the Community Development Director shall determine whether the requested amendment or modification is consistent with this Agreement, Specific Plan, and applicable provisions of City zoning and subdivision ordinances in
River Walk Development Agreement
effect as of the Effective Date of this agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, the determination of whether such amendment is minor shall be made by reference to whether such amendment or modification is minor in the context of the overall Project. If the Community Development Director finds that the proposed amendment is both minor and consistent with this Agreement, the Specific Plan, and the applicable provisions of City zoning and subdivision ordinances, the Community Development Director may approve the minor amendment administratively. For purposes of this Agreement and notwithstanding any City ordinance or resolution to the contrary, the following shall be deemed a minor amendment or modification: lot line adjustments, minor adjustments in the number of parcels on a Phased Map, minor variances as to density, relocation of densities and/or uses which do not materially alter the overall density of the subject Property as presently set forth in the Specific Plan, minor changes to any bulk, height, lot coverage, and building setbacks, any modifications made to Specific Plan boundaries, and minor modifications to adopted conditions of approval associated with Subsequent Approvals.
The Community Development Director shall reserve the discretion to refer and process any such request through the Planning Commission and/or City Council consistent with City procedures for such approvals.
Section 4.4. Limitations on Developer’s Vested Rights. Notwithstanding Section 4.1, City and Developer agree that the vested rights conferred by this Agreement are subordinate to the following:
(a) Initiatives and Referenda. Any City ordinance, rule, or regulation enacted or imposed by a citizen-sponsored initiative or referendum after the Effective Date that reduces the development rights provided to Developer in this Agreement shall not apply to the Project. The Parties acknowledge, however, that this Agreement is a legislative act subject to referendum. In the event of any such referendum that reduces the development rights conferred by this Agreement, including Developer’s vested rights, City shall cooperate with Developer and undertake such reasonable actions as may be appropriate to ensure that Developers may develop the Project in accordance with State law, the Project Approvals, and all development rights as set forth herein. Nothing herein shall be construed to require City to take any action in violation of state law or duly adopted initiatives or referendums applicable to the Project Approvals. (b) Regulation by Other Public Agencies. The Parties acknowledge that other public agencies, outside of the control and authority of City, regulate or have authority over City and the public infrastructure required to serve the Project, and that the exercise of such public agency authority could negatively impact development of the Project. Nothing in this Agreement limits the authority of such public agencies. City shall not be found to be in breach of this Agreement due to any action taken by another public agency that negatively impacts this Agreement or development of the Project.
(c) Changes in California Building Standards Codes. Development of the Project shall be subject to changes occurring from time to time to the California Building Code, as well as all associated California Codes (Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Fire, etc.), as adopted by the City Council.
(d) Changes Mandated by Federal or State Law. The Project shall be subject to subsequently enacted federal or state laws or regulations that conflict with this Agreement or the Project Approvals, that mandate adoption of local regulations, or that preempt the Municipal Code and Policies. As provided in section 65869.5 of the Development Agreement Statute, in the event
River Walk Development Agreement
that state or federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement, such provisions shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations. Upon discovery of a subsequently enacted federal or state law that conflicts with this Agreement or otherwise affects the Project, City or Developer shall provide the other Party with written notice of the federal or state law or regulation and a written statement of the conflicts raised by such law or regulation. Promptly thereafter, City and Developer shall meet and confer in good faith to modify this Agreement, as necessary, to comply with such law or regulation. In such discussions to resolve the conflict, City and Developer shall attempt to preserve the terms of this Agreement to the maximum extent feasible.
(e) Health and Safety Emergencies. In the event that any future public health and safety emergencies arise during development of the Project, City agrees that it shall attempt to address such emergency in a way that does not have a material adverse impact on the Project. If City determines that it is not reasonably possible to address such emergency without adversely affecting the Project, City shall address such emergency in a way that minimizes the adverse impacts to the Project while still addressing such health and safety emergency in a manner acceptable to City, as to be determined by City in its sole discretion.
Section 4.5. Timing of Development. The Parties acknowledge that Developer cannot, at this time, definitively predict when each phase of the Project will be developed. Such decisions depend upon numerous factors that are not within the control of Developer, such as economic conditions, consumer demand, interest rates, absorption rates, and other factors. It is the desire of the Parties that Developer shall have the vested right to develop the Project in such order, rate, and time as Developer deems appropriate in the exercise of its business judgment, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.
Section 4.6. Waiver of Vesting Through Other Mechanisms. Developer, for itself and all successors-in-interest to the Property, hereby waives and relinquishes any right to obtain or claim vested rights in the Project through the filing of a preliminary application under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) and Government Code section 65941.1 (under the Permit Streamlining Act), as such statutes may be amended. Without limiting the foregoing, Developer waives any right under the foregoing statutes, or under any other law limiting a public agency's authority to impose a fee, charge, or monetary exaction on a development project, to the extent such right would impair the City's ability to impose the SDF Fees (defined in Article 7), Plan Area Fees (defined in Article 7), or to implement the required ongoing funding for maintenance and public services in the Specific Plan area (described in Section 6.4).
Section 4.7. Eminent Domain. City’s statutory powers of eminent domain are available, if necessary, to acquire all properties needed for rights-of-way or easements to be located on properties other than the Property or for construction of the improvements which are necessary for the development of the Project. Any such use of eminent domain by City shall be at Developer’s sole cost and expense, including without limitation, the cost of any staff time, legal costs, appraisals, experts, formal litigation, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs. City may use its statutory powers of eminent domain only after Developer has exhausted all other methods to secure such required property, as determined by City. The Parties acknowledge that exercise of eminent domain powers shall be considered a last resort, and the Parties agree to meet and confer before any formal initiation of eminent domain powers to acquire the necessary property, rights-of-way, or easements.
River Walk Development Agreement
Section 4.8. Phasing. A preliminary phasing of the Project villages, excluding infrastructure analysis, is depicted in Exhibit C, attached hereto. City agrees that Developer may proceed with development of the Property in accordance with their business judgment, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Project Approvals, and phases may change in shape, size and order at the time of actual development. Project phasing and improvement requirements will be refined with the submittal of the first tentative subdivision map and project-specific agreements and/or conditions of approval, and will continue to be analyzed and refined with each subsequent tentative subdivision map.
Section 4.9. Age-Restricted Villages. As contemplated in the Specific Plan, Developer has elected to restrict the Project as an age-restricted active adult development and, as such, to require Villages C, and F through O (11 Villages) to be occupied or held available for occupancy by households that include residents at least fifty-five (55) years of age, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The age restriction will be applied through a deed restriction or similar instrument consistent with applicable laws and regulations recorded against each lot to which the restriction applies. Developer hereby covenants and agrees, for itself and its successors and assigns, that the Property shall be used for the development and operation of active adult housing development in compliance with the requirements set forth herein, and as further specified in the Project’s conditions, covenants, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”). Developer covenants that it shall not enter into any agreement that is inconsistent with such restrictions without the express written consent of City. Prior to issuance of any building permit within the restricted villages, Developer shall execute, acknowledge, and record CC&Rs in a form reasonably acceptable to City, which shall require, among other things, that (a) the Project comply with the active adult occupancy requirements set forth above, (b) implement appropriate age verification procedures to ensure compliance with such CC&Rs, (c) the Project allow or accommodate other qualified residents as required by law (e.g., caretakers, disabled children or grandchildren, unanticipated child custody, or multi-generational living arrangements).
ARTICLE 5
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Section 5.1. Major Improvements Consistent with Project Approvals. Unless otherwise specified herein, Developer shall be responsible for constructing the infrastructure improvements and facilities required for the Specific Plan consistent with the Project Approvals (referred to herein as the “Major Improvements”). The Major Improvements are described in more detail in the Project Approvals and this Article 5. All plans establishing the design and specifications of the Major Improvements constructed by Developers shall be considered Subsequent Approvals subject to review and approval by City.
Section 5.2. Phasing Plan for Major Improvements. As provided by Section 9.3 of the Specific Plan, prior to the filing of any tentative or parcel map application within the Specific Plan area, Developer shall file with City a comprehensive phasing plan for all Major Improvements required for development of the Specific Plan, including without limitation, stormwater and drainage, potable water, non-potable water, wastewater, roadways and circulation, and parkland/buffers/greenway/trails/open space sites (“Phasing Plan”). The Phasing Plan shall be added as an addendum and be incorporated into and made part of the Specific Plan and this Agreement. The Phasing Plan and all provisions contained therein shall be subject to City’s approval. Developer shall have no right to develop the Project, and City shall have no obligation to accept, process, or schedule hearings for any subdivision map application filed by any
River Walk Development Agreement
Developer, until the Phasing Plan is accepted as complete, as determined by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
Section 5.3. Water. The water infrastructure required for the Specific Plan shall be considered a Developer obligation. The backbone water supply infrastructure contemplated in the Specific Plan is identified in Exhibit D and includes the following:
(a) Backbone Water Facilities. The backbone water infrastructure includes the following:
(3) new water wells;
A two (2) million gallon peaking reservoir (water tank) with booster pump; Two (2) pressure regulating stations;
12-inch water transmission pipelines; associated gate valves and fire hydrants.
Developer will install the above water facilities incrementally, as they are needed to serve phases of development. Such incremental construction shall be based upon a water engineering analysis for each phase and shall be approved by the City Engineer. Based on the current state of the City’s water system, at least one (1) new water well is expected to be a minimum requirement for the first phase of development. Developer shall construct the transmission improvements necessary to serve each subdivision, including any looping of the lines necessary to maintain adequate water pressure.
(b) In-Tract Water Facilities. The balance of the water transmission infrastructure within the Project area consists of in-tract water transmission improvements within subdivisions or similar transmission improvements located onsite in other development projects, such as, for example, apartments, office buildings or retail buildings. These improvements are referred to as “In-Tract Water Lines”. The In-Tract Water Lines are not considered backbone facilities and shall be financed through their installation by Developer, or other Project applicants, and secured in the approval process for subdivision maps or other Subsequent Approvals.
Section 5.4. Wastewater Collection and Treatment. Except as specified herein, the wastewater infrastructure for the Specific Plan shall be a Developer obligation. In advance of construction, Developer shall perform an engineering analysis of the existing City wastewater conveyance system to determine and verify the capacity of the downstream conveyance system to accommodate the additional flows from the Project villages. The analysis shall also identify necessary improvements to the existing conveyance system that may be necessary to accommodate additional flows. The wastewater infrastructure contemplated in the Specific Plan is identified in Exhibit E and includes the following:
(a) Backbone Wastewater Facilities. The backbone wastewater infrastructure includes the following and unless specified otherwise, shall be installed and financed by Developer:
Interim Offsite Wastewater Collection Improvement. An initial investigation has identified potentially available capacity in the existing City wastewater conveyance system
River Walk Development Agreement
downstream of the Specific Plan of up to 225 single-family dwelling unit equivalents. Additional analysis will be required to determine if upgrades to City’s existing conveyance pipelines and/or pump stations will be necessary to accommodate this additional flow.
Offsite Sewer Force Main and Conveyance System. Residential development beyond the first 225 single-family residential units will require construction of (i) approximately 900 lineal-feet of ten (10) inch sewer force main under the Stanislaus River, (ii) approximately 900 lineal-feet of a redundant sixteen (16) inch sewer force main under the Stanislaus River, and (iii) approximately seventy-four hundred (7,400) lineal feet of ten (10) inch sewer force main connecting to the City’s wastewater treatment plant headworks, and (iv) a 24” gravity sewer line in Coffee Road to the force main pump station and the parallel force mains under the Stanislaus River. These improvements are anticipated to provide enough wastewater conveyance capacity for the balance of the residential development and other development in the Specific Plan areas, as well as service for future growth areas outlined in the City Sewer Master Plan. The sewer force main may require the acquisition of certain easements from private property owners and/or permission to construct and operate from other local or state agencies, with all such costs to be at Developer’s expense.
Wastewater Collection Infrastructure Within Project Area. The Specific Plan (Figure 6-2a) identifies wastewater lines as follows: (1) 24” gravity main extending from Patterson Road within Coffee Road, through Village C, and connecting to the Northeast Pump Station; (2) additional gravity mains within Coffee Road providing service to the various villages; (3) gravity mains and force mains in collector streets providing service to two or more villages and/or development areas. These improvements are referred to as “Backbone Wastewater Collection Infrastructure.” The Backbone Wastewater Collection Infrastructure shall be installed and financed as a Developer obligation in the tentative subdivision map approval process or in the approval process for other Subsequent Approvals.
South Lift Station. A sanitary sewer lift station may be utilized in the vicinity of Villages A and B. This improvement is referred to as the “South Lift Station” as shown in Figure 6-2a of the Specific Plan. The South Lift Station shall be constructed by Developer or an applicant for Subsequent Approvals and the timing of such construction shall be determined in the conditions of approval of phased subdivision maps or other Subsequent Approvals. The South Lift Station may, on an interim basis, be used to discharge flows via force main to the existing City conveyance system. The South Lift Station will be required prior to the first residential building permit of the Specific Plan.
West Lift Station. A sanitary sewer lift station may be utilized in the vicinity of Villages H and F. This improvement is referred to as the “West Lift Station” as shown in Figure 6-2a of the Specific Plan. The West Lift Station shall be constructed by Developer or an applicant for Subsequent Approvals and the timing of such construction shall be determined in the conditions of approval of phased subdivision maps or other Subsequent Approvals.
Northeast Lift Station. A lift station will be installed in the northeast portion of the Project as shown in Figure 6-2a of the Specific Plan. This improvement is referred to as the “Northeast Lift Station”. The lift station will collect flows from within the Project Area as well as from areas outside of the Project as described in the City’s Sewer Master Plan. Flows will be pumped via force main crossing the Stanislaus River and ultimately conveyed to the City’s treatment plant. The Northeast Lift Station shall be constructed by Developer or an applicant for
River Walk Development Agreement
Subsequent Approvals and the timing of such construction shall be determined in the conditions of approval of phased subdivision maps or other Subsequent Approvals.
Wastewater Treatment Plant. City has prepared a plan to expand the existing wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”) capacity from 1.8 MGD to 2.29 MGD and to treat the effluent to a level that will allow recycling of the water (i.e., sale to farmers, or other type of land application). City is evaluating its existing SDF program to make sure WWTP connection fees are adequate to ensure that new development pays its fair share of any future WWTP capacity expansion. This capacity expansion is adequate to serve the Project, but is not currently in place.
Based on the current state of City’s wastewater system, the WWTP expansion is expected to be a minimum requirement for the first phase of development. City is pursuing grants and other funding mechanisms to assist in reducing City costs for this project, as well as evaluating other WWTP capacity expansion options. WWTP expansion could include incremental expansion, but any such expansion would be subject to engineering analysis and would be implemented at the discretion of the City. City makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee as to the timing, scope, method, or completion of the WWTP expansion. Nothing in this Agreement obligates City to construct the expansion by any date certain, to select any particular expansion approach, or to guarantee the availability of wastewater capacity for any phase of the Project. The design, sizing, phasing, and implementation of any WWTP expansion shall be subject to engineering analysis and shall be undertaken at the discretion of City. Applicants for development of the Project will be responsible for paying the future adopted WWTP capacity fees, discussed further in Article 7. To facilitate continued development of the Project, Developer may propose to advance some portion of the upfront cost of the WWTP expansion in return for fee offsets or credits. The terms of any such advance and corresponding credits, including amount, timing, valuation, transferability, and the consequences of any delay in or reduction of the expansion, shall be set forth in a separate reimbursement agreement approved by City in its discretion. (b) In-Tract Collection Infrastructure. The balance of the wastewater collection infrastructure within the Project area consists of in-tract collection improvements within subdivisions or similar collection improvements located onsite in other development projects, such as, for example, apartments, office buildings or retail buildings. These improvements are referred to as “In-Tract Wastewater Collection Infrastructure”. The In-Tract Wastewater Collection Infrastructure shall be installed and financed as a Developer obligation in the subdivision process or the approval process for other Subsequent Approvals. Developer shall construct sewer facilities that will be upsized to provide sewer service for the benefit of the Project and development of the Specific Plan.
Section 5.5. Transportation and Roadways. The following traffic and roadway infrastructure in accordance with the Project Approvals shall be considered Developer obligations. All necessary acquisitions of right-of-way and utility relocations and associated costs shall be obligations of Developer.
Patterson Road. The Project includes an approximately two-thousand six hundred forty (2,640) feet segment, primarily on the west side of Oakdale Road that requires widening, including, without limitation, median and frontage improvements and undergrounding of utilities (the “Patterson Road Segment”). Timing of the construction of the Patterson Road Segment will be determined with the approval of the first tentative subdivision map.
River Walk Development Agreement
Coffee Road. The Project includes development of Coffee Road north of Patterson Road as the main entrance into the Project, and may also include improvements to Coffee Road south of Patterson Road, as needed as part of the Patterson Road/Coffee Road Intersection project, that could include widening, and without limitation, median and frontage improvements and undergrounding of utilities (the “Coffee Road Segment”).
Patterson Road/Coffee Road Intersection. The Project includes a new signalized intersection at Coffee Road and Patterson Road (the “Coffee Road Signal”). Timing of the construction of the Coffee Road Signal will be determined with the approval of the first tentative subdivision map.
Collector Streets. All roads internal to the Specific Plan including Coffee Road north of Patterson Road and all internal project roads and collectively referred to as the “Collector Streets.” Collector Streets will be constructed and current with development, and the timing of construction will be determined with the approval of each tentative subdivision map.
Mitigation Measures. The Project is subject to all applicable mitigation measures under the MMRP for transportation and circulation. City reserves the discretion to require such improvements or fair share payments at such time as necessary to maintain levels of service on affected intersections and roadways. City may require subsequent traffic analysis to determine the timing of such improvements or fair share payments.
Section 5.6. Storm Drainage. The storm drainage infrastructure for the Project shall be considered a Developer obligation and financed by Developer. The storm drainage system for the Specific Plan and conceptually illustrated in Figures 6-3a and 6-3b of the Specific Plan attached hereto as Exhibit G. The system generally consists of storm drainage lines, storm pump stations, and dual use (park and storm basin) facilities. These storm drainage facilities are referred to as the “Storm Drainage Infrastructure”. As the Specific Plan is a Master Planned Community with an area-wide storm drainage system, it will be treated as a unified project for the purpose of determining compliance with City and State Low Impact Development (LID) standards. Developer shall be responsible for constructing storm drainage facilities to serve properties they own in their respective phase, or upsizing such facilities as necessary for the benefit of the Specific Plan.
Storm drainage facilities shall include land and improvements. Storm drainage facilities may be provided incrementally within each phased area as development occurs. Developer may utilize temporary basins provided that they are in compliance with City’s MS4 or other applicable State or federal permits. Development and maintenance of any temporary basins, as allowed by City, shall be the obligation of Developer until such time that the permanent facilities are constructed and the temporary facilities are abandoned.
Section 5.7. Parkland, Buffers, Greenway, Trails, Open Space. (a) Improvements and Acreage. The parkland, buffers, greenway, trails, and open space (collectively referred to herein as the “Park/Open Space Facilities”) shall be included in the Phasing Plan and be considered a Developer obligation. The Specific Plan provides for approximately 204 acres of Parks/Open Space Facilities with a variety of passive and active recreational opportunities. The City’s General Plan requirement of five (5) acres per thousand population would result in a parkland obligation of around 40 to 45 acres. The Parties acknowledge that Developer is dedicating and installing over and above its fair share parkland obligation pursuant to City’s General Plan and the Quimby Act, for community and environmental
River Walk Development Agreement
benefits in exchange for the benefits of this Agreement. (b) Community Parks. Community parks are larger parks that tend to be used by the entire community instead of any particular neighborhood (“Community Parks”). The Community Parks shall be constructed and financed by Developer. The Community Park shall include amenities suitable for use by the active adult and senior population and shall be constructed by the Developer(s) of the future adjacent villages. The main Community Park in the Village Center is approximately 15.5 acres in size.
(c) Neighborhood Parks. Neighborhood Parks and Trails shall be constructed and financed by Developer. In any subdivision where parks are not provided (e.g., Villages B, P, Q and R do not currently plan for park facilities), fair share fees will be charged to benefiting parcels to provide funding for that subdivision’s pro-rata share of parkland. This fee will be collected and remitted to each Developer which developed the parkland, in an amount commensurate to the oversized parkland provided and developed.
(d) Buffer/Greenway/Open Space Area. The Specific Plan contains an area designated for “buffer/greenway/open space” along the northern boundary adjacent to the Stanislaus River. Developer at its sole cost and expense shall design and construct improvements within the designated buffer and open space area to enhance public access, recreational use, and connectivity to other amenities within the Specific Plan. Such improvements may include trail resurfacing or reconstruction, trailhead improvements, pedestrian access, educational signage, wayfinding, benches, viewing areas, landscaping, or other amenities consistent with the Specific Plan. The nature, extent, design, and location of the improvements shall be subject to approval of the Community Development Director. The improvements shall be designed to preserve and protect environmental resources in this area. Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with the design, permitting, and constructing of the approved improvements. The Community Development Director shall determine the timing and phasing of completion of this obligation, but no earlier than completion of the first four (4) villages. (e) Dual-Use Storm Basins. The storm basin sites are contemplated to be a dualuse park opportunity. The design and use of the storm basin sites shall be subject to approval of City. Unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties, the parkland component of the storm basin shall not eligible for any fee offsets or credits. In the event City determines any storm basin site can be for dual-use, adequate access to the site shall be provided, including applicable standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
(f) Cooperation on Special Features. Developer shall work with City to include specialized play equipment in the neighborhood park in Village A as a portion of the play equipment installed. The Parties will work to include various specialized play equipment not currently available in the City. The remainder of the neighborhood parks shall include amenities suitable for use by the active adult population within Villages C through L, and shall be constructed by the developer(s) of these villages.
(g) City Standards. The Parks/Open Space Facilities, including the Community Park and Neighborhood Parks, shall be developed in accordance with City standards and parkland master plans of City. Prior to construction, plans and design for each Parks/Open Space Facility shall be submitted to the Parks & Recreation Department for review and approval.
River Walk Development Agreement
(h) Timing. The Parties agree that the Parks/Open Space Facilities shall be developed and be made available for public use as new residents arrive to the Specific Plan area.
In no event shall City have any obligation to issue occupancy certificates for more than twentyfive percent (25%) of the minimum permitted density in any subdivision map without sufficient Parks/Open Space Facilities having been developed for public use. Nothing shall prevent the Parties from agreeing by separate instrument to a written plan for the timing of the required parkland in connection with the Project. City further may establish timing requirements of required parkland as conditions of approval with each tentative subdivision map.
Section 5.8. Maintenance/Acceptance of Public Improvements. All public improvements and facilities installed by Developer shall be maintained in good and operable condition until such time that City formally accepts the public improvements for its ownership and operation. City shall have no obligation to maintain and operate such public improvements until City’s formal acceptance, including without limitation, water, wastewater, transportation and roadways, storm drainage, lighting, and the Parks/Open Space Facilities. Acceptance by City shall not be unreasonably withheld. Prior to City’s acceptance of public improvements, the required financing districts or mechanisms shall be in place to ensure City collects sufficient funds to maintain the public improvements requested by Developer for acceptance.
ARTICLE 6
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS
Section 6.1. Infrastructure CFD. Developer may request and City will agree to allow the Major Improvements, and other public improvements within the Specific Plan to the extent feasible, to be financed through the establishment of a new community facilities district pursuant to the MelloRoos Act (the “Infrastructure CFD”). Developer may initiate the annexation or creation of Infrastructure CFD financing by filing a petition with City requesting formation of a new community facilities district for the Specific Plan. Upon receipt of this petition, City will take such actions as are necessary to fully comply with the Mello-Roos Act to cause the Property to be annexed into a new Infrastructure CFD to be established. City shall conduct all necessary proceedings, adopt all resolutions, ordinances and orders, recording all maps, notices, and releases required to levy these special taxes, and provide for the issuance of bonds from the Infrastructure CFD. It is expressly acknowledged, understood, and agreed by the Parties that City reserves complete discretion with respect to legally required findings and determinations that must be made in connection with the annexation or formation of a community facilities district. Developer shall be responsible for any and all costs, staff time, and legal costs associated with the annexation or formation of the Infrastructure CFD.
Section 6.2. Priority of Infrastructure CFD Bond Proceeds. If a new Infrastructure CFD is formed for the Project, the Parties agree to meet and confer to establish the priority of Major Improvements to be funded or reimbursed by Infrastructure CFD bonds (“CFD Priority”). Any agreement between the Parties regarding the CFD Priority shall be memorialized in an operating memorandum. The City Manager shall have the authority to execute any such operating memorandum. Any executed operating memorandum regarding the CFD Priority shall be considered a minor amendment to this Agreement.
Section 6.3. Termination of Infrastructure CFD Proceedings. Developer may withdraw its Infrastructure CFD petition at any time prior to annexation or formation of Property into an Infrastructure CFD. Upon any such termination, Developer shall remain responsible for any and
River Walk Development Agreement
all costs, staff time, or legal fees incurred by City prior to Developer’s termination.
Section 6.4. Services and Maintenance CFD. Prior to issuance of the first building permit issued for the Project, Developer agrees to form a new community facilities district for services and maintenance (“Services and Maintenance CFD”), annex into City’s existing services and maintenance district (“CFD 2016-01”) or propose such other ongoing financing mechanism that City may approve in its sole discretion to fully fund the Project’s service and maintenance obligations. If Developer elects to annex into CFD 2016-01, Developer consents to the levy of such special taxes as are necessary to fully fund the services and maintenance obligations and hereby acknowledges that any such special tax is necessary to provide services to the Project.
The Services and Maintenance CFD will provide funding required for new or enhanced services provided by City to the Project which would not have been necessary but for the approval of the Project. The funds shall be utilized for, among other things, (a) police protection services, (b) maintenance of open space, paseos, trails, and parkland within the Project; (c) maintenance of entry features, masonry walls, landscape setback areas, and street lighting within or along the perimeter of the Project, and (d) maintenance for retention basin, stormwater conveyance and stormwater quality facilities within or along the perimeter of the Project. Each lot, unit, and use shall be included or annexed into the Services and Maintenance CFD (or CFD 2016-01) as a condition of each final map, unless deferred by City to a later time based on the maintenance needs of the applicable services area. All costs to form or annex into the financing district(s) described in this section shall be at Developer’s sole cost and expense.
Section 6.5. General Fund and City Bonding Capacity. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring City to pay, contribute, loan, or use its general fund or City bonding capacity to construct or extend public infrastructure, complete any improvements, or take any action for the Project that would adversely affect City’s general fund or City’s bonding capacity.
Section 6.6. SCIP or BOLD Financing. In the event that City chooses to participate in either the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (“SCIP”) program or Bond Opportunities for Land Development (“BOLD”) program or both during the period in which the Project is under development, Developer shall have the ability to apply to the City for participation in either or both financing programs. Developer will be responsible for all City’s costs required to participate in, administer, or implement the above financing programs. Developer will be responsible for all City’s costs required to participate in, administer, or implement the above financing programs.
ARTICLE 7
FEES, CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
Section 7.1. Citywide Impact Fees.
(a) System Development Fees. The Parties acknowledge and agree that certain specific development impact fees are necessary to address impacts of the Project (known as “System Development Fees” or “SDF Fees”). City shall not impose any other SDF Fees on Developer, except as provided herein. The Project shall be subject to all SDF Fees then existing Citywide at the time of building permit issuance for the first residential unit. The SDF Fees shall be those duly adopted by City in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, § 66000 et seq.). Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Parties shall memorialize the SDF Fee schedule and fee amounts applicable to the Project. The Parties acknowledge that City is in the process of updating its SDF Fee program and nexus study. The
River Walk Development Agreement
SDF Fee schedule for the first building permit shall be based on the updated nexus study adopted by City and apply to the remaining buildout of the Project. The SDF Fees may further be financed or supplemented through the formation of an Infrastructure CFD or a Specific Plan Area Fee (as described in Section 7.2 below), and, if so, an Operating Memorandum may be prepared to address implementation of such financing mechanisms.
(b) Traffic Fee for First 350 Lots. Notwithstanding Section 7.1(a) above, for a period of five (5) years after adoption of this Agreement, the SDF Fee for traffic/transportation shall not exceed one-hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the SDF Fee for traffic that is currently in effect Citywide as of the Effective Date. This limitation shall only apply to the first 350 lots in Villages A, B, and D of the Specific Plan. This SDF Fee shall continue to be subject to the annual index increase described in Section 7.1(c) below.
(c) Timing / Annual Increase. Beginning after the Effective Date, the SDF Fees for the Project shall be increased annually on January 1st of each calendar year, pursuant to the applicable cost index used by City to adjust the SDF Fees applicable Citywide. Payment of all SDF Fees shall be due at the time of building permit. Based on a written request from Developer, the City Manager, in his or her sole discretion, may in writing defer payment of any Development Agreement Fees to a later time.
(d) SDF Fee Credits. If Developer constructs a Major Improvement or a portion thereof specifically identified in any City capital improvement plan or other such plan forming the basis of a particular SDF Fee, which City would have otherwise constructed without development of the Property subject to the SDF Fee, then Developer may receive fee credits pursuant to a written agreement between Developer and City. City will not allow any fee credits without prior written approval from City of the terms of the fee credits. The amount of the fee credits shall be based on the estimated cost of the public facility in the plan forming the basis of the SDF Fee and the percentage of such public facility or component thereof constructed by Developer. (e) Major Improvements Subject to Fee Credits. The Parties acknowledge that because of Developer’s construction of the Major Improvements, City does not expect Developer to be subject to certain SDF Fees. Subject to the limitations of this Section 7.1, the Major Improvements expected to be eligible for SDF Fee credit include the facility items identified below.
In the event that reimbursement is provided to Developer, any such reimbursement in excess of Developer’s SDF Fee obligations shall be limited to SDF Fees collected from development within the Specific Plan area. No fee credits or reimbursement shall be provided without a written agreement between Developer and City regarding the terms of the fee credits or reimbursement.
SDF Fee Category Eligible SDF Facilities Eligible Fee Credit Water All backbone water
improvements (e.g., wells,
tanks, pressure regulations
stations, and 12-inch
transmission lines).
Developer’s construction of
the backbone water facilities
required for the Specific
Plan is expected to receive
SDF Fee credits for water.
Wastewater All backbone wastewater
improvements, except for
With the exception of City’s
construction of the WWTP
River Walk Development Agreement
the WWTP expansion. expansion, all other
backbone wastewater
improvements are expected
to receive SDF Fee credits.
Storm Drainage N/A N/A. The Storm Drainage
Infrastructure is considered
a Specific Plan area
improvement. SDF Fees
will not apply. Unless
otherwise agreed to by the
Parties, any dual-use basins
will not be eligible for fee
credits from the
parks/recreation component
of the SDF Fee program or
City’s Quimby Fee program.
Traffic Patterson Road;
Coffee Road;
Patterson Road/Coffee
Road Intersection & Traffic
Signal.
In the event the identified
facilities are included in the
planned SDF Fee program
update, the facilities or
components thereof may be
eligible for partial fee credit,
subject to City approval.
City further reserves the
discretion to deem the
identified facilities as
Specific Plan area
improvements and include
the facilities in the Plan Area
Fee program (described in
Section 7.2 below).
Parks/Recreation Community Park;
Neighborhood Parks.
Construction of the
Community Park and
Neighborhood Parks
required for the Specific
Plan is expected to fully
offset the applicable Quimby
Fees/SDF Fees for the
Project. Benefitting parcels
are expected to pay fair
share fees or applicable
Quimby Fees/SDF Fees to
City. Park fees collected
from other benefitting
parcels will be used to
reimburse developers
River Walk Development Agreement
charged with construction of
the required parkland in the
Specific Plan. The other
greenways, trails, buffers,
and open space areas will
not be eligible for Quimby
Fees/SDF fee credits.
General Government/Police N/A N/A
Section 7.2. Plan Area Fee Program for Specific Plan.
(a) Plan Area Fees. Separate and in addition to the Citywide SDF Fees, the Specific Plan may require a “Plan Area Fee” for the Major Improvements required for development of the Specific Plan, as determined by City. Any Plan Area Fee program applied to the Specific Plan Area shall be subject to City’s approval and supported by a nexus study adopted by the City Council. The Plan Area Fee program shall be updated as necessary based on factors including, but not limited to, land use changes, new or revised infrastructure projects, new cost information or updated engineering estimates, new funding source data, administrative costs, and construction cost inflation adjustments. Preparation and adoption of the Plan Area Fee program and supporting nexus study shall be at Developer’s sole cost and expense. (b) Plan Area Fee Credits / Reimbursement. If Developer constructs any public facility specifically identified in the plan or nexus study forming the basis of the Plan Area Fee, then Developer may receive fee credits or reimbursement pursuant to a written agreement between Developer and City. City will not allow any fee credits or reimbursement without prior written approval from City of the terms of the fee credits or reimbursement. The amount of the credits or reimbursement shall be based on the estimated cost of the public facility in the plan forming the basis of the Plan Area Fee and the percentage of such public facility constructed by Developer.
Section 7.3. Public Benefit Fees. In addition to the fee programs described above, Developer shall pay an additional $1,750.00 per unit to be collected from each residential unit constructed in low-density and medium-density plan areas and $500.00 per unit to collected from residential units constructed in high-density plan areas. This additional fee for City’s discretionary use is to provide public services, public uses, and infrastructure in the promotion of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. These fees shall be referred to as the “Public Benefit Fees.” The mixeduse and non-residential components of the Project shall not be subject to the Public Benefit Fees.
Developer hereby waives any right to challenge or contest the Public Benefit Fees pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, § 66000 et seq.) or such other statutory or constitutional limitation pertaining to the Public Benefit Fee. The Public Benefit Fees shall be considered a public benefit in exchange for the vested rights granted to Developer by this Agreement. The Public Benefit Fees are anticipated to generate the following revenues to City:
River Walk Development Agreement
Land Use Per Unit Fee Total Projected Units Total Collection Low / Medium Density $1,750 2,252 $3,941,000
High Density $500 180 $90,000
Total $4,031,000
Section 7.4. Application, Processing, and Inspection Fees / Funding Agreement. This Agreement does not limit City’s authority to charge Developer administrative, legal, processing, inspection, and plan check fees (including any post-Effective Date increases in such fees and charges) to process land use approvals, building permits, or other similar permits, where such fees are meant to reimburse City and its consultants for actual time and costs to provide the services contemplated. Developer has maintained an ongoing funding agreement with City for its pro rata share of entitlement costs relating to the Project (“Funding Agreement”). Prior to City’s consent to any assignment of Developer’s interest in any portion of the Project pursuant to this Agreement, the Assignee shall enter into a separate funding agreement for such portion of the Project for purposes of funding City’s ongoing costs associated with implementing development of the Project.
Section 7.5. Fees Charged by Other Public Agencies. This Agreement does not preclude City from collecting fees from Developers that are lawfully imposed on the Project by other public agencies, and which City is required to collect. Developer acknowledges that the Project is subject to impact fees charged by other agencies, including but not limited to, Stanislaus County, the Sylvan Union and Stanislaus Union School Districts, and the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. Developer shall pay such fees prior to issuance of building permit, unless the public agency requires otherwise.
Section 7.6. Reimbursement for Oversizing Improvements. (a) Oversized Improvements. As a condition of developing the Property, City may require Developer to install improvements which benefit properties other than Developer’s Property, and that exceed Developer’s fair share toward the improvement or the acquisition of rights-of-way for the improvement (“Oversized Improvements”). Oversized Improvements include, without limitation, streets, sewer, water, storm drainage, community parkland, and neighborhood parkland.
(b) City Approval of Reimbursement Terms. Where Developer constructs oversized facilities, Developer shall obtain City’s approval of the terms of reimbursement prior to installing any Oversized Improvement. Where Developer requests reimbursement for Oversized Improvements and City to administer such reimbursement, Developer shall provide to City written documentation describing the expenses to be reimbursed and the allocation of those expenses to the benefited parcels. Upon City’s collection of fair share fees from benefitted parcels for Oversized Improvements constructed by Developer, City shall reimburse such fees collected to Developer within thirty (30) days.
(c) Area of Benefit. City shall cooperate with Developer in the formation of, consistent
River Walk Development Agreement
with all applicable City and state laws, a local benefit district, area of benefit, or other funding mechanism for the purpose of reimbursing Developer those costs exceeding Developer’s fair share for the Oversized Improvements. Developer agrees to reimburse City for any actual costs incurred by City in forming a local benefit district or establishing a reimbursement fee in the area of benefit.
(d) Reimbursement Conditions. City shall impose the reimbursement obligation as a condition on the benefited property at the time such landowner requests its next discretionary entitlement from City, or at such time when City can impose such condition. Developer acknowledges that any reimbursement payments under this Section depend on development of the benefited property, and that if the identified benefited property is not developed, City shall have no obligation to provide or pass through such reimbursement from that property.
ARTICLE 8
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS
Section 8.1. Financing Plan. Upon final approval of the Project, after annexation, and concurrent with the submittal of the first tentative subdivision map, Developer will prepare a Financing Plan (“Financing Plan”) to identify in greater detail the phasing and improvements proposed for construction, and the method of financing said improvements, and which are subject to fee credit or reimbursement. The Financing Plan may be detailed related to the phase of development being considered, and more general as it relates to future phases. The Financing Plan will be reviewed as part of the review process for any Subsequent Approvals.
Section 8.2. Disclosure of Existing Uses. Developer shall disclose to any builder of singlefamily homes (low- and medium-density residential) or the multi-family portion (high density residential) of the Project: (1) the existence and operation of the Modesto Gun Club Range (“Modesto Gun Club”) located adjacent to the Project on the west side and, (2) that the Project is surrounded by existing agricultural uses, as well as vacant properties which are planned or designated for future development. Developer assumes any and all responsibility regarding the failure to disclose such existing uses and record the sample disclosure form included as Exhibit I.
Section 8.3. Disclosure Requirements. Any builder of single-family homes or multi-family units within the Project shall include a disclosure to prospective buyers and tenants of the single-family residential and multi-family residential components of the Project of the Modesto Gun Club which shall include the following:
(a) Identify the presence, location and ongoing operations of the Modesto Gun Club. (b) Describe the typical range of operations conducted at the Modesto Gun Club, including the expected hours of operation.
(c) Disclose the potential for noise, related to the Modesto Gun Club. (d) A sample disclosure is attached hereto as Exhibit I. (e) City will determine the method of disclosure at the time of the first tentative map approval. Disclosure may be by recording the notice against the property, or by requiring
River Walk Development Agreement
individual notice at the time of sale. Developer, and not the City, will be responsible for compliance with this requirement, and City has no responsibility for enforcing or monitoring compliance with this disclosure.
Section 8.4. Single-Family Residential Unit Requirements. For the single-family residential units, any homebuilder, PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP, shall prepare and include the above-required disclosures in the Covenant’s, Codes and Restriction (CC&R’s) associated with its portion of the Project. The disclosure language shall be submitted to the City Attorney and Community Development Director for their review and approval. Once approved, the homebuilder shall record the CC&Rs on title of every lot associated with its portion of the Project. For the Term of this Agreement, and any extension thereof, the recorded CC&R’s may not be modified or rescinded without first obtaining approval from the City Attorney and Community Development Director. If CC&R’s are no longer proposed for any portion of singlefamily residential component of the Project, City and Applicant shall discuss and agree upon an equally effective method to provide disclosure to future owners of single-family residential property within the Project.
Section 8.5. Multi-Family Residential Unit Requirements. For the multi-family portion of the Project, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY for a multifamily component of the Project, the applicant or the builder shall include the above-required disclosures in its standard lease agreement and submit such language to the City Attorney and Community Development Director for their review and approval. Following such approval all future lease agreements with tenants of the multi-family project shall include the City-approved disclosure language.
Section 8.6. Schools. Prior to approval of any tentative subdivision maps or site plans for any property designated for development as low-, medium-, or high-density residential development, whether age-restricted or not, the tentative maps and/or site plans will be referred to the affected school district(s) for review and comment regarding projected school enrollment impacts, school facilities’ needs, opportunities for school site dedication, and the financing thereof. Where the affected school district identifies the need for a school site reservation, land dedication, or other mitigation measures to address projected school impacts, City shall encourage the applicant and the school district to negotiate in good faith toward a comprehensive agreement addressing school facilities and related mitigation. When authorized by applicable law, City may continue consideration of the application for a reasonable period to allow such discussions to occur and to facilitate coordination between the applicant and the affected school district.
ARTICLE 9
INSURANCE; INDEMNITY
Section 9.1. Insurance. Developer shall require all persons or entities doing work on Project improvements that will be acceptable by the City, including its contractors and subcontractors (collectively, “Developer” for purposes of this Article 9 only), to obtain and maintain insurance of the types and in the amounts described in this Article with carriers reasonably satisfactory to City.
An associated umbrella insurance policy in combination with underlying liability coverage may be used to satisfy the minimum liability coverages specified herein. These insurance requirements will not apply to contractors and subcontractors for work related to the current use of the property for agricultural purposes at the time of annexation.
River Walk Development Agreement
(a) General Liability Insurance. At all times Developer, Developer’s Contractors and Subcontractors are performing work on the Project that is located within public rights-of-way and will be accepted by the City, Developer shall maintain commercial general liability insurance or equivalent form with a limit of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) (or as otherwise approved, in writing, by City) per claim and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) each occurrence.
Such insurance shall also:
(i) Name City, its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives as “Additional Insureds” by endorsement with respect to performance of this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection afforded to the above-listed additional insured. (ii) Be primary with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs covering City, its officials, employees, agents, and representatives. (iii) Contain standard separation of insured provisions. (b) Automotive Liability Insurance. At all times Developer, Developer’s Contractors and Subcontractors are performing work on the Project that is located within public rights-of-way and will be accepted by the City, Developer shall maintain business automobile liability insurance or equivalent form with a limit of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each accident.
Such insurance shall include coverage for owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles. Such insurance shall also:
(i) Name City, its elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, and representatives as Additional Insureds by endorsement with respect to performance of this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of its protection afforded to the above-listed Additional Insureds.
(ii) Be primary with respect to any insurance or self-insurance programs covering City, its officials, employees, agents, and representatives. (iii) Contain standard separation of insured provisions. (c) Workers’ Compensation Insurance. At all times Developer, Developer’s Contractors and Subcontractors are performing work on the Project that is located within public rights-of-way and will be accepted by the City, Developer shall take out and maintain during the Term of this Agreement, workers’ compensation insurance for all of Developer’s employees employed at or on the Project, and in the case any of the work is subcontracted, Developer shall require any general contractor or subcontractor similarly to provide workers’ compensation insurance for such contractor’s or subcontractor’s employees, unless such employees are covered by the protection afforded by Developer. In case any class of employee engaged in work on the Project is not protected under any workers’ compensation law, Developer shall provide and shall cause each contractor and subcontractor to provide adequate insurance for the protection of employees not otherwise protected. Developer hereby indemnifies City for any damage resulting from failure of Developer, its agents, employees, contractors, or subcontractors to take out or maintain such insurance. Workers’ compensation insurance with statutory limits and
River Walk Development Agreement
employer’s liability insurance with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each accident shall be maintained.
Section 9.2. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its agents, elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, and volunteers (collectively, “City’s Agents”) from any and all liability arising out of a claim, action, or proceeding against City, or City’s Agents, to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval concerning the Project, this Agreement, the Project Approvals, any Subsequent City Approvals.
City shall have no obligation whatsoever to defend, respond to, or expend any resources — including staff time, funds, or legal counsel — in connection with any claim, action, or proceeding challenging the Project. In the event that City, in its sole and absolute discretion, elects to respond to or participate in any action challenging the Project, Developer shall reimburse City for all costs and expenses incurred by City in connection with any such participation, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, staff time, expert witness fees, filing fees, and all other litigation-related expenses, within thirty (30) days after Developer's receipt of written documentation of such costs and expenses.
Upon receiving notice of a claim, action, or proceeding, Developer shall assume the defense of the claim, action, or proceeding through the prompt payment of all reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, incurred in good faith and in the exercise of reasonable discretion, of City’s counsel in defending such an action. City and Developer shall cooperate in good faith in the control of the litigation and the making of litigation decisions, including, but not limited to, selecting counsel to defend City and settlement or other disposition of the matter.
This Section shall survive beyond the Term of this Agreement and shall expire only upon occurrence of the latter of (a) the challenge period for all Project Approvals, including any appeals has terminated; or (ii) the dismissal or settlement of any challenge to the Project.
Section 9.3. Prevailing Wages. Developer acknowledges the requirements of California Labor Code section 1720 et. seq (“Prevailing Wage Law”), and that it is Developer’s obligation to determine if the Prevailing Wage Law applies to any work done by Developer on the Project or any portion of the Project. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and City’s Agent’s from any claim or liability arising out of any alleged failure of Developer to comply with the Prevailing Wage Law.
Section 9.4. Failure to Indemnify; Waiver. Failure to indemnify City, when required by this Agreement, shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and of any applicable Project Approvals and Subsequent City Approvals, which shall entitle City to all remedies available under law, including, but not limited to, specific performance and damages. Failure to indemnify City shall constitute grounds upon which City may rescind or withhold its approval of this Agreement, the Project Approvals, or any Subsequent City Approvals. Developer’s failure to indemnify City shall be a waiver by Developer of (i) any right to proceed with the Project, and (ii) Developer’s right to file a claim, action, or proceeding against City or City’s Agents based on City’s rescission or withholding of any Project Approvals or Subsequent City Approvals, or based on City’s failure to defend any claim, action, or proceeding based on Developer’s failure to indemnify City.
Section 9.5. Waiver of Damages Against City. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to
River Walk Development Agreement
the contrary, the Parties acknowledge that City would not have entered into this Agreement had it been exposed to liability for damages from Developer and, therefore, Developer hereby waives all claims for damages against City for breach of this Agreement. Developer’s remedies under this Agreement shall be limited to specific performance.
ARTICLE 10
MORTGAGEE PROTECTION
Section 10.1. Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property, or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Agreement, including the lien for any deed of trust or mortgage ("Mortgage"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee ("Mortgagee") who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise.
Section 10.2. Mortgagee Not Obligated. No Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to construct or complete the Improvements for the Project, or to guarantee such construction or completion. A Mortgagee who takes lawful possession of the Property shall, however, assume all development rights associated with this Agreement.
Section 10.3. Notice of Default to Mortgagee and Right to Cure. If City receives notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given to Developer, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Developer, any notice given to Developer with respect to any claim by City that Developer has committed an event of default. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Developer to cure, or to commence to cure, the event of default set forth in City's notice.
ARTICLE 11
DEFAULT
Section 11.1. Annual Review. The City Manager or his or her appointee shall, at least every twelve (12) months during the Term of this Agreement, review the extent of substantial, good faith compliance of Developer and City with the terms of this Agreement, pursuant to Government Code section 65865.1. At the time of such annual review, Developers shall provide such information as may be reasonably requested by the City Manager to ascertain compliance with this Agreement. Developers shall provide such information within thirty (30) days of receiving City Manager’s request for information. A finding by the City Manager of good faith compliance with this Agreement shall conclusively determine such good faith compliance only up to the date of such review. Where the City Manager, on the basis of substantial evidence, finds that Developer has not complied with the terms of this Agreement, Developer may appeal such determination to the City Council within ten (10) days of receiving the City Manager’s determination. The failure of City to conduct the annual review shall not affect the validity of this Agreement.
Section 11.2. Estoppel Certificates. Upon Developer’s request, City shall, with at least thirty (30) days’ advance written notice, execute, acknowledge and deliver to Developer, Developer’s lender, potential investors or assignees, an “Estoppel Certificate” in writing which certifies that this
River Walk Development Agreement
Agreement is in full force and effect and that there are no breaches or defaults under the Agreement. The City Manager shall be authorized to execute such Estoppel Certificate. At Developer’s option, the City Manager’s failure to deliver such Estoppel Certificate within the stated time period shall be conclusive evidence that the Agreement is in full force and effect and that there are no uncured breaches or defaults in Developer’s performance of the Agreement.
Section 11.3. Default. Failure or unreasonable delay by either Party to perform any term or condition of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event of default, the Party alleging such default or breach shall give the other Party not less than thirty (30) days’ notice in writing specifying the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured. During any such 30-day period, the Party charged shall not be considered in default for purposes of termination of this Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. After notice and expiration of the 30-day period, if such default has not been cured or cure is not being diligently pursued in the manner set forth in the notice, the charging Party may at its option: (i) terminate this Agreement, in which event neither Party shall have any further rights against or liability to the other with respect to this Agreement, or (ii) institute legal or equitable action to cure or remedy any default, including but not limited to, an action for specific performance of the terms of this Agreement.
Section 11.4. Withholding of Permits. If any Party has defaulted or has been provided with a default notice pursuant to this Article, City may, in its sole discretion, refuse to issue or withhold any permit or entitlement for any structure or improvement relating to the portion of the Project owned or controlled by such Party, including without limitation, a notice of completion, building permit, sign permit, grading permit, or occupancy certificate.
Section 11.5. Default by City. In the event City does not accept, review, approve, or issue development applications, permits, or entitlements in good faith or in a timely fashion, or if City otherwise defaults under the terms of this Agreement, City agrees that Developer shall not be obligated to proceed with or complete the Project or any phase thereof, nor shall resulting failures or delays in Developer’s performance constitute grounds for termination of this Agreement.
Section 11.6. Enforced Delay, Extension of Times of Performance. Delays in performance, by either Party, shall not be deemed a default if such delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, terrorism, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, pandemics, epidemics, acts of God, governmental restrictions imposed where mandated by governmental entities other than City, enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations, new or supplementary environmental regulations enacted by the state or federal government, litigation, economic collapse, or other force majeure events. An extension of time for such cause shall be in effect for the period of forced delay or longer, as may be mutually agreed upon by the Parties.
ARTICLE 12
ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT
Section 12.1. Administration of Agreement. The City Manager or his or her designee is responsible for the interpretation and administration of the provisions of this Agreement. In the event of any disagreement between City and Developer regarding any other provision of this Agreement, before either Party pursues available remedies in a court of law and within thirty (30) days’ advance written notice by either Party, the Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to try and resolve the disagreement.
River Walk Development Agreement
Section 12.2. Amendment of Agreement. This Agreement shall be amended only by mutual consent of the Parties affected by such amendment and any amendment must be in writing, as provided below:
(a) Major Amendment. The City Council shall approve any major amendment to the Agreement. An amendment shall be deemed a “major amendment” if it constitutes a material change to City’s financial or infrastructure obligations (with City Manager having the sole discretion to determine what constitutes a “material change”). Any major amendment shall comply with the procedures of the Development Agreement Statute. (b) Minor Amendment. The Parties acknowledge that development of the Project and the details of performance by the Parties require administrative flexibility. The City Manager shall have the authority to approve minor amendments to this Agreement. An amendment shall be deemed a “minor amendment” if it is not a major amendment and does not incur any financial obligation that exceeds the City Manager’s authority. If City and Developer mutually agree that a minor amendment is appropriate, they shall effectuate the minor amendment through an operating memorandum approved by the Parties with the City Manager acting on behalf of City. An executed operating memorandum shall become effective immediately. Each operating memorandum shall be attached to this Agreement as an addendum and become a part of this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law, a minor amendment shall not require any notice or hearing.
Section 12.3. Streamlined Implementation. The Parties desire to simplify and streamline the process for implementing the Project. Accordingly, the following modifications may be considered non-substantial and approved without the need for any amendment to this Agreement, as provided below:
(a) Conditions of Approval. Any modification to the Conditions of Approval attached to this Agreement or conditions of approval associated with any Subsequent City Approvals, which are determined to be non-substantial in the sole discretion of the Planning Director. (b) Streets and Rights-of-Way. Any modification of the alignment, location, naming, width, length, or specification of streets, utility rights-of-way, or other public rights-of-way or facilities that is determined to be non-substantial in the sole discretion of the City Engineer. (c) Appeals of Non-Substantial Modifications. Developers may appeal any decision made by the Community Development Director or City Engineer pursuant to this Section to the Planning Commission by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within ten (10) days’ receipt of the Planning Director’s or City Engineer’s decision.
Section 12.4. Assignment and Assumption. Subject to City’s consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld), Developer shall have the right to sell, assign, or transfer all or any part of its rights, title, and interests together with its obligations in all or a portion of the Property, or Project, subject to or a part of this Agreement, to any person, firm, corporation, or entity during the Term of this Agreement, provided however that Developer shall provide advance notice to the City Manager. This assignment provision includes third parties as well as corporate and business entities of Developer. Developer shall prepare an Assignment and Assumption Agreement for City’s approval, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit J.
River Walk Development Agreement
Section 12.5. Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between City and Developer must be in writing, and may be given either personally, by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by Federal Express, UPS, or other similar couriers providing overnight delivery. All notices and communications shall be accompanied by a copy sent by email.
If personally delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the Party to whom it is addressed. If given by registered or certified mail, such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the first to occur of (i) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five (5) days after a registered or certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is deposited in the United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar courier, a notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered, as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Any Party hereto may at any time, by giving ten (10) days’ written notice to the other Party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given.
Such notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at their addresses set forth below:
If to City: City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Attention: City Manager
Email: [email protected]
and City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Attention: Community Development Director
Email: [email protected]
and White Brenner LLP
1608 T Street
Sacramento, California 95811
Attention: Douglas L. White, Esq.
Email: [email protected]
If to Developer: River Walk, LLC
3400 E. Eight Mile Road, Suite A
Stockton, CA 95212
Attention: Matthew Arnaiz
Email: ______________________
and Remy Moose Manley LLP
Attorneys at Law
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention: Jim Moose
Email: ______________________
River Walk Development Agreement
ARTICLE 13
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Section 13. General Terms and Conditions.
(a) Venue; Governing Law. Venue for all legal proceedings shall be in the Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed pursuant to the laws of the State of California. (b) Waiver. No Party shall be deemed to have made any waiver of any breach of any term, condition, or covenant unless said waiver is in writing and signed by the Party so waiving.
Such waiver by any Party shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same term, covenant, or condition.
(c) Integration. This Agreement, together with its specific references, attachments, and Exhibits, constitutes all of the agreements, understandings, representations, conditions, warranties, and covenants made by and between the Parties hereto. Unless set forth herein, neither Party shall be liable for any representations made, express or implied, which are not specifically set forth herein.
(d) Supersedes Prior Agreement. It is the intention of the Parties hereto that this Agreement shall supersede any prior agreements, discussions, commitments, representations or agreements, written, electronic or oral, between the Parties hereto with respect to the Project. (e) Captions. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference only and the words contained therein shall in no way be held to explain, modify, amplify or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of the provisions of this Agreement. (f) Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, such portion shall be deemed severed from this Agreement and the remaining parts shall remain in full effect as though such invalid or unenforceable provision had not been a part of this Agreement. (g) Mandatory and Permissive. “Shall” and “will” and “agrees” are mandatory. “May” or “can” are permissive.
(h) Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who after the Effective Date and recording of this Agreement owns or acquires any right, title, or interest to any portion of the Property shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Property, and all rights and interests of such person in the Property shall be subject to the terms, requirements, and provisions of this Agreement.
(i) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed simultaneously or in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but which together shall constitute one (1) and the same instrument.
(j) Further Acts; Other Documents. The Parties agree that they shall cooperate in
River Walk Development Agreement
good faith to accomplish the objectives of this Agreement and to that end, agree to execute and deliver such other instruments or documents and to perform any further acts, as may be necessary and convenient to fulfill the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. (k) Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement in each covenant and term and condition herein.
(l) Authority. All Parties to this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the power and authority to enter into this Agreement and the names, titles, and capacities herein stated on behalf of any entities, persons, states, or firms represented or purported to be represented by such entities, persons, states, or firms and that all former requirements necessary or required by state or federal law in order to enter into this Agreement had been fully complied with. Further, by entering into this Agreement, no Party hereto shall have breached the terms or conditions of any other contract or agreement to which such Party is obligated, which such breach would have a material effect hereon.
(m) Joint Preparation. All Parties to this Agreement have negotiated it at length and have had the opportunity to consult with and be represented by their own competent counsel.
Each provision of this Agreement shall be construed as though all Parties participated equally in the drafting of the same. Consequently, the Parties acknowledge and agree that any rule of construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting party shall not be applicable to this Agreement.
(n) Attorney’s Fees and Costs. If any action at law or in equity, including action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs, which may be set by the court in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose, in addition to any other relief to which such Party may be entitled.
(o) Calculation of Time Periods. All time referenced in this Agreement shall be calendar days, unless the last day falls on a legal holiday, Saturday, or Sunday, in which case the last day shall be the next business day.
[ Signatures on Following Pages ]
River Walk Development Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been entered into by and between Developer and City as of the Effective Date of the Agreement, as defined above.
CITY
CITY OF RIVERBANK, CA
a California Municipal Corporation
By:
Marisela H. Garcia
City Manager
Attest:
By:
Gaby Hernandez, City Clerk
Approved to as Form:
By:
Tom Hallinan
City Attorney
DEVELOPER
River Walk LLC, a California limited
liability company
By:
Name:
Its:
By: AFP, L.P., a California limited
partnership, Manager
By:
_______________________________
By: Matthew Arnaiz, co-Trustee of the
Matthew and Kelly Arnaiz Family Trust,
under trust agreement, dated April 11,
2002, General Partner
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RIVER WALK PROPERTY
EXHIBIT B
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN CONCEPTUAL LAND USE DIAGRAM
EXHIBIT C
DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN
STANISLAUS RIVER
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
STANISLAUS COUNTY PATTERSON ROAD
MCHENRY AVENUE
CITY OF RIVERBANK
MID MAIN CANAL VILLAGE A VILLAGE B VILLAGE C VILLAGE D VILLAGE E VILLAGE F VILLAGE G VILLAGE H VILLAGE I VILLAGE J VILLAGE K VILLAGE L VILLAGE NVILLAGE M VILLAGE O
SPENKER SPILL
CLUBHOUSE/ MIXED USE
MIXED USE COMMUNITY PARK RESERVE WEST BASIN OPEN SPACE SOUTH BASIN EAST BASIN VILLAGE P VILLAGE Q
COFFEE ROAD
COFFEE ROAD
COFFEE ROAD MIXED USE MIXED USE VILLAGE R MIXED USE MIXED USE PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 4 PHASE 3 N
EXHIBIT D
WATER SUPPLY PLAN
EXHIBIT E
WASTEWATER COLLECTION PLAN
LEGEND
MCHENRY AVE PATTERSON RD. LADD RD. STANISLAUS RIVER
CITY OF RIVERBANK DRAINAGE CANAL
MIDMAINCANAL
HOGUE ROAD SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY STANISLAUS COUNTY
SKITTONE RD.
COFFEE RD. N MID WEST PUMP STATION NORTH EAST PUMP STATION ALTERNATIVE LOCATION. SOUTH PUMP STATION SOUTH PUMP STATION INTERIM SSFM*INTERIM SSFM*
EXHIBIT F
WASTEWATER RIVER CROSSING
EXHIBIT G
STORM DRAINAGE PLAN
EXHIBIT H
PARK PLAN
EXHIBIT I
SAMPLE DISCLOSURE FORM
EXHIBIT J
ASSIGNMENT & ASSUMPTION FORM
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
Attn: City Clerk
Ph: (209) 863-7122
Exempt from Recording Fees (Space above this line reserved for recorder’s use) (Gov. Code § 6103)
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT
This ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of ______________, 20__ (“Effective Date”), by and between ____________, a ______ (“Assignor”) and ______________ (“Subsequent Landowner”).
RECITALS
A. Assignor has entered into a Development Agreement (the “Development Agreement”) with the City of Riverbank, dated _____________, 20__, which was recorded on ______________, 20__ as Document No. _______________ in Book ____, Page ____ of the Official Records of Stanislaus County, California, pursuant to which Assignor agreed to develop certain property more particularly described in the Development Agreement as the portion of the “Subject Property” identified as _________________ and subject to certain terms and conditions set forth in the Development Agreement.
B. Assignor and Subsequent Landowner have agreed to assign Assignor’s interests in [all or a portion of] _______________ by a deed or other written instrument, which [was or will be] recorded in the Official Records of Stanislaus County, California, on _____________, 20__, as Document No. _______________ in Book ____, Page ____ of the Official Records of Stanislaus County (herein the “Assigned Property”).
C. Subsequent Landowner desires to assume all of Assignor’s rights, duties and obligations under the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property and to relieve Assignor of all of said assigned rights, duties and obligations in reference to the Assigned Property, to the extent permitted by the Development Agreement.
2 NOW, THEREFORE, Assignor and Subsequent Landowner hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Assignor hereby assigns, effective as of [the Effective Date or Assignor's conveyance of the Assigned Property to Subsequent Landowner], all of the rights, title and interest of Applicant under the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property. Assignor retains all the rights, interest, and interests under the Development Agreement with respect to all other property within the Subject Property owned by Assignor.
2. Subsequent Landowner hereby assumes all of the burdens and obligations of Assignor under the Development Agreement, and agrees to observe and fully perform all of the duties and obligations of Assignor under the Development Agreement, and to be subject to all the terms and conditions thereof, with respect to the Assigned Property, it being the express intention of both Assignor and Subsequent Landowner that, upon the Effective Date, Subsequent Landowner shall become substituted for Assignor as a “Developer” under the Development Agreement with respect to the Assigned Property.
Assignor acknowledges that Assignor shall remain subject to the obligations of the Development Agreement if Assignor retains any portion of the Subject Property subject to the Development Agreement.
3. All of the covenants, terms, and conditions of the Development Agreement and set forth herein shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns.
4. Subsequent Landowner’s address for all notices shall be as follows:
[SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON THE NEXT PAGE]
3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the above-referenced Effective Date.
ASSIGNOR:
________________, a
_______________
By:
Name:
Title:
SUBSEQUENT LANDOWNER:
________________, a
_______________
By:
Name:
Title:
APPROVED:
City Manager
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
CITY OF RIVERBANK
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2026 - ___
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL DENY THE RIVER WALK PROJECT
WHEREAS, River Walk, LLC proposes the River Walk Project, Department File No. 20-0026, consisting of an approximately 1,522-acre Sphere of Influence expansion and an approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area containing up to 2,682 dwelling units, nonresidential development, parks, open space and supporting infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the requested City actions include a General Plan Amendment, adoption of the River Walk Specific Plan, prezoning, approval of a Development Agreement, and authorization to pursue a Sphere of Influence amendment, Municipal Services Review update and annexation through Stanislaus LAFCo; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2026, and considered the staff report, Project applications, public testimony and entire administrative record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is required to provide the City Council with a written recommendation concerning the proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, prezoning and Development Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Planning Commission finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution.
2. The Planning Commission recommends denial based on the following findings:
a. The proposed 1,522-acre Sphere of Influence expansion and approximately 997-acre annexation would not represent orderly, efficient and fiscally prudent growth at this time.
b. The Project would permanently convert approximately 854.29 acres of Important Farmland, and the potential benefits of development of the Project do not outweigh the loss of farmland despite included mitigation.
c. Full buildout would require substantial water, wastewater, transportation, drainage and public-service infrastructure demands.
The Commission is not satisfied that the proposed phasing, financing and Development Agreement provisions provide sufficient long-term
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
protection for the City and existing residents in comparison to the potential impacts of development of the Project.
d. The Project would result in significant and unavoidable environmental effects involving aesthetics, agricultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, recreation, transportation and utilities. The Commission is not persuaded that the Project’s proposed benefits and overriding considerations warrant the requested legislative and boundary changes.
e. Because the Commission does not recommend the proposed General Plan Amendment or Specific Plan, it also does not recommend the related prezoning, Development Agreement or boundary applications intended to implement that land-use framework.
3. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
a. Decline to adopt the General Plan Amendment.
b. Decline to adopt the River Walk Specific Plan and Prezoning Ordinance.
c. Decline to approve the Development Agreement.
d. Decline to authorize the Sphere of Influence amendment, Municipal Services Review update or annexation applications.
e. Deny the River Walk Project applications.
4. Because the Commission recommends rejection of the Project, it does not recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report or adoption of CEQA Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations or the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. If the City Council rejects the Project, CEQA does not apply pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(5) and CEQA Guidelines section 15270.
5. This Resolution is an advisory recommendation and not the City’s final action.
Before taking final action, the City Council shall consider Government Code section 65589.5 and make any findings required by applicable State housing law.
6. The Planning Commission Secretary shall transmit this Resolution to the City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Riverbank at a special meeting held on the 4
th day of August, 2026; motioned by Commissioner
______, seconded by Commissioner ______, and upon roll call was carried by the following vote of ___:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2026-___
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________ ________________________
Joshua E. Mann Michael “Syd” Halterman
Director of Community Development Planning Commission Chair
Planning Commission Minutes – 8/4/2026
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF RIVERBANK
Chair, Michael Halterman
Vice Chair, John Dinan
Commissioner, Taide Zamora
Commissioner, Joan Stewart
Commissioner, Natasha Basso
Alternate, Armando Jr. Rodriguez
Alternate, Alex Rodriguez
Planning Commission Meeting
Riverbank Community Center
3600 Santa Fe Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
_______________________________________________________________________________________
MINUTES
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2026 — 6:00 P.M.
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTPS://RIVERBANKCA.PORTAL.CIVICCLERK.COM/)
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Halterman called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Hernandez conducted the roll call.
Planning Commissioner Present:
Alternate Commissioner, Alex Rodriguez
Alternate Commissioner, Armando Rodriguez
Commissioner, Natasha Basso
Commissioner, Joan Stewart
Commissioner, Taide Zamora
Vice Chair, John Dinan
Chair, Michael Halterman
3. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None Declared.
4. PUBLIC HEARING - (Public Notice for item 4.1 was published on July 1, 2026, in the Riverbank News).
Item 4.1. RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN (DEPT. FILE NO. 20-0026) PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed River Walk Project is located in the unincorporated area of 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. The overall Project Area includes approximately 1,522 acres. The River Walk Specific Plan Area includes approximately 997 acres within the overall Project Area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed River Walk Project includes approval of
Planning Commission Minutes – 8/4/2026
the River Walk Specific Plan, an amendment to the City of Riverbank’s General Plan, Sphere of Influence amendment, annexation of the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area into the City of Riverbank, prezoning, approval of a Development Agreement between the City and the project applicant, and the extension of infrastructure and utilities necessary to serve future development within the Specific Plan Area. The remaining land within the approximately 1,522- acre Project Area would be included within the proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment and held as Reserve land for possible long-range planning at a future time.
A Development Agreement is proposed to address the applicant’s obligations and the City’s requirements related to the orderly development of the River Walk Specific Plan Area, including but not limited to infrastructure, utilities, public improvements, phasing, financing, fees, dedications and other terms necessary to implement the Specific Plan.
The Project Area includes 61 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and additional nonparcelized areas, including rights-of-way. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers within the Project Area are:
074-001-001, 074-001-015, 074-001-016, 074-001-003, 074-001-011, 074-001- 012, 074-001-013, 074-001-005, 074-001-008, 074-001-009, 074-001-017, 074- 001-018, 074-001-019, 074-001-020, 074-002-020, 074-002-019, 074-002-018, 074-002-017, 074-002-025, 074-002-024, 074-002-014, 074-002-013, 074-002- 011, 074-002-028, 074-002-026, 074-002-006, 074-002-010, 074-002-031, 074- 002-021, 074-002-030, 074-002-029, 074-002-034, 074-002-007, 074-002-033, 074-002-032, 074-002-001, 074-003-022, 074-003-021, 074-003-020, 074-003- 016, 074-003-013, 074-003-012, 074-003-023, 074-003-002, 074-003-015, 074- 003-014, 074-003-011, 074-003-010, 074-003-019, 074-003-018, 074-003-024, 074-003-008, 074-003-007, 074-003-006, 074-003-005, 074-003-004, 074-003- 003, 074-005-012, 074-005-013, 074-005-010 and 074-005-011.
The River Walk Specific Plan proposes a mixed-use development with a range of residential densities, neighborhood-serving mixed-use areas, parks, recreation, open space, greenways, trails, landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and supporting infrastructure. Proposed land use categories include 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 and Reserve.
The existing Project Area is predominantly used for agricultural operations, including almond, walnut and cherry orchards, fallow land, rural residential uses, agricultural accessory structures, private irrigation facilities, a horse ranch, a commercial nursery business, truck storage, an approximately 150-acre solar farm and the Modesto Rifle Club. Modesto Irrigation District canals, easements and irrigation facilities are also located within the Project Area.
The proposed Project is intended to provide for orderly long-term planning, expand the City’s Sphere of Influence, allow for future annexation and development of the Specific Plan Area and increase the supply and variety of housing within the City of Riverbank planning area.
Planning Commission Minutes – 8/4/2026
The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (SCH: 2021060098) for the River Walk Specific Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Environmental Impact Report evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project and identifies mitigation measures where applicable. Significant and unavoidable impacts of development of the River Walk Specific Plan subject to mitigation measures include the following: Aesthetics; agricultural resources; greenhouse gases, climate change, and energy; noise; public services and recreation; transportation and circulation; utilities; and cumulative impacts.
Director of Community Development, Mann, gave a comprehensive staff report and PowerPoint presentation on the River Walk Specific Plan.
Steve McMurtry of De Novo Planning Group gave a PowerPoint presentation on the River Walk Environmental Impact Report.
Dave Romano, applicant, gave a brief 20-minute presentation.
Chair Halterman opened the Public Hearing at 6:57 P.M.
Public Comments:
Kate Donovan, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Vivian Lopez, League of Women Voters of Stanislaus County, opposed to the River Walk Project.
Vivian Lopez, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Karen Conrotto, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Robert Donovan, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Diego Hernandez, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Celia Duran, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Jami Aggers, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Bob DeMont, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Dan Whetstone, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Cal Campbell, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Garry Pearson, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Gretchen Brown, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Kent Mitchell, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Planning Commission Minutes – 8/4/2026
Irvin Moya, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Richard O'Brien, Riverbank resident, in support of the River Walk project.
Mike Bennett, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Bill Berryhill, Property owner of the proposed River Walk project, in support of the River Walk project.
Aaliyah Brown, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Chair Halterman moved to a brief recess at 7:49 P.M.
Reconvened from Recess at 8:00P.M.
Richard Merciadis, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Milt Trieweiler, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Rosa Medrano, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Lenora Gerber, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Michael Christie, Riverbank resident, in support of the River Walk project.
Roosevelt Brown, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Danielle Higby LeBeouf, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Cindy Higby, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Roger Higby, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Rich Holmer, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Carissa Commons, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Brian Elliott, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Gavin Bruce, Modesto resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Laura Plascencia, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Jose Borroel, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Gilberto Duran, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Edgar Garibay, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Armando Nunez, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Chris Schalck, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Planning Commission Minutes – 8/4/2026
Gisselle Nunez, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Jay Medrano, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Edward Jones, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Colleen Preston, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Lori Wolf, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Annabelle Gammon, Stanislaus County resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Jordan Davidson, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Bianca Lopez, Riverbank resident, opposed to the River Walk project.
Written Comments Submitted:
Annabel Gammon- Exhibit A
Marcos Rojas - Exhibit B
Colleen Preston - Exhibit C
Consuelo Herrera - Exhibit D
Rocio Rojas - Exhibit E
Soluri Meserve-Attorney for Annabel & J. Allen Gammon - Exhibit F There being no further public comment, Chair Halterman Closed the Public Hearing at 9:23 P.M.
Dave Romano, Applicant, gave a 5-minute rebuttal to address public comments.
The Planning Commission discussed the item with staff.
There being no further discussion, Chair Halterman brought the item back for consideration.
ACTION: Motioned by and Seconded ( Dinan / Zamora 4/1) to approve Exhibit K: PC Resolution Recommendation to Deny Approval of the River Walk Specific Plan to the City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote.Ayes: Planning Commissioners: Dinan, Zamora, Stewart, and Basso
Nays: Halterman Abstained: None Absent: None
5. ADJOURNMENT
The Special Planning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 9:44 P.M.
ATTEST: (Adopted 00/00/0000) APPROVED:
EXHIBIT A
1. Loss of farmland. We are paving over our economic and agricultural heritage.
2. Water and Groundwater Discharge. This site sits over critical regional groundwater resources. Paving these acres drastically reduces permeable surface area, threatening natural aquifer recharge on the southern edge of the River corridor.
3. Traffic and Air Quality. Forecasts vehicle trips toward McHenry and Patterson Road.
EIR concedes significant and unavoidable increase in traffic congestion, regional greenhouse gas emissions degrading our local air quality, at a time when the valley already fails State standards.
Proximity and Stanislaus River Concerns:
Furthermore, we are pressing intense urban footprint directly against the sensitive Stanislaus River ecosystem. The river is our flood buffer, our wildlife movement corridor and a natural asset. Intensifying runoff, urban noise and human activity right at the edge without foolproof, iron clad guarantees. Relying instead on “significant and unavoidable findings violates our long term duty to protect this natural resource. We need to protect endangered animals and plants and River Walk will threaten their existence.
The impacts of our air, water, traffic and farmland are stamped unavoidable.
Let us allow the citizens of Riverbank, to have their say on the city’s growth boundary (Measure M) in November.
Planning commissioners, in terms of legacy, you have a vote tonight and the citizens whose only vote is through you. We must care for the legacy we leave our children and our children’s children and generations after them. We owe to them the chance to decide how to plan and build for their futures. We are fortunate to live in a rich agriculture part of this planet earth. Our county has nature’s gift of fertile soil, water. and sun. Let’s preserve it with all of our might.
Please vote for the resolution that reads: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE RIVER WALK PROJECT.
Based on these findings:
Whereas, River Walk,LLC proposes the River Walk Project, Department File No. 20-0026, consisting of an approximately 1,552-acre Sphere of Influence expansion and an approximately 997-acre Specific Plan containing up to 3,682 dwelling units, nonresidential development, parks, open space and supporting infrastructure; and
Whereas, the requested City actions include a General Plan Amendment, adoption of the River Walk Specific Plan, pre-zoning,approval of Development Agreement, and authorization to pursue a Sphere of Influence amendment, Municipal Services Review update through LAFCo; and
Whereas, the City prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project State ClearinghouseNo. 2021060098; and
Whereas, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 4, 2026 and considered the staff report, Project applications, public testimony and entire administrative record; and
Whereas, the Planning Commission is required to provide the City Council with a written recommendation concerning the proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, prezoning and Development Agreement.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the city of Riverbank, California does hereby
Resolve as follows:
1. The PC finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution.
2. The PC recommends denial based on the following findings:
a. The proposed 1,522-acre SOI expansion and approximately 997-acre annexation would not represent orderly, efficient and fiscally prudent growth at this time. b. The Project would permanently convert approximately 854.29 acres of Important Farmland, and the potential benefits of development of the Project do not outweigh the loss of farmland included mitigation.
C. Full buildout would require substantial water, wastewater, transportation, drainage and public service infrastructure demands. The Commission is not satisfied that the proposed phasing, financing and Development Agreement provisions provide sufficient long-term protection for the City and existing residents in comparison to the potential impacts of development of the Project.
d. The Project would result in significant and unavoidable environmental effects involving aesthetics, agriculture resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, recreation, transportation and utilities. The Commission is not persuaded that the Project’s proposed benefits and overriding considerations warrant the requested legislative and boundary changes.
e. Because the Commission does not recommend the proposed General Plan Amendment or Specific Plan, it also does not recommend the related pre-zoning, Development Agreement or boundary applications intended to implement that land-use framework.
3. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
a. Decline to adopt the General Plan Amendment.
b. Decline to adopt the River Walk Specific Plan and Prezoning Ordinance. c. Decline to approve the Development Agreement.
d. Decline to authorize the Sphere of Influence amendment, Municipal Services Review update or annexation applications.
e. Deny the River Walk applications.
Looking forward to Planning Commission passing and adopting A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE RIVER WALK PROJECT.
Thank you for your time,
Annabel Gammon
From:
To: City Clerk
Subject: Opposition to the River Walk Project
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 3:45:19 PM
Attachments: inky-injection-inliner-03755809cc10337ec572b1f12a6beedf.png inky-injection-inliner-e0c5e04ec3692c9149434d474b0acb15.png First-Time Sender Details
Safe Spam Phish More... Quarantine Allow & Block
am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed River Walk Project.
While I understand the need for thoughtful growth, I believe this project comes at too great and largely irreversible a cost. It would permanently convert irreplaceable farmland into development, significantly increase traffic congestion, and place additional strain on already burdened roads, schools, water systems, and emergency services. It also poses a serious risk to the Stanislaus River ecosystem and surrounding wildlife. In addition, it would erode the smalltown character that makes Riverbank such a special and valued place to live.
I support responsible and forward-looking development, but it must be pursued in a way that genuinely protects our agricultural heritage, natural resources, and overall quality of life. I also urge the City to more fully consider and meaningfully address the concerns of residents before advancing a project of this scale and impact.
I respectfully ask you to reconsider the River Walk Project in its current form.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Marcos Rojas
Riverbank Resident
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
Colleen Preston
--
Colleen O'Brien Preston
Confidentiality Notice: This E-Mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in the E-Mail address. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance upon the contents of this E-Mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-Mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements can be made for proper delivery, and then delete the message from your system. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
EXHIBIT D
I respectfully ask you to slow down, carefully consider the long-term consequences of this project, and explore alternatives that preserve our farmland, protect our river, and ensure our infrastructure can truly support future growth.
The decisions made today will shape Riverbank for generations. I hope those decisions reflect not only the needs of tomorrow but also the values of the community that calls Riverbank home.
Thank you for your time
Consuelo Herrera
Riverbank Senior Resident
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
I \
rocio herrera
City Clerk
Concerns Regarding the River Walk Project
Tuesday, August 4, 2026 3:34:14 PM
inky-injection-inliner-03755809cc10337ec5nb1f12a6beedf.png inky-injection-inliner-e0c5e04ec3692c9149434d4 74b0acb15.png First-Time Sender Details
� � .Ehish More.., Quarantine Allow & Block
I
Dear Mayor and Members of the Riverbank City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed River Walk Project.
While I understand the need for thoughtful growth and housing, I do not believe this project is in the best long-term interest of Riverbank or its residents.
My concerns include:
• The permanent loss of valuable agricultural land that has supported our community for generations. Once this farmland is developed, it cannot be restored.
• Potential impacts to the Stanislaus River corridor, including wildlife habitat, open space, and our natural environment.
• Increased traffic congestion on already busy roads, along with the resulting effects on air quality and quality of life.
• Questions about whether our existing infrastructure-including roads, water, sewer systems, schools, emergency services, and other public resources--can adequately support a development of this size without placing additional burdens on current residents.
• The impact this project could have on the character of Riverbank. Many of us chose to live here because of its smaller-town atmosphere, open spaces, and connection to agriculture. This development represents a dramatic change to the community we know and value.
• A desire for greater transparency and meaningful public involvement
EXHIBIT E
before decisions of this magnitude are made. Residents deserve to have their voices heard throughout the planning process.
I am not opposed to responsible growth. However, I believe growth should be carefully planned in locations that minimize the loss of productive farmland, protect our natural resources, and ensure that infrastructure and public services can keep pace with development.
I respectfully ask the City Council to reconsider moving forward with the River Walk Project in its current form and to prioritize solutions that preserve Riverbank’s agricultural heritage, environmental resources, and quality of life.
Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of the residents you serve.
Sincerely,
Rocio Rojas
Riverbank Resident
Sent from my iPhone
go green
August 3, 2026
SENT VIA EMAIL
[email protected]; [email protected]
Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk
City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street, Suite A
Riverbank, California 95367
Re: Comments on Agenda Item No. 4.1 of the August 4, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting regarding the River Walk Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Hernandez:
These comments, submitted on behalf of Riverbank residents Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon, pertain to the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and the River Walk Specific Plan (“RWSP” or “Project”) prepared by the City of Riverbank (“City”). Specifically, these comments address the inadequacy of responses to this firm’s May 16, 2024 comment letter on the Project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) in contravention to the basic requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. [“CEQA”].) Also attached as Exhibit A is a letter from Dr. Shawn Smallwood explaining that he did not trespass on the Project site as alleged in the FEIR. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 4.0-95.) The City continues to disregard the fact that these comments are submitted on behalf of Riverbank residents Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon. Our DEIR comment letter noted that the DEIR mistakenly listed the Notice of Preparation comments submitted on behalf of Ms. Gammon and Dr. Gammon as having been submitted on behalf of Soluri Meserve and requested that the FEIR correct this error.
This error, however, has not been corrected. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-14, p. 4.0-2, fn. 1 [misattributing comments to law firm].) Then, the FEIR lists our May 16, 2024 DEIR comment letter as being submitted by Osha Meserve on behalf of Soluri Meserve. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 4.0-2, 4.0-191.) Again, as clearly stated in the comment letter, our firm prepared the comments for Riverbank residents Ms. Gammon and Dr. Gammon, whose names should have been listed in the FEIR.
EXHIBIT F
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
I. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND FEIR FAIL TO REMEDY LEGAL
DEFICIENCIES OF DEIR
As the CEQA lead agency for the Project, the City must evaluate comments on the DEIR and prepare written responses in the FEIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (d).) The FEIR must include a “detailed” written response to all “significant environmental issues” raised by commenters, and must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. [“CEQA Guidelines”], § 15088, subd. (c).) Failure to provide a substantive response renders the EIR legally inadequate. (Rural Landowners Association v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.) If the public suggests a feasible mitigation measure or alternative, the agency may only decline to implement it if it provides substantial evidence that the mitigation measure or alternative is infeasible. (Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867.)
The responses to comments on a DEIR must state reasons for rejecting suggested mitigation measures and comments on significant environmental issues. “Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information” are not adequate responses. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088, subds. (b), (c); Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 348; Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 604, 628 [“Non-specific, general, or conclusory responses unsupported by empirical information, scientific authorities or explanatory information ‘fail to crystallize issues’”]; People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 841 [Responses to comments must “set forth in detail the reasons why the particular comments and objections were rejected . . . ”].) The need for a substantive, detailed response is particularly appropriate when experts or other agencies have raised comments. (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1367; People v. Kern (1976) 72 Cal.App.3d 761 [Berkeley Keep Jets].) A reasoned analysis of the issue and references to supporting evidence are required for substantive comments raised. (California Oak Foundation v. Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219.)
The FEIR fails to meet these legal standards as it is riddled with conclusory and false statements lacking any factual support or analysis. Further, the FEIR also fails to comply with the duty of good faith by deploying a strategy of piecemealing public comments and the associated responses in order to avoid addressing the overall point of each comment.
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
A. Land Use and General Plan Consistency
1. The Response Does Not Disclose or Justify the Removal of the General Plan’s Agricultural Resource Conservation Area
Designation
An EIR must accurately describe the existing environmental setting, including the applicable land use and regulatory setting, because that setting provides the baseline against which the significance of Project impacts is measured. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a); see Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(1).) Eliminating or substantially altering an existing general plan land use designation is part of the “whole action” that is subject to CEQA review. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a); Gov.
Code, § 65300.5.) A lead agency cannot discharge that disclosure obligation by asserting bare consistency with the general plan without addressing the specific policy change at issue.
Comment R-15 of the May 16, 2024 DEIR comment letter explained that the Project would eliminate the General Plan’s Agricultural Resource Conservation Area (“ARCA”) designation under Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission’s (“Stanislaus LAFCO”) Agricultural Preservation Policy (“Policy 22”). Policy 22 contains Stanislaus LAFCO’s mandates for the preservation of agricultural land, including but not limited to fully considering the impacts a proposal will have on existing agricultural land.
Comment R-15 emphasized that Stanislaus LAFCO itself characterized the removal of the ARCA designation, in its NOP comments, as “a significant shift in General plan policies, the impacts of which will need to be fully discussed and considered.” (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-15, p. 4.0-34 [citing, Stanislaus LAFCO NOP comments, p. 3].) Response R-15 does not address Stanislaus LAFCO’s warning. In Response R-15, the City cross-references Master Responses 1, 2, and 7, and Responses to Comments N-4 and N-10 from Volume 1 of the FEIR. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-15, p. 4.0-208.) Each of these responses, however, addresses a different question than the one the comment raised. Master Responses 1, 2, and 7 concern the general adequacy of the Project’s agricultural mitigation measures, primarily where the one-to-one conservation easement ratio required by Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 satisfies CEQA. (FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 1, pp. 2.0-3 to 2.0-4, Master Response 2 at pp. 2.0-4 to 2.0-9, Master Response 7 at 2.0-15 to 2.0-16.) Response N-10 furthers the lack of response as it also cross-references back to the same Master Responses 1, 2, and 7. (FEIR, Vol. I, Response N-10 at p. 3.0-106.) Response N-5 also does not address Comment R-15, as the analysis addresses whether Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 constitutes an impermissibly deferred mitigation measure lacking an identified performance standard. (FEIR, Vol. I, Response N-5 at pp. 3.0-91 to 3.0-94.) None of the five responses addresses LAFCO’s actual
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
comment: that eliminating the ARCA designation, independent of whatever mitigation applies to the resulting farmland conversion, is a significant change in City land use policy, the impacts of which the FEIR fails to disclose or analyze.
2. The Response Does Not Resolve the Williamson Act Analysis as to the Seven of Nine Affected Parcels
Response to Comment R-14 is inadequate, as it does not undergo the requested analysis regarding seven of the nine parcels of land under the Williamson Act. Comment R-14 explained that the Project’s three proposed approach to nine parcels under the Williamson Act—requiring the landowner to file a notice or nonrenewal and wait nine years, pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5 percent of the land’s value, or a complete agricultural easement exchange—does not preserve agricultural land by merely resolving the existing conflict between the Williamson Act contract and the Project on terms that leave the underlying conversion impact unmitigated. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-14, pp.
4.0-32 to 4.0-34.) In response to Comment R-14 on the Williamson Act, the City responded solely with a cross-reference to Master Response 6. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-14, pp. 4.0-207 to 4.0-208.)
Master Response 6 addresses only two of the nine parcels, specifically those subject to the City’s 1976 protest to Stanislaus LAFCO under former Government Code section 51243.5, which was upheld by LAFCO Resolution 76-2397 (adopted April 19, 1978). (FEIR, Vol. I, Section 2.0 Agency Comments on Draft EIR and Responses, Master Response 6, pp. 2.0-14 to 2.0-15.) Master Response 6 explains that under Government Code section 51243.5 subdivision (e), these two contracts will become null and void as to the annexed land by operation of the law upon annexation, thus eliminating the conflict for those two parcels without resorting to the three proposed approaches. (Ibid.)
DEIR Table 3.2-7 confirms, by Assessor’s Parcel Number, that the two parcels Master Response 6 addresses (APN 074-003-013 and APN 074-003-014) are the only parcels whose protest was upheld in 1978; the remaining seven parcels under Williamson Act contract (APNs 074-001-001, 074-001-008, 074-001-009, 074-001-010, 074-001- 011, 074-002-024, and 074-002-025) are unaffected by that resolution. (DEIR, Vol. I, Section 3.2 Agricultural Resources, Table 3.2-7, p. 3.2-12; FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 6, pp. 2.0-14 to 2.0-15.) The statement in Master Response 6 that “the other nine Williamson Act contracts” would not conflict with the Sphere of Influence/Reserve Area extension does not match this count—nine total parcels minus the two resolved leaves seven, not nine. (Id. at p. 2.0-15.) The response does not otherwise engage Comment R-14’s central point: that the three-option framework does not preserve agricultural land but merely resolves the legal conflict between the contract and the
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
Project on terms that leave the underlying conversion impact unmitigated. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-14, pp. 4.0-32 to 4.0-34.)
The Response’s silence as to the seven non-protested parcels, compounded by its miscount of their number, means the record does not establish that this unmitigated conflict has been resolved for the majority of the Williamson Act land at issue. The FEIR accordingly fails to remedy the deficiency identified in Comment R-14.
B. Water Supply and Groundwater Reliability
1. The Response Does Not Resolve the Department of Water Resources’ Specific Findings Regarding Subbasin-Wide
Groundwater Overdraft
Future water supplies must be identified and analyzed as an agency cannot rely on “paper water” whose actual future availability has not been demonstrated. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 432.) An EIR’s water supply analysis “must address the impacts of likely future water sources” along with “a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water’s availability.” (Ibid.)
Comment R-10 cited to the California Department of Water Resources’ (“DWR”) January 2024 Staff Report evaluation of the January 2022 Modesto Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”), which found the GSP’s baseline overdraft calculation underestimated the actual reported overdraft by more than a factor of ten, and estimated that correcting the actual reported storage loss at the GSP’s proposed implementation pace would require approximately 218 years. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-10, pp. 4.0-23 to 4.0-28.)
Response R-10 cross-referenced as Master Response 9 discloses that the GSP was revised in July 2024 and presents historical groundwater elevation data from a single representative well (“Langon Merle 241”) near the city, showing the GSP’s Minimum Threshold and Measurable Objective since 2016. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-10, p. 4.0- 205; see FEIR, Vol. 1, Master Response 9, pp. 2.0-26 to 2.0-32.) Master Response 9 does not resolve DWR’s specific concern because it answers a different and narrower question. Evidence that groundwater levels are stable at one representative well does not establish that the Subbasin-wide overdraft accounting methodology DWR specifically found deficient has since been corrected.
Response R-10 also cites Master Response 10, which addresses a further separate question: the Project’s own water demand relative to existing agricultural use on the site.
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
(FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-10, p. 4.0-205; see FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 10, p. 2.0- 32 to 2.0-35.) Master Response 10 states the Project’s post-development groundwater demand (approximately 1,657 acre-feet annually, including a remaining orchard parcel) represents a net reduction of around 489 acre-feet from the approximately 2,146 acre-feet the Specific Plan Area’s existing agricultural irrigation demands today. (FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 10, p. 2.0-34; see also FEIR Vol. II, p. 5.0-74.) That comparison also does not address DWR’s critique. Whether the Project’s own marginal water use goes up or down does not establish that the Subbasin-wide overdraft accounting underlying the GSP’s “highly reliable” supply conclusion is itself accurate. An incrementally smaller increase in demand in a high priority subbasin that is still in overdraft still creates significant effects on groundwater.
The FEIR also clarifies that three, rather than two new wells may be needed to serve the Project. (FEIR, Vol. I., p. 3.0-23.) Adding new wells to an overdrafted subbasin would logically worsen groundwater conditions in the region. In addition, the FEIR should not assume that a smaller demand on water from urban development under the Project would necessarily have less impact on limited groundwater supplies. Currently, water applied to irrigated agriculture is allowed to recharge groundwater over time. If the Project is built out, these same areas would largely be covered with impervious surfaces, reducing groundwater recharge. Thus, even if the overall water demand is smaller, there may be more impact on groundwater over the long term due to changes in runoff patterns from the addition of impervious surfaces.
The Errata attributes the 489-acre-foot reduction figure Master Response 10 relies upon to a technical memorandum by Rob Christensen, PE, dated October 4, 2024, after the DEIR’s public comment period had closed. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-397 to 5.0-403.) The memorandum also calculates a further potential reduction of up to 861 acre-feet based on the State Water Resources Control Board’s July 2024 water use objectives. (Id. at 5.0-400 to 5.30-401.) Both figures address only the Project’s own marginal groundwater demand; neither engages DWR’s Subbasin-wide overdraft findings or whether the GSP’s baseline accounting has been corrected within the FEIR.
The Response therefore does not resolve DWR’s specific, documented finding that the Subbasin’s overdraft accounting understated actual conditions by a factor of ten. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-10, pp. 4.0-23 to 4.0-28.) Nothing in the record establishes that the revised GSP’s baseline overdraft methodology corrects the deficiency DWR identified in the prior version upon which the DEIR relied. Absent that showing, the FEIR’s characterization of the Project’s water supply as “highly reliable” rests on a groundwater sustainability plan that in itself was underreporting the overdraft calculations. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-71.)
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
2. The FEIR Does Not Resolve Uncertainty Regarding the Project’s Stormwater Infrastructure Design
Under CEQA, an EIR must describe the range of reasonable alternatives for a project that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives” of a project while avoiding or substantially lessening “any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” (Association of Irritated Residents v.
County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1400 [citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a)] [Association of Irritated Residents].) The EIR must include sufficient information for each alternative for “meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.” (Association of Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at 1400 [citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (d)].)
Comment R-12 noted that the DEIR’s stormwater collection and detention design remains substantially undesigned: exact basin locations, pipe and swale layout, and the terms of the Project’s discharge arrangement with Modesto Irrigation District (“MID”) are all deferred to a future improvement-plan phased approach, with no disclosed fallback design should an agreement with MID not be reached. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-12, pp. 4.0-29 to 4.0-30.) The City’s Response to Comment R-12 describes the Project’s general stormwater design approach and the applicable regulatory permitting framework but does not address whether an agreement with MID has been executed nor does it disclose or analyze the alternative retention/infiltration design that would be required in its absence. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-12, p. 4.0-206.) The Response therefore does not cure the deficiency identified in Comment R-12.
Without confirmation that an agreement with MID has been executed, and without any disclosure of the fallback design that would govern in its absence, the DEIR’s stormwater and water quality remains based on undefined infrastructure rather than the reasonably foreseeable project features CEQA requires an agency to disclose and analyze. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subds. (a), (d).)
C. Biological Resources: Survey Methodology and Species Count
1. The FEIR Does Not Disclose Methodology Underlying the DEIR’s Baseline Biological Surveys
An EIR’s description of the existing environmental setting must be sufficiently detailed to allow the public to understand and meaningfully evaluate the agency’s findings. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.
Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404-405 [EIR must include sufficient information to permit “informed decisionmaking and informed public
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
participation”].) Under CEQA, the agency must disclose relevant information when the failure to disclose the information precludes informed decision-making and public participation. (See Association of Irritated Residents, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at 1391.) A response directed at an unrelated topic does not constitute a good faith, reasoned response CEQA requires. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088, subd. (c).)
Comment R-5 identified specific, unanswered questions regarding the DEIR’s summary of four reconnaissance surveys conducted by Steven McMurtry in December 2019 and in March, May, and June 2020: the date and time of the surveys, the duration of the survey, if a species-needs checklist was used, and Mr. McMurtry’s qualifications. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-5, pp. 4.0-9 to 4.0-11.) Comment R-5 additionally noted that the City confirmed, by email, that no technical report memorializing these surveys was ever prepared. (Id. at pp. 4.0-9 to 4.0-10, fn. 3.)
In Response R-5, the City cross-referenced Master Response 11. Master Response 11, however, addresses the adequacy of the DEIR’s biological mitigation measures (enforceability of performance standards, propriety of preconstruction surveys as a mitigation tool) and the distinction between habitat assessments and the point-in-time detection surveys. (FEIR, Vol. I, Master Response 11, pp. 2.0-35-2.0 to 2.0-45.) It does not address the specific baseline-survey methodology questions Comment R-5 raises: no dates, times, durations, or checklist methodology for the McMurtry surveys appear in Master Response 11. No further response was provided to adequately respond to Comment R-5, leaving the comment unaddressed by the general response of Master Response 11. As the survey methodology underlying the DEIR’s biological baseline is undisclosed, the DEIR’s environmental setting description does not satisfy CEQA’s informational requirements.
2. The Response Mischaracterizes the Record Regarding SpecialStatus Species Omitted from the DEIR’s Analysis Comment R-6, supported by the report of Dr. Shawn Smallwood (Comment RAttachment 1), identified 101 special-status species warranting further analysis based on a review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base and the US Fish and Wildlife Service occurrence records, categorized by distance from the Project site. (Comment RAttachment 1, Table 2, pp. 38-42 [FEIR, Vol II, pp. 4.0-75 to 4.0-79].) Comment R-6 highlights the fact that the DEIR analyzed occurrence likelihood for only 24 of these species, leaving 77 species entirely unaddressed, including 10 species that were documented within the Specific Plan Area itself. (FEIR, Vol II, p. 4.0-14.) The City’s Response to Comment R-6 states that “the commenter does not provide a list of the 77 species, does not identify any specific species, [and] does not provide the
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
records of occurrences and locations of these species.” This statement ignores the fact that Table 2 of the Smallwood Report, marked as Comment R-Attachment 1, is precisely such a list, organized by occurrence-distance category. (See FEIR, Vol II, pp. 4.0-75 to
4.0-79.) The Response’s assertion that no such list was provided is incorrect, as both the comment letter cited the table and Dr. Smallwood’s report containing the table was submitted to the City.
The City’s response to a separate comment, Response G-58, reveals the City’s actual position: California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (“CDFW”) silence affirmatively establishes that no special-status species are missing from the DEIR’s analysis, citing Gentry v. City of Murrietta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1380 (Gentry). (FEIR, Vol. I, Response G-58, p. 2.0-158.) The City appears to extend this same reasoning in Comment R-6, treating CDFW’s silence as the basis for disregarding Dr.
Smallwood’s data-supported identification, in Table 2 of his report, of 77 species the DEIR’s analysis omits. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-6, p. 4.0-199.) This approach inverts the burden from the lead agency (the City) to the commenter. As noted in Santa Clarita Organization for Planning v. County of Los Angeles, “it is not enough for the EIR simply to contain information submitted by the public and experts.” An inference drawn from an agency’s silence is not substantial evidence of anything in particular but at most the absence of evidence that cannot substitute for the reasoned, fact-based analysis CEQA requires once an expert’s comments disclose new or conflicting data. (Clearly v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 348, 357 [where a responsible expert’s comments disclose new or conflicting data, “these comments may not simply be ignored. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response”]; Berkeley Keep Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1367 [heightened need for substantive, detailed responses to comments from experts and responsible agencies].)
The City’s reliance on the Gentry case does not excuse this defect. Gentry applies when the reviewing agency had the opportunity and occasion to notice the specific omission at issue. (36 Cal.App.4th at 1380.) CDFW did submit comments on the DEIR, but those comments reflect a review of the DEIR’s own special-status species table (DEIR Table 3.4-7), which lists only 24 species—not a review of Table 2 of the Smallwood Report, an attachment to our Original Comments identifying 77 additional species the DEIR’s table omits. (FEIR, Vol. I, Comment F, pp. 2.0-78 to 2.0-84.) Nothing in the record establishes that CDFW was ever presented with Table 2 or had the opportunity to compare it against the DEIR’s own table. A reviewing agency cannot be said to have noticed, and implicitly approved, an omission it was never shown.
Substituting this unsupported inference for actual analysis is precisely the kind of conclusory response, unsupported by empirical information or explanatory analysis, that fails to crystallize the issue a comment raises. (Environmental Protection Information Center, supra, 170 Cal.App.3d at 628; County of Kern, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at 841.)
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
Because the Response does not substantively engage the 77 species Table 2 identifies, the DEIR’s occurrence-likelihood analysis remains unsupported as to each of them, and the City’s failure to provide a substantive response renders the DEIR’s biological resources analysis legally inadequate in this respect. (Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.)
3. The Response Does Not Resolve the Circularity in the DEIR’s Cumulative Biological Impact Analysis
Under CEQA Guidelines, a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact may be found less than cumulatively considerable only where the agency identifies facts and analysis showing the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of mitigation measures designed to alleviate that cumulative impact. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15065, subd, (a)(3), 15130, subd. (a)(3).) Comment R-8 explained that the DEIR conflates these two questions, treating the fact that project-level mitigation has been “presented” as itself sufficient to support a finding that cumulative biological impacts are less than cumulatively considerable. (FEIR, Vol. II, Comment R-8, pp. 4.0-17 to 4.0-18.) The City’s response to Comment R8 explains the DEIR’s methodology under CEQA Guidelines section 15130, subdivision (b)(1) and quantifies the relevant biological setting, but it does not explain why applying project-level mitigation also resolves the separate, cumulative-level question the comment raised. (FEIR, Vol. II, Response R-8, pp. 4.0-17 to 4.0-18.) Without an explanation connecting the two, the DEIR’s “less than cumulatively considerable” finding remains a conclusory statement unsupported by disclosed facts and analysis, the very deficiency CEQA Guidelines section 15130, subdivision (a)(3) rejects and the very deficiency Response R-8 claims to avoid.
4. The Response to Comment R-3 and R-Attachment 1 Relies on an Unsubstantiated Allegation Regarding the Commenter’s Biological Expert Rather Than Addressing His Analysis
A lead agency’s response to comments must address the significant environmental issues raised by the comment. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088, subd. (c).) Comment R-3 presented the species extrapolation methodology set forth in the Smallwood Report, comparing observed detection rates at the Project site to two substantially larger prior survey datasets, from which Dr. Smallwood estimated that continued survey effort would likely detect approximately 196 vertebrate species, including around 34 special-status species, at the Project site.
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
The City’s response to Comment R-3 and Comment R-Attachment 1 do not address this extrapolation methodology. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 4.0-193 to 4.0-195, 4.0-208 to
4.0-215.) Instead, both responses state the property owner has represented that Dr.
Smallwood accessed the Berghill property without authorization and furthermore claim that the property owner photographed Dr. Smallwood and his vehicle during the alleged encounter (no such photographs were provided). As explained by Dr. Smallwood in the letter attached as Exhibit A, Dr. Smallwood conducted visual surveys of the Project site by foot along a social path adjacent to the Stanislaus River, which he accessed from Ms.
Gammon’s and Dr. Gammon’s property. Dr. Smallwood did not see any signage regarding private property during his field visits. Moreover, at no time did Dr.
Smallwood travel by vehicle on the Project site.
An allegation regarding a commenter’s expert’s conduct, unrelated to and unsupported within the response itself, does not constitute a response to the technical analysis presented in Comment R-3. The City’s false statements in the FEIR regarding Dr. Smallwood’s conduct, which are harmful to his professional reputation, must be corrected.
Substantively, the FEIR fails to acknowledge the extent to which agricultural land provides habitat values, which would be directly impacted by the Project. While the Response points to species richness in the riparian area along the river (FEIR, Vol. II, p.
4.0-194), it fails to recognize how agricultural land supports birds and other wildlife. For instance, the discussion of Swainson’s hawk fails to acknowledge the loss of foraging habitat on the Project site, and also makes the unsubstantiated assumption that hawks are not foraging there because there are nests in the area. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 4.0-201.) II. NEW INFORMATION IN FEIR ERRATA REQUIRES RECIRCULATION A. Sanitary Sewer System Would Have Substantially More Severe Impacts
The FEIR discloses that Construction of the sanitary sewer force mains crossing the Stanislaus River would be performed using Horizontal Directional Drilling. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-26.) According to the City, “Construction of the sewer force mains under the river corridor will require a host of permits from various agencies such as the California State Lands Commission, US Army Corps of Engineers, and the Central Vally Water Quality Control Board.” (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-27.) No description of the actual activities to be permitted is provided. While the FEIR claims that there would be no disturbance of the riparian corridor (and no impacts to wetlands), with no design details, the FEIR’s less than significant impact determination is without support. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-61 to 5.0-64.)
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
In addition, the FEIR somehow finds an additional .2 million gallons per day of capacity for the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plan than previously discussed in the DEIR. (FEIR, Vol. I, p. 3.0-39; FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-102.) This allegedly would accommodate 31 percent of the wastewater capacity needs for the entire Specific Plan.
The FEIR project description is unstable and unsubstantiated with respect to necessary treatment of wastewater from the Project.
B. New Biological Resources Identified
Section 5.0 Errata opens with a blanket assertion that its revision “do not result in new significant environmental impacts, do not constitute significant new information, and do not alter the conclusion of the environmental analysis that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.” (FEIR, Vol. II, p.
5.0-1.) The Errata’s own content is in tension with the assertion. Table 3.4-1, as revised, identifies only six parcels that have been field surveyed within the Berghill Boundary, with the remaining parcels comprising the Reserve Area being separately listed in Table
3.4-3 as “Not Field Surveyed.” (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-45.) Table 3.4-7’s presence determinations for special-status wildlife and fish species, however, appear to apply across the full Project Area, including the not field surveyed Reserve Area parcels, with no accompanying explanation anywhere in the Errata or FEIR of the methodology used to reach a determination where no field survey occurred. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-45.) Revisions in the Errata to the same table add three special-status invertebrates never identified in the circulated DEIR, the American bumble bee (Bombus penslyvanicus), the Antioch mutilid wasp (Myrmosula pacifica), and the San Joaquin Valley giant flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas trochilus), increasing the documented special-status invertebrate count from nine to twelve. (FEIR, Vol. II, pp. 5.0-46 to 5.0-
47.) The revised table assigns the American bumble bee a “Moderate” potential to forage within the Project Area, a species-specific presence determination never before disclosed and, like every other entry in Table 3.4-7. unsupported by any stated methodology. (FEIR, Vol. II, p. 5.0-46.) A one-third increase in the documented special-status invertebrate count, including a new species-specific presence finding for a portion of the Project Area the record confirms was never field surveyed, is the kind of addition CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a) is designed to reach. The Errata’s blanket statement that none of its revisions constitute significant new information does not address this disclosure specifically, and the FEIR does not otherwise explain why recirculation is unnecessary.
City of Riverbank
August 3, 2026
III. CONCLUSION
The DEIR continues to fall short as a source of meaningful information, and the FEIR only deepens the City’s CEQA violations by failing to respond in good faith to public comments that identified the DEIR’s many shortcomings. Moreover, new information in the Errata portion of the FEIR triggers recirculation. For the reasons set forth above, the City must provide substantive, good-faith responses to each of the comments on the DEIR and in this letter, address the identified deficiencies in the FEIR, and then recirculate the FEIR before considering certifying the FEIR, or taking any action to approve the Project.
Very truly yours,
SOLURI MESERVE
A Law Corporation
By:
Osha R. Meserve
cc: Joshua Mann, Director of Community Development, City of Riverbank, [email protected]
Attachment: Exhibit A, Letter dated July 24, 2026, from Dr. Shawn Smallwood re:
Trespassing Allegation
EXHIBIT A
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Miguel Galvez, Contract City Planner
City of fuverbanl
6707 3rd Street, Suite A
Riverbank, Califomia 95367
July 24,2026
Re: Correction to Final EIR Misstatements Regarding Access During 2024 Biological Surveys
Dear Mr. Galvez,
I prepared the biological report submitted as Attachment I to the May 16,2024 comment letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report C'EIR') for the River Walk Specific Plan submitted on behalf of Riverbank residents Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon. This letter pertains to misstatements in the City's Final EIR responses to the May 16, 2024 comment, designated as Comment R, which state that I accessed the Berghill prope4y without authorization during my 2024 site visits. (Final EIR for the River Walk Specific Plan, Vol. II, Section 4.0 Citizen DEIR Comments and Responses, Response R-3 & Response R-Attachment 1, pp. 4.0-195,4.0-209.) In fact, I reached the river corridor by way ofa social path along the Stanislaus River, accessing the area from Ms. Gammons' property. Nothing along that path or other marking distinguished it from any other social trail or indicated that the area was private property or closed to public access. In addition, I never traveled by vehicle on any portion of the project site.
I request that the City publicly correct the record with respect to its misstatements regarding trespassing, which are factually incorrect and are potentially damaging to my reputation as a professional biologist.
Sincerely,
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
I
JU_