Agenda packet — City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority, September 22, 2026 (part 1 of 6)

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council / LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank.

Page 1 of 6 ends

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and Local
Redevelopment Authority Board
Meetings
Mayor/Chair
Rachel Hernandez
Council/Authority Members
District 1 — Luis Uribe
District 2 — Cindy Fosi
Vice Mayor, District 3 — John Pimentel
District 4 — Stacy Call

COMMUNITY CENTER
3600 Santa Fe Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 — 6:00 PM
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTPS://RIVERBANKCA.PORTAL.CIVICCLERK.COM/) PARA TRADUCCION EN ESPAÑOLFAVOR DE REFERIRSE A LA ULTIMA PAGINA DE LA AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. FLAG SALUTE

3. INVOCATION

4. ROLL CALL

5. AGENDA CHANGES

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any Council/Authority Member who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time. Pursuant to Government Code Section 84308 (Levine Act), any Council /Authority Member who has received a contribution of $500 or more within the preceding 12 months from a party, participant, or their agent related to an item on the agenda must disclose that contribution on the record prior to participation in the discussion or decision on the item and may be required to recuse themselves, as applicable.

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS (No action can be taken)
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda, and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/LRA Board. Individual comments will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes (or as stated by the presiding Officer) and time cannot be yielded to another person. Under State law, matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon.

Refer to the last page of this agenda for the Public Comment Procedures via ZOOM.

IN PERSON COMMENTS: Please fill out a Comment Card and return it to the City Clerk.

Page 1 of 730 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

8. CONSENT CALENDAR (No obligation to read aloud)
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council/LRA Board unless requested by an individual Council/Authority Member or member of the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by motion of the City Council/LRA Board.

Item 8.1. Waiver of Readings
Item 8.2. Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2026.

Item 8.3. Acceptance of the Pedestrian Access on Roselle Ave over the MID Canal Project and Authorization to File a Notice of Completion
Item 8.4. Resolution Accepting and Ratifying Current Adopted Salary Schedules Effective July 10, 2026 in Accordance with CalPERS Requirements
Item 8.5. Second Reading by Title Only of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 72 BICYCLES of Title VII: TRAFFIC CODE, by Amending Sections 72.04 & 72.99, and by adding new Sections 72.08 and 72.09. It is recommended City Council hold the second reading of a proposed ordinance amending Section 72.04 (License Fee) and Section 72.99 (Penalty), and adding Sections 72.08 (Unsafe Operation of Bicycle and Motorized Devices in Public Parks and Trails, Sidewalks, and Streets), and 72.09 (Administrative Appeal) to Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, of the Riverbank Code of Ordinances Related to Bicycle Regulations.

9. PUBLIC HEARING
The public notice for item 9.1 was published in the newspaper on 08/19/2026.

Item 9.1. 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 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.

Page 2 of 730 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

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.

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;

Page 3 of 730 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

public services and recreation; transportation and circulation; utilities; and cumulative impacts.

10. COMMENTS/REPORTS
A brief report on notable attendance of a meeting or conference or other notable topics of City business shall be made. The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council/LRA Board during this time.

Item 10.1. Staff
Item 10.2. Council / Authority Member
Item 10.3. Mayor / Chair

11. ADJOURNMENT The Next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 5th, 2026 at 6:00P.M. in the Council Chambers

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted at the meeting location, on the North City Hall public exterior bulletin board, South City Hall public exterior Bulletin, Riverbank Community Center exterior bulletin, and the City’s website 72 hours prior to the meeting in accordance to the California Ralph M. Brown Act.

Posted this 17th Day of September , 2026
/s/Gabriela Hernandez, CMC, City Clerk

ADA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, the City will make every effort to make reasonable modifications or accommodations from individuals with disabilities. Contact the Administration Dept. at (209) 863-7122 or the City Clerk at [email protected] at least (48) hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility.

NOTICE REGARDING NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
Pursuant to California Constitution Article III, Section IV, establishing English as the official language for the State of California, and in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedures Section 185, which requires proceedings before any State Court to be in English, notice is hereby given that all proceedings before the City of Riverbank City Council/LRA Board shall be in English and anyone wishing to address the Council is required to have a translator present who will take an oath to make an accurate translation from any language not English into the English language.

Page 4 of 730 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

TELECONFERENCE/VIRTUAL PLATFORM PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

COMMENT PROCEDURES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN

CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT
PUBLIC "LIVE" VIEWING
• Government Channels: SPECTRUM— 2
• YouTube Live — City of Riverbank
• Via ZOOM Platform (See instructions below)

SUBMITTING PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD
Written comments must be received before 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting in order for them to be distributed to the Council prior to consideration of the matter.

Written comments will not be read aloud at the meeting, but will be reported as received for the record. If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt within an hour of submission or by 5:00 p.m., please call the City Clerk's Office at (209) 863-7198 or the Administration Dept. at (209) 863- 7122.

ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF SUBMITTING COMMENTS BEFORE THE 5:00 PM DEADLINE • Via Mail Service: Mail comments to City of Riverbank, Attn: City Clerk, 6707 Third Street, Suite A, Riverbank, CA 95367. (Call 209-863-7198 / 209-863-7122 to ensure they were received.)
• Via Email: [email protected]
(Note: This technology is not a guaranteed method.)
o Indicate Agenda Item # in the subject line. (Call 209-863-7198 / 209-863-7122 to ensure receipt.)
• Oral Comments In-Person: The Mayor will ask the public if anyone wishes to comment, at that time you may approach the podium.
• Oral Comments Via Zoom:The Mayor will announce when public comments may be made for a limit of 3 minutes on the agenda item being considered, at which time you will:
o Using a computer — click on the “raise hand” feature in the webinar controls.

This will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be unmuted. o Using a Phone — press *9 to “raise the hand”. This will alert staff that you wish to speak, and you will be unmuted.
o (Please make sure the volume on your device is on and that any nearby device or any nearby device is turned down.)
Teleconference Phone Number: (This system is a backup for ZOOM technical difficulties only when providing oral comments.) If there are technical difficulties or disconnection with ZOOM while making oral comments, please immediately call the teleconference phone number (209)

Page 5 of 730 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

863-7151 so that Council may receive your comments. Council will be waiting for your call.

Thank you.

JOIN THE MEETING VIA ZOOM PLATFORM
Join by this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89443415826 Join by accessing website: https://zoom.us/join — enter Webinar ID: 894 4341 5826 Join by telephone: 1 669 444 9171 OR 1 669 900 9128, plus Webinar ID: 894 4341 5826 Learn about using ZOOM - Visit https://zoom.us/j/ for a free account or to download the app.

How to Use Live Spanish Translation/ Como Usar Traducción en Español En Vivo https://attend.wordly.ai/join/LHDA-5715
STEP 1/PASO 1 STEP 2/PASO 2 STEP 3/PASO 3
Scan QR Code Choose Spanish Language Read Captions on Device Use Headset for Audio
Escanea el código Escoja el idioma Español Lea subtítulos en su aparato Use auriculares para audio

Page 6 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 8.1. - CC / LRA – 9/22/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.1.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 9/22/2026
Subject: Waiver of Readings
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council / LRA Board approve the waiver of readings of any proposed ordinances and resolutions for consideration, except by title.

SUMMARY
In lieu of reading the entire text of a proposed ordinance or resolution that is introduced for consideration for adoption and approval, by majority vote, the City Council/LRA Board may waive the reading of the text and introduce the ordinance or resolution by title only for the record. The full text of the proposed ordinances and resolutions, and any related documents that are part of the agenda packet, are available for review by the public on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall (North) upon distribution to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board; typically 72 hours prior to the scheduled date and time of the meeting.

STRATEGIC PLAN
Waiver of reading supports the City's 2025-2030 Strategic Plan by promoting efficient and transparent decision-making.

BACKGROUND
The full readings are being waved to allow the City Council/LRA Board to introduce and consider the items in a timely and efficient manner. The items have been provided to the City Council/LRA Board in advance of the meeting for review.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this item.

ATTACHMENTS
None

Page 7 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 1 ends

Item 8.2. - CC / LRA – 9/22/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.2.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 9/22/2026
Subject: Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2026.

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Local Redevelopment Authority Board approve the City Council/LRA Meeting Minutes for September 8, 2026.

SUMMARY
The Draft Minutes of the City Council and the Local Redevelopment Authority Board meeting have been prepared for review and approval.

STRATEGIC PLAN
Preparation and approval of the meeting minutes align with the City's 2025-2030 Strategic Plan core values of transparency and accountability.

BACKGROUND
The meeting minutes provide an official record of the actions taken and discussions held during the City Council Meetings. Staff prepares the minutes in accordance with the applicable laws and established procedures, and they are presented for review and approval to ensure accuracy and transparency.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this report.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Minutes_CC-LRA Agenda 09-08-2026

2. Exhibit A-Written Public Comment_Garry Pearson

Page 8 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 7 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/8/2026

MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 — 6:00 PM
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTPS://RIVERBANKCA.PORTAL.CIVICCLERK.COM/)

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Hernandez called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M.

2. FLAG SALUTE
Vice Mayor Pimentel led the pledge of allegiance

3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Hernandez conducted Roll Call:

Members of the City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority Board present:

Council Member / Authority Member District 1 Luis Uribe Council Member / Authority Member District 2 Cindy Fosi Council Member / Authority Member District 4 Stacy Call Vice Mayor / Vice Chair District 3 John Pimentel
Mayor / Chair Rachel Hernandez

4. AGENDA CHANGES
No Agenda Changes.

5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None Declared.

6. PRESENTATIONS
Item 6.1. Proclamation — Hispanic Heritage Month 2026 — It is recommended that the City Council present the Proclamation in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15th to October 15th, 2026, to Riverbank small business owner Maria Moore.

Mayor Hernandez read and presented the proclamation to Maria Moore in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month.

Page 9 of 730 ends

Page 2 of 7 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/8/2026
Item 6.2. Presentation — Cheese and Wine Festival Update-It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the Recreation Supervisor regarding updates to the Cheese and Wine Festival 2026.

Recreation Supervisor, McDaniel, gave a PowerPoint presentation on updates for the upcoming Cheese and Wine Festival.

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mayor Hernandez Opened Public Comments at 6:14 P.M.

Chief John Bairos, with Modesto Fire Department to introduce himself as the appointed Chief overseeing the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District.

Andy Foster, President of Aemetis, spoke on data centers and wishing to present to the City Council on a proposed project for Aemetis.

Michael Christie, Riverbank resident, spoke about upcoming community events.

Karen Conrotto, Stanislaus County resident, to express her opposition to the River Walk project.

Olivia Arambula, Riverbank Chamber of Commerce, to extend an invitation to upcoming community events.

Garry Pearson, Riverbank resident, submitted a written comment (Exhibit A ) Mayor Hernandez Closed Public Comments at 6:27 P.M.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Item 8.1. Waiver of Readings
Item 8.2. Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Meeting Minutes for August 25, 2026.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Uribe / Fosi 5/0) to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

9. PUBLIC HEARING
Item 9.1. First Reading by Title Only and Introduction of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 72 BICYCLES of Title VII: TRAFFIC CODE, by Amending Sections 72.04 & 72.99, and by adding new Sections 72.08 and 72.09. It is

Page 10 of 730 ends

Page 3 of 7 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/8/2026
recommended that the City Council introduce and waive the first reading of a proposed ordinance amending Section 72.04 (License Fee) and Section 72.99 (Penalty), and adding Sections 72.08 (Unsafe Operation of Bicycle and Motorized Devices in Public Parks and Trails, Sidewalks, and Streets), and 72.09 (Administrative Appeal) to Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, of the Riverbank Code of Ordinances Related to Bicycle Regulations.

Chief of Police, Ridenour, gave a comprehensive staff report and PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 72 Bicycles of Title VII: Traffic Code amending sections

72.04 & 72.99 and adding new sections 72.08 and 72.09.

City Council discussed item with staff.

Mayor Hernandez opened the Public Hearing at 6:48 P.M.

Michael Christie, Riverbank Resident, spoke in support of this ordinance.

Mayor Hernandez closed the Public Hearing at 6:50 P.M.

There being no further comments, Mayor Hernandez brought the item back for consideration.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Call / Pimentel 5/0) to approve the First Reading of the proposed Ordinance
Amending Chapter 72 bicycles of Title VII:Traffic.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None
Item 9.2. Resolution Approving an Economic Incentive Agreement with Stan Boyett & Son, Inc. for the Consolidation of All Its Sales of Energy Products Within the State Of California to Its New Headquarters At 6436 Oakdale Rd. Riverbank, CA.

City Manager Garcia gave a comprehensive Staff Report and PowerPoint Presentation on the proposed Economic Incentive Agreement with Stan Boyett & Son, Inc.

Scott Castle, President of Boyett Petroleum provided additional information on the terms of the agreement.

City Council discussed item with staff.

Public Comments:

Michael Christie, Riverbank resident, in support of Item 9.2.

Karen Conrotto, Stanislaus County resident, had a question: Is any fuel stored onsite? President, Scott Castle clarified there is no fuel stored onsite in the headquarter property located in Riverbank.

Page 11 of 730 ends

Page 4 of 7 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/8/2026
There being no further comments, Mayor Hernandez brought the item back for consideration.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Hernandez / Uribe 4/1) to propose amended terms to the agreement: Sales Tax Split of City-60 and Boyett-40 and a 20 year term on the agreement.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Pimentel and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: Call / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

10. NEW BUSINESS
Item 10.1. Interim Urgency Ordinance — Imposing a 45-Day Temporary Moratorium on the Approval of New Land Use Applications for Data Centers to Allow for the Evaluation of Potential Public Health Impacts and Land Use Regulations.

City Manager Garcia gave a comprehensive Staff Report and PowerPoint presentation on imposing a 45-Day Temporary Moratorium on the Approval of the New Land Use Applications for Data Centers.

City Council discussed item with staff.

Andy Foster, Aemetis, opposed to Item 10.1.

Olivia Arambula, Riverbank resident, in support of Item 10.1.

Linda Legacy, Riverbank resident in support of Item 10.1.

JJ Medrano, Riverbank resident, in support of Item 10.1.

There being no further public comment, Mayor Hernandez brought the item back to city council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Hernandez / Fosi 5/0) to approve an Urgency Ordinance 2026-004 imposing 45-Day Temporary Moratorium on new land use Applications for Data Centers.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Fosi, Call, Pimentel, and Mayor Hernandez
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

11. COMMENTS/REPORTS
Item 11.1. Staff
City Manager Garcia:

Page 12 of 730 ends

Page 5 of 7 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/8/2026
• No Comments.

Item 11.2. Council / Authority Member
Vice Mayor Pimentel:
• No Comments.

Councilmember Uribe:
• September 10th will be hosting the League of California Cities Valley Division General Membership meeting here at the Community Center. We are going to be doing the officer elections and networking with other elected officials.

Councilmember Fosi:
• On September 15th, the women's group will be starting up for Riverbank. They will be meeting at Scout Hall at 6:00pm for a potluck.
• On September 14th the annual Historical Society meeting will be happening at the museum right behind us at 6:00pm.
• I encourage every citizen that is in District 1 and 3 to attend one of the Forums, whether it be with the Chamber or any other organization, and learn about the people that want to represent you. Make sure that they want to represent you in the way that you want to be represented. It is important to hear what they have to say and make sure they understand what you want because you will be electing them.

Councilmember Call:
• At the last meeting, Pastor Randy was here talking about the Assembly of God. So I have certificates for him from the City of Riverbank, Supervisor Condit and Assemblymember Flora, and it is in celebration of their 100 years. The certificate from the City of Riverbank reads as follows: For one century, the Assembly of God has served as a steadfast faith community, providing spiritual guidance, fellowship, compassion, and support to generations. Through its ministry, outreach, volunteers, and commitment to strengthening families and neighbors, the church has made a meaningful and lasting contribution to the character and wellbeing of our community. So I wanted to make sure the Assembly of God and Pastor Randy received the certificates.
• Last week, I had another non-district East Ad Hoc Committee, and we were starting to go over the introduction of the accounting software and calculations on parcel mass for water allocations. The next meeting is Thursday. We went over the schedule and there are, I think, ten meetings between now and January. So more to come on that. • To echo what Councilmember Fosi said, it is very important to know and meet your potential elected leaders. I attended the candidate forums with both Stanislaus Latino Chamber and Riverbank Chamber. So this week, on the 9th and the 10th, they are holding their candidate forum at 2701 4th Street in Ceres. Riverbank is Wednesday, tomorrow at 3:00pm and 4:00pm for Districts 1 and 3. I encourage you all to attend. I know historically, Johnny at the Latino

Page 13 of 730 ends

Page 6 of 7 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/8/2026
Chamber was able to provide a USB with recordings, so hopefully we can get a hold of those for those who are not able to attend, but it is an opportunity to meet your elected leaders. • Last week, I attended the AG Water Forum while everyone was celebrating Grocery Outlet, which I'm so sad I missed. Our Public Works Director, Cody Bridgewater, was there, and it sounds boring, but it was actually a lot of fun because you get to hear from other jurisdictions within our county and our state who are having similar issues when it comes to farmland and water usage and the lack thereof, or how it is being used. Federal leaders from the USDA, EPA and other organizations were in attendance. And one of the big take homes for me was we up here as elected officials, we have to do the hard things, but we also have to ensure there's little impact on residents. And so Cody and I were there to advocate for our community. We have conversations out to our Congressmen to help us, advocate for us, for the BRIC grant, for Wastewater Treatment Plant, the recycled water component. As a lot of the funding that we've already received is because of the recycled water component. So I'll continue those conversations. We're getting letters of recommendation from other local leaders, so I will continue. You guys have my commitment to continue down that pathway to help find funding for the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
• So measure M has been a hot conversation, and I'm not really here to have a discussion about it, but I will kind of follow the Mayor's lead from the last meeting, and I'm going to pause for a moment to ask my councilmembers to take a stance and support a no on measure M to ensure council and local control. So I'm going to pause for a minute, see what they have, if anything, and I'm hoping that we can all take a stance as a city for a No on Measure M. • Councilmember Uribe: I already kind of publicly shared where I stand on that. So I think I have already stated I am a no.
• Riverbank and Modesto had a joint meeting with Modesto and Riverbank councils to discuss the coordination and collaboration on major planning. So I have been requesting a Resolution to initiate a sphere of influence increase. And the goal would be, in continuing the meeting that took place in 2017, is to have a joint approach when it comes to the growth of both the city of Riverbank and the city of Modesto because of some maps that have been put out. And then our request for a sphere of influence.

Item 11.3. Mayor / Chair
Mayor Hernandez:
• I attended the Stanislaus Regional Transit Authority meeting, where, amongst many things, we discussed a consultant that has been in our local news lately, and I made a comment that we need to have our consultants treating their employees to the highest standards. And so as this consultant comes back, that operates the drivers and the staff from the different bus busses, I get us everywhere from day to day. That is definitely a topic that we're going to broach to make sure that there are remediations happening and that the consultants that we work with, both regionally and within the city, are treating employees well. • I also attended the measure L Oversight Committee meeting on behalf of the policy board, first in Stan Cog, to give them an update on and maybe i will lose a lot of you, but I'm on an ad hoc committee that is overseeing some of the potential updates that need to happen with the policies and procedures with the measure L funding. And so there are a lot of conversations, a lot of ad hoc committees happening to make sure that taxpayers' monies are being utilized in the most ethical and efficient way possible.
• And then finally, I want to join in support of councilmember Calls, comments earlier this year or just a couple of months ago, we published a letter that we sent to the city of Modesto asking for regional collaboration on growth that's going to happen towards Riverbank. As was

Page 14 of 730 ends

Page 7 of 7 ends

CC / LRA Minutes – 9/8/2026
mentioned in 2017, there was a meeting that happened similar to this and so I have the public minutes in front of me, where actually Councilmember Fosi was present in this joint meeting.

And so we both discussed wanting to be able to have this opportunity again. So we want to publicly invite the city of Modesto to join us in a joint council meeting to discuss regional growth, the collaborative approach to this, and how we can move forward in a strategic way for development for both of our cities and for the region at large. And so I would love to request one more councilmember, a couple of our councilmembers, to support us in extending an invitation to our neighbors in Modesto.
• Councilmember Uribe: I can definitely support you guys. I've actually been having meetings with Councilmember Chris Ricci, Eric Alvarez and others for this exact same thing for the last couple of months. So, if you guys need a third person, I'm more than happy to join. • Councilmember Fosi: I am for it.

12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor / Chair Hernandez adjourned the regular meeting at 8:01 P.M. to the next regular scheduled City Council / LRA Meeting of September 22, 2026 at the Riverbank Community Center.

ATTEST: (Adopted 00/00/0000) APPROVED:
____________________________________
Gabriela Hernandez, CMC
City Clerk / LRA Recorder
____________________________________
Rachel Hernandez
Mayor/Chair

Page 15 of 730 ends

September 4, 2026
Riverbank City Council
City of Riverbank
Riverbank, California
Re: Road Conditions and Bicycle Lane Safety
Dear Mayor and Members of the Riverbank City Council:

We, humbly ask the City Council to address the condition of Riverbank’s roads as an important part of planning and maintaining safe bicycle lanes.

Riverbank continues to make progress in identifying and developing bicycle routes, but a bicycle lane is only as safe as the pavement and roadway surrounding it. Cracked pavement, potholes, dips, utility covers, uneven surfaces, deteriorated shoulders, drainage problems, and poorly maintained road edges can create serious hazards for people riding bicycles. These conditions can force cyclists to move out of the bicycle lane and into vehicle traffic, defeating the purpose of providing a designated lane.

Examples

1. We have had to repair numerous times broken bicycle rims, broken spokes resulting from the above roadway hazards. These repairs are costly and range in price from $60 to over $200 in spokes, bent rims, forks and broken bicycle side racks.

2. We have had on numerous occasions had to avoid the above roadway hazards and had to move into the active roadway. This is unsafe and dangerous!!!! Before adding new bicycle lanes—or restriping existing roadways—We ask the City to evaluate the underlying pavement condition and prioritize necessary road repairs. Bicycle infrastructure should be incorporated into a broader pavement-management strategy rather than just fulling ‘potholes’.

We humbly ask the City:
• Conduct a road-condition assessment of streets designated for bicycle routes or lanes. Currently, there are NO continuous bicycle routes in the City. • Ensure bicycle lanes have smooth, continuous pavement free of potholes, abrupt pavement edges, level utility covers and unnecessary obstacles. • Address drainage and utility repairs so bicycle lanes do not become damaged or hazardous after construction.
• Consider the safety of cyclists when scheduling street resurfacing, restriping, and maintenance projects. Please consider adding temporary bicycle lanes • Coordinate bicycle improvements with the City’s long-term Pavement Management Program and capital improvement planning.

EXHIBIT A

Page 16 of 730 ends

• Establish a mechanism for residents, cyclists and pedestrians to report hazardous pavement conditions along bicycle routes.

Safe bicycle transportation requires more than paint on the roadway. It requires a transportation system where the pavement, lane design, drainage, signage, and maintenance all work together. There are 4 categories of bicycle lanes the city needs to review and consider when designing streets and residential areas. Physical barriers and separation on major streets should be a high priority. Currently, the city does not have a category 4 barrier1
Riverbank has an opportunity to develop a bicycle network encouraging all residents to use public transportation, ride to recreation, and access to schools, parks, businesses, and other community destinations. Maintaining the roads on which that network depends should be a fundamental part of that effort.

We, respectfully ask the City Council to make roadway condition and pavement quality a priority when considering current and future bicycle-lane projects.

Thank you for your consideration and for your continued work on improving transportation safety in Riverbank.

Sincerely,
Garry Pearson, Riverbank resident
Ramon Arevalo, Riverbank Resident
Pictures and References

1. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN
a. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/design/documents/chp1000-a11y.pdf/1000 b. Picture of a standard Bic lane
c.

Page 17 of 730 ends

2. Picture at Morrill and Roselle.

Example of Non continuous bike lane with continuing with a narrowing of roadway.

There is a second narrowing of Roselle just before Claribel Ave,

Page 18 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 8.3. - CC / LRA – 9/22/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.3.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 9/22/2026
Subject: Acceptance of the Pedestrian Access on Roselle Ave over the MID Canal Project and Authorization to File a Notice of Completion From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Laura Graybill, Senior Project Coordinator

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept the completion of the Pedestrian Access on Roselle Ave over the MID Canal Project and authorize staff to file a Notice of Completion.

SUMMARY
United Pavement Maintenance, Inc. has completed the construction of the Pedestrian Access on Roselle Ave over the MID Canal Project. MCR Engineering, City Engineer and City staff have completed a final inspection and determined that construction has been completed per the plans and specifications.

The contract was awarded on February 24, 2026 to United Pavement Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $369,097.48. There were four contract change orders in the amount of $31,058.67 (8.41%). The total cost of construction is $400,156.15.

It is recommended that the Council accept the Pedestrian Access on Roselle Ave Over the MID Canal Project as complete and authorize the Senior Project Coordinator to record the Notice of Completion.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This item is directly related to the City Council Strategic Plan Goal to support Infrastructure and addresses the objective "Expand non-motorized transportation options" and "improve Americans with Disabilities Access" by installing sidewalks where no sidewalks exist.

BACKGROUND

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding has been programmed for this project with Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Funds and Measure L – Street and Roads Funds. The total cost of construction is $400,156.15.

Page 19 of 730 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 8.3. - CC / LRA – 9/22/2026

ATTACHMENTS

1. Notice of Completion - Pedestrian Access on Roselle Ave Over The MID Canal Project

2. Before and After Photos - Pedestrian Access on Roselle Ave Over The MID Canal Project

3. Site Map - Pedestrian Access on Roselle Ave Over The MID Canal Project

Page 20 of 730 ends

CITY OF RIVERBANK
ATTN: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES6707 THIRD STREETRIVERBANK, CA 95367 City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street, Riverbank, CA 95367
X
N/A
N/A
Exempt from Recording Fees (Per Government Code Section 27388.1) September 22, 2026

Page 21 of 730 ends

Riverbank Stanislaus California
Stanislaus California
Riverbank
2026
Pedestrain Access on Roselle Ave over the MID Canal Project United Pavement Maintenance, Inc.

Roselle Avenue between Westgate Drive and S. Rosebrook
in Riverbank, CA 95367
construct and furnish all labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and incidentals necessary for asphalt removal & paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, ADA access ramps, striping, fencing and handrails, traffic control, and all other work included on the plans. 2026
City of RiverbankLaura Graybill, Senior Project Coordinator City of RiverbankLaura Graybill, Senior Project Coordinator 22nd September
22nd September

Page 22 of 730 ends

Pedestrian Access on Roselle over
the MID Canal Project Photos

Page 23 of 730 ends

SITE MAP

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ON ROSELLE AVE

OVER THE MID CANAL PROJECT

Page 24 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 8.4. - CC / LRA – 9/22/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.4.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 9/22/2026
Subject: Resolution Accepting and Ratifying Current Adopted Salary Schedules Effective July 10, 2026 in Accordance with CalPERS Requirements From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Tammy Alcantor, Assistant City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting and ratifying the City's current adopted salary schedules effective July 10, 2026, in accordance with California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) requirements.

SUMMARY
The attached resolution would formally accept and ratify the City's salary schedules, effective July 10, 2026, approved through City Council action, including schedules associated with:
• Miscellaneous Employees
• Contract Employees
This action helps ensure the City's compensation records remain complete, transparent, and compliant with CalPERS requirements related to pensionable compensation and publicly available pay schedules.

Staff reviewed the City's salary schedule documentation and determined that formal acceptance by resolution is appropriate to memorialize and reaffirm the schedules the City currently maintains.

STRATEGIC PLAN
While the action does not directly advance a specific Strategic Plan Goal, it supports the City’s commitment to sound governance, accountability, transparency, and effective organizational administration.

BACKGROUND
The City maintains salary schedules for all classifications and bargaining groups in accordance with applicable Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), Personnel Rules, and City Council actions. These salary schedules establish compensation ranges for City employees and are updated periodically through negotiated labor agreements, classification and compensation studies, organizational changes, and other Council-approved actions.

Page 25 of 730 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 8.4. - CC / LRA – 9/22/2026
CalPERS regulations require that pay rates reported for retirement purposes be supported by publicly available salary schedules that have been duly approved and maintained by the governing body.

While the City has historically approved compensation changes through various resolutions, MOUs, and salary schedule updates, this action is intended to formally acknowledge and ratify salary schedules currently in effect.

This action is administrative in nature and does not create new compensation, modify existing employee compensation, or provide additional benefits beyond those previously approved by the City Council.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the acceptance and ratification of the salary schedules. This action does not authorize new compensation or modify existing salary structures previously approved by the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution_2026-Salary Schedules_Effective_07-10-26

2. Miscellaneous Compensation Schedule effective 07-10-26

3. Contract Employees Compensation Schedule effective 07-10-26

Page 26 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution 2026-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION 2026-

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

CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING AND RATIFYING CURRENT ADOPTED SALARY SCHEDULES EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALPERS

REQUIREMENTS

THE CITY OF RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE “CITY COUNCIL”) DOES HEREBY RESOLVE THAT:

WHEREAS, these salary schedules establish compensation ranges for City employees and are periodically updated through negotiated labor agreements, classification and compensation studies, organizational changes, and other City Councilapproved actions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has historically approved compensation changes through resolutions, labor agreements, employment agreements, and salary schedule updates; and
WHEREAS, this action is administrative in nature and does not create new compensation, modify existing employee compensation, or provide additional benefits beyond those previously approved by the City Council;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Riverbank does hereby accept, reaffirm, and ratify the current salary schedule effective July 10, 2026 maintained by the City of Riverbank, including salary schedules applicable to:

1. Miscellaneous Employees;

2. Contract Employees
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director, and City Clerk are authorized to maintain and make available such salary schedules as required by law and CalPERS regulations.

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

AYES:

Page 27 of 730 ends

Page 2 of 2 ends

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution 2026-

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
________________________________ __________________________ Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
Attachments: Salary Schedules

Page 28 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E ACCOUNT CLERK I 107 Annual $ 52,015.01 $ 54,615.76 $ 57,346.55 $ 60,213.88 $ 63,224.57 MONTHLY $ 4,334.58 $ 4,551.31 $ 4,778.88 $ 5,017.82 $ 5,268.71 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,000.58 $ 2,100.61 $ 2,205.64 $ 2,315.92 $ 2,431.71 HOURLY $ 25.01 $ 26.26 $ 27.57 $ 28.95 $ 30.40
ACCOUNT CLERK II 111 Annual $ 57,414.84 $ 60,285.58 $ 63,299.86 $ 66,464.85 $ 69,788.09 MONTHLY $ 4,784.57 $ 5,023.80 $ 5,274.99 $ 5,538.74 $ 5,815.67 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,208.26 $ 2,318.68 $ 2,434.61 $ 2,556.34 $ 2,684.16 HOURLY $ 27.60 $ 28.98 $ 30.43 $ 31.95 $ 33.55
ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 116 Annual $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 MONTHLY $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,498.45 $ 2,623.37 $ 2,754.54 $ 2,892.26 $ 3,036.88 HOURLY $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96
ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I 118 Annual $ 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 MONTHLY $ 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,624.93 $ 2,756.18 $ 2,893.99 $ 3,038.69 $ 3,190.62 HOURLY $ 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 116 Annual $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 MONTHLY $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,498.45 $ 2,623.37 $ 2,754.54 $ 2,892.26 $ 3,036.88 HOURLY $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96
ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK 101 Annual $ 44,852.38 $ 47,095.00 $ 49,449.75 $ 51,922.24 $ 54,518.35 MONTHLY $ 3,737.70 $ 3,924.58 $ 4,120.81 $ 4,326.85 $ 4,543.20 BI-WEEKLY $ 1,725.09 $ 1,811.35 $ 1,901.91 $ 1,997.01 $ 2,096.86 HOURLY $ 21.56 $ 22.64 $ 23.77 $ 24.96 $ 26.21
ASSISTANT MECHANIC 112 Annual $ 58,850.21 $ 61,792.72 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 MONTHLY $ 4,904.18 $ 5,149.39 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,263.47 $ 2,376.64 $ 2,495.48 $ 2,620.25 $ 2,751.26 HOURLY $ 28.29 $ 29.71 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39
ASSISTANT PLANNER 122 Annual $ 75,333.24 $ 79,099.91 $ 83,054.90 $ 87,207.65 $ 91,568.03 MONTHLY $ 6,277.77 $ 6,591.66 $ 6,921.24 $ 7,267.30 $ 7,630.67 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,897.43 $ 3,042.30 $ 3,194.42 $ 3,354.14 $ 3,521.85 HOURLY $ 36.22 $ 38.03 $ 39.93 $ 41.93 $ 44.02
ASSOCIATE PLANNER 126 Annual $ 83,153.81 $ 87,311.50 $ 91,677.07 $ 96,260.92 $ 101,073.97 MONTHLY $ 6,929.48 $ 7,275.96 $ 7,639.76 $ 8,021.74 $ 8,422.83 BI-WEEKLY $ 3,198.22 $ 3,358.13 $ 3,526.04 $ 3,702.34 $ 3,887.46 HOURLY $ 39.98 $ 41.98 $ 44.08 $ 46.28 $ 48.59
BUILDING INSPECTOR I 118 Annual $ 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 MONTHLY $ 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,624.93 $ 2,756.18 $ 2,893.99 $ 3,038.69 $ 3,190.62 HOURLY $ 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88
BUILDING INSPECTOR II 124 Annual $ 79,146.99 $ 83,104.34 $ 87,259.56 $ 91,622.53 $ 96,203.66 MONTHLY $ 6,595.58 $ 6,925.36 $ 7,271.63 $ 7,635.21 $ 8,016.97 BI-WEEKLY $ 3,044.11 $ 3,196.32 $ 3,356.14 $ 3,523.94 $ 3,700.14 HOURLY $ 38.05 $ 39.95 $ 41.95 $ 44.05 $ 46.25
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I 112 Annual $ 58,850.21 $ 61,792.72 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE

Page 29 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
MONTHLY $ 4,904.18 $ 5,149.39 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,263.47 $ 2,376.64 $ 2,495.48 $ 2,620.25 $ 2,751.26 HOURLY $ 28.29 $ 29.71 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II 116 Annual $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 MONTHLY $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,498.45 $ 2,623.37 $ 2,754.54 $ 2,892.26 $ 3,036.88 HOURLY $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST I 108 Annual $ 53,315.39 $ 55,981.15 $ 58,780.21 $ 61,719.22 $ 64,805.18 MONTHLY $ 4,442.95 $ 4,665.10 $ 4,898.35 $ 5,143.27 $ 5,400.43 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,050.59 $ 2,153.12 $ 2,260.78 $ 2,373.82 $ 2,492.51 HOURLY $ 25.63 $ 26.91 $ 28.26 $ 29.67 $ 31.16
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST II 111 Annual $ 57,414.84 $ 60,285.58 $ 63,299.86 $ 66,464.85 $ 69,788.09 MONTHLY $ 4,784.57 $ 5,023.80 $ 5,274.99 $ 5,538.74 $ 5,815.67 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,208.26 $ 2,318.68 $ 2,434.61 $ 2,556.34 $ 2,684.16 HOURLY $ 27.60 $ 28.98 $ 30.43 $ 31.95 $ 33.55
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR I 124 Annual $ 79,146.99 $ 83,104.34 $ 87,259.56 $ 91,622.53 $ 96,203.66 MONTHLY $ 6,595.58 $ 6,925.36 $ 7,271.63 $ 7,635.21 $ 8,016.97 BI-WEEKLY $ 3,044.11 $ 3,196.32 $ 3,356.14 $ 3,523.94 $ 3,700.14 HOURLY $ 38.05 $ 39.95 $ 41.95 $ 44.05 $ 46.25
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR II 128 Annual $ 87,363.47 $ 91,731.64 $ 96,318.22 $ 101,134.13 $ 106,190.84 MONTHLY $ 7,280.29 $ 7,644.30 $ 8,026.52 $ 8,427.84 $ 8,849.24 BI-WEEKLY $ 3,360.13 $ 3,528.14 $ 3,704.55 $ 3,889.77 $ 4,084.26 HOURLY $ 42.00 $ 44.10 $ 46.31 $ 48.62 $ 51.05
DEPUTY CITY CLERK 120 Annual $ 71,703.27 $ 75,288.43 $ 79,052.85 $ 83,005.49 $ 87,155.77 MONTHLY $ 5,975.27 $ 6,274.04 $ 6,587.74 $ 6,917.12 $ 7,262.98 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,757.82 $ 2,895.71 $ 3,040.49 $ 3,192.52 $ 3,352.14 HOURLY $ 34.47 $ 36.20 $ 38.01 $ 39.91 $ 41.90
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN 122 Annual $ 75,333.24 $ 79,099.91 $ 83,054.90 $ 87,207.65 $ 91,568.03 MONTHLY $ 6,277.77 $ 6,591.66 $ 6,921.24 $ 7,267.30 $ 7,630.67 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,897.43 $ 3,042.30 $ 3,194.42 $ 3,354.14 $ 3,521.85 HOURLY $ 36.22 $ 38.03 $ 39.93 $ 41.93 $ 44.02

Page 30 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
ENGINEER TECHNICIAN I 113 Annual $ 60,321.46 $ 63,337.54 $ 66,504.41 $ 69,829.64 $ 73,321.12 MONTHLY $ 5,026.79 $ 5,278.13 $ 5,542.03 $ 5,819.14 $ 6,110.09 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,320.06 $ 2,436.06 $ 2,557.86 $ 2,685.76 $ 2,820.04 HOURLY $ 29.00 $ 30.45 $ 31.97 $ 33.57 $ 35.25
ENGINEER TECHNICIAN II 117 Annual $ 66,583.61 $ 69,912.79 $ 73,408.43 $ 77,078.85 $ 80,932.79 MONTHLY $ 5,548.63 $ 5,826.07 $ 6,117.37 $ 6,423.24 $ 6,744.40 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,560.91 $ 2,688.95 $ 2,823.40 $ 2,964.57 $ 3,112.80 HOURLY $ 32.01 $ 33.61 $ 35.29 $ 37.06 $ 38.91
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER I 107 Annual $ 52,015.01 $ 54,615.76 $ 57,346.55 $ 60,213.88 $ 63,224.57 MONTHLY $ 4,334.58 $ 4,551.31 $ 4,778.88 $ 5,017.82 $ 5,268.71 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,000.58 $ 2,100.61 $ 2,205.64 $ 2,315.92 $ 2,431.71 HOURLY $ 25.01 $ 26.26 $ 27.57 $ 28.95 $ 30.40
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 Annual $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 MONTHLY $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,101.86 $ 2,206.95 $ 2,317.30 $ 2,433.16 $ 2,554.82 HOURLY $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94
FLEET COORDINATOR 118 Annual $ 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 MONTHLY $ 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,624.93 $ 2,756.18 $ 2,893.99 $ 3,038.69 $ 3,190.62 HOURLY $ 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88
HOUSING SPECIALIST I 116 Annual $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 MONTHLY $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,498.45 $ 2,623.37 $ 2,754.54 $ 2,892.26 $ 3,036.88 HOURLY $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96
HOUSING SPECIALIST II 118 Annual $ 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 MONTHLY $ 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,624.93 $ 2,756.18 $ 2,893.99 $ 3,038.69 $ 3,190.62 HOURLY $ 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88
MAINTENANCE WORKER I 105 Annual $ 49,508.64 $ 51,984.07 $ 54,583.27 $ 57,312.43 $ 60,178.06 MONTHLY $ 4,125.72 $ 4,332.01 $ 4,548.61 $ 4,776.04 $ 5,014.84 BI-WEEKLY $ 1,904.18 $ 1,999.39 $ 2,099.36 $ 2,204.32 $ 2,314.54 HOURLY $ 23.80 $ 24.99 $ 26.24 $ 27.55 $ 28.93
MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 Annual $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 MONTHLY $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,101.86 $ 2,206.95 $ 2,317.30 $ 2,433.16 $ 2,554.82 HOURLY $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94
METER TECHNICIAN I 105 Annual $ 49,508.64 $ 51,984.07 $ 54,583.27 $ 57,312.43 $ 60,178.06 MONTHLY $ 4,125.72 $ 4,332.01 $ 4,548.61 $ 4,776.04 $ 5,014.84 BI-WEEKLY $ 1,904.18 $ 1,999.39 $ 2,099.36 $ 2,204.32 $ 2,314.54 HOURLY $ 23.80 $ 24.99 $ 26.24 $ 27.55 $ 28.93
METER TECHNICIAN II 109 Annual $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 MONTHLY $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,101.86 $ 2,206.95 $ 2,317.30 $ 2,433.16 $ 2,554.82 HOURLY $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94
PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER I 105 Annual $ 49,508.64 $ 51,984.07 $ 54,583.27 $ 57,312.43 $ 60,178.06

Page 31 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
MONTHLY $ 4,125.72 $ 4,332.01 $ 4,548.61 $ 4,776.04 $ 5,014.84 BI-WEEKLY $ 1,904.18 $ 1,999.39 $ 2,099.36 $ 2,204.32 $ 2,314.54 HOURLY $ 23.80 $ 24.99 $ 26.24 $ 27.55 $ 28.93
PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 Annual $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 MONTHLY $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,101.86 $ 2,206.95 $ 2,317.30 $ 2,433.16 $ 2,554.82 HOURLY $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94
PROJECT COORDINATOR 118 Annual $ 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 MONTHLY $ 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,624.93 $ 2,756.18 $ 2,893.99 $ 3,038.69 $ 3,190.62 HOURLY $ 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88
RECREATION AND EVENTS COORDINATOR 109 Annual $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 MONTHLY $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,101.86 $ 2,206.95 $ 2,317.30 $ 2,433.16 $ 2,554.82 HOURLY $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94
SENIOR ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 117 Annual $ 66,583.61 $ 69,912.79 $ 73,408.43 $ 77,078.85 $ 80,932.79 MONTHLY $ 5,548.63 $ 5,826.07 $ 6,117.37 $ 6,423.24 $ 6,744.40 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,560.91 $ 2,688.95 $ 2,823.40 $ 2,964.57 $ 3,112.80 HOURLY $ 32.01 $ 33.61 $ 35.29 $ 37.06 $ 38.91
SENIOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 Annual $ 58,850.21 $ 61,792.72 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 MONTHLY $ 4,904.18 $ 5,149.39 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,263.47 $ 2,376.64 $ 2,495.48 $ 2,620.25 $ 2,751.26 HOURLY $ 28.29 $ 29.71 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39
SENIOR MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 Annual $ 58,850.21 $ 61,792.72 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 MONTHLY $ 4,904.18 $ 5,149.39 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,263.47 $ 2,376.64 $ 2,495.48 $ 2,620.25 $ 2,751.26 HOURLY $ 28.29 $ 29.71 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39
SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 Annual $ 58,850.21 $ 61,792.72 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 MONTHLY $ 4,904.18 $ 5,149.39 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,263.47 $ 2,376.64 $ 2,495.48 $ 2,620.25 $ 2,751.26 HOURLY $ 28.29 $ 29.71 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39

Page 32 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE

SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE
WORKER/FACILITIES TECHNICIAN 116 Annual $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 MONTHLY $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,498.45 $ 2,623.37 $ 2,754.54 $ 2,892.26 $ 3,036.88 HOURLY $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96

SENIOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
OPERATOR 119 Annual $ 69,954.41 $ 73,452.13 $ 77,124.73 $ 80,980.97 $ 85,030.02 MONTHLY $ 5,829.53 $ 6,121.01 $ 6,427.06 $ 6,748.41 $ 7,085.83 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,690.55 $ 2,825.08 $ 2,966.34 $ 3,114.65 $ 3,270.39 HOURLY $ 33.63 $ 35.31 $ 37.08 $ 38.93 $ 40.88
SENIOR WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR 116 Annual $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 MONTHLY $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,498.45 $ 2,623.37 $ 2,754.54 $ 2,892.26 $ 3,036.88 HOURLY $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN I 112 Annual $ 58,850.21 $ 61,792.72 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 MONTHLY $ 4,904.18 $ 5,149.39 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,263.47 $ 2,376.64 $ 2,495.48 $ 2,620.25 $ 2,751.26 HOURLY $ 28.29 $ 29.71 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN II 118 Annual $ 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 MONTHLY $ 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,624.93 $ 2,756.18 $ 2,893.99 $ 3,038.69 $ 3,190.62 HOURLY $ 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN TRAINEE 108 Annual $ 53,315.39 $ 55,981.15 $ 58,780.21 $ 61,719.22 $ 64,805.18 MONTHLY $ 4,442.95 $ 4,665.10 $ 4,898.35 $ 5,143.27 $ 5,400.43 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,050.59 $ 2,153.12 $ 2,260.78 $ 2,373.82 $ 2,492.51 HOURLY $ 25.63 $ 26.91 $ 28.26 $ 29.67 $ 31.16
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR I 112 Annual $ 58,850.21 $ 61,792.72 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 MONTHLY $ 4,904.18 $ 5,149.39 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,263.47 $ 2,376.64 $ 2,495.48 $ 2,620.25 $ 2,751.26 HOURLY $ 28.29 $ 29.71 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR II 116 Annual $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 MONTHLY $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,498.45 $ 2,623.37 $ 2,754.54 $ 2,892.26 $ 3,036.88 HOURLY $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96

Page 33 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORIN-TRAINING 107 Annual $ 52,015.01 $ 54,615.76 $ 57,346.55 $ 60,213.88 $ 63,224.57 MONTHLY $ 4,334.58 $ 4,551.31 $ 4,778.88 $ 5,017.82 $ 5,268.71 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,000.58 $ 2,100.61 $ 2,205.64 $ 2,315.92 $ 2,431.71 HOURLY $ 25.01 $ 26.26 $ 27.57 $ 28.95 $ 30.40
WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR I 109 Annual $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 MONTHLY $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,101.86 $ 2,206.95 $ 2,317.30 $ 2,433.16 $ 2,554.82 HOURLY $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94
WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR II 112 Annual $ 58,850.21 $ 61,792.72 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 MONTHLY $ 4,904.18 $ 5,149.39 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 BI-WEEKLY $ 2,263.47 $ 2,376.64 $ 2,495.48 $ 2,620.25 $ 2,751.26 HOURLY $ 28.29 $ 29.71 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39

Page 34 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
Classification Title Pay Range Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E ACCOUNT CLERK I 107 $ 4,334.58 $ 4,551.31 $ 4,778.88 $ 5,017.82 $ 5,268.71 ACCOUNT CLERK II 111 $ 4,784.57 $ 5,023.80 $ 5,274.99 $ 5,538.74 $ 5,815.67 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 116 $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I 118 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 $ ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 116 $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK 101 $ 3,737.70 $ 3,924.58 $ 4,120.81 $ 4,326.85 $ 4,543.20 ASSISTANT MECHANIC 112 $ 5,149.39 4,904.18 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 $ ASSISTANT PLANNER 122 6,277.77 $ 6,591.66 $ 6,921.24 $ 7,267.30 $ 7,630.67 $ ASSOCIATE PLANNER 126 6,929.48 $ 7,275.96 $ 7,639.76 $ 8,021.74 $ 8,422.83 $ BUILDING INSPECTOR I 118 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 $ BUILDING INSPECTOR II 124 6,595.58 $ 6,925.36 $ 7,271.63 $ 7,635.21 $ 8,016.97 $ CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I 112 $ 5,149.39 4,904.18 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 $ CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II 116 $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST I 108 $ 4,442.95 $ 4,665.10 $ 4,898.35 $ 5,143.27 $ 5,400.43 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST II 111 $ 4,784.57 $ 5,023.80 $ 5,274.99 $ 5,538.74 $ 5,815.67 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR I 124 6,595.58 $ 6,925.36 $ 7,271.63 $ 7,635.21 $ 8,016.97 $ CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR II 128 7,280.29 $ 7,644.30 $ 8,026.52 $ 8,427.84 $ 8,849.24 $ DEPUTY CITY CLERK 120 5,975.27 $ 6,274.04 $ 6,587.74 $ 6,917.12 $ 7,262.98 $ ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN 122 6,277.77 $ 6,591.66 $ 6,921.24 $ 7,267.30 $ 7,630.67 $ ENGINEER TECHNICIAN I 113 $ 5,278.13 5,026.79 $ 5,542.03 $ 5,819.14 $ 6,110.09 $ ENGINEER TECHNICIAN II 117 $ 5,548.63 $ 5,826.07 $ 6,117.37 $ 6,423.24 $ 6,744.40 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER I 107 $ 4,334.58 $ 4,551.31 $ 4,778.88 $ 5,017.82 $ 5,268.71 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 FLEET COORDINATOR 118 $ 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 HOUSING SPECIALIST I 116 $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 HOUSING SPECIALIST II 118 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 $ MAINTENANCE WORKER I 105 $ 4,125.72 $ 4,332.01 $ 4,548.61 $ 4,776.04 $ 5,014.84 MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 METER TECHNICIAN I 105 $ 4,125.72 $ 4,332.01 $ 4,548.61 $ 4,776.04 $ 5,014.84 METER TECHNICIAN II 109 $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER I 105 $ 4,125.72 $ 4,332.01 $ 4,548.61 $ 4,776.04 $ 5,014.84 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 PROJECT COORDINATOR 118 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 $ RECREATION AND EVENTS COORDINATOR 109 $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 SENIOR ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 117 $ 5,548.63 $ 5,826.07 $ 6,117.37 $ 6,423.24 $ 6,744.40 SENIOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 $ 5,149.39 4,904.18 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 $ SENIOR MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 $ 5,149.39 4,904.18 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 $ SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 $ 5,149.39 4,904.18 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 $

SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER/FACILITIES
TECHNICIAN 116 $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90

SENIOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
OPERATOR 119 5,829.53 $ 6,121.01 $ 6,427.06 $ 6,748.41 $ 7,085.83 $ SENIOR WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR 116 $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

MONTHLY SALARY STEPS

Page 35 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN I 112 $ 5,149.39 4,904.18 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 $

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN II 118 5,687.35 $ 5,971.72 $ 6,270.30 $ 6,583.82 $ 6,913.01 $

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN TRAINEE 108 $ 4,442.95 $ 4,665.10 $ 4,898.35 $ 5,143.27 $ 5,400.43 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR I 112 $ 5,149.39 4,904.18 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 $ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR II 116 $ 5,413.30 $ 5,683.97 $ 5,968.17 $ 6,266.57 $ 6,579.90 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR-INTRAINING 107 $ 4,334.58 $ 4,551.31 $ 4,778.88 $ 5,017.82 $ 5,268.71 WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR I 109 $ 4,554.02 $ 4,781.72 $ 5,020.81 $ 5,271.85 $ 5,535.44 WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR II 112 $ 5,149.39 4,904.18 $ 5,406.86 $ 5,677.21 $ 5,961.07 $

Page 36 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
Classification Title Pay Range Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E ACCOUNT CLERK I 107 $ 25.01 $ 26.26 $ 27.57 $ 28.95 $ 30.40 ACCOUNT CLERK II 111 $ 27.60 $ 28.98 $ 30.43 $ 31.95 $ 33.55 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 116 $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I 118 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88 $ ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 116 $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96 ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK 101 $ 21.56 $ 22.64 $ 23.77 $ 24.96 $ 26.21 ASSISTANT MECHANIC 112 $ 29.71 28.29 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39 $ ASSISTANT PLANNER 122 36.22 $ 38.03 $ 39.93 $ 41.93 $ 44.02 $ ASSOCIATE PLANNER 126 39.98 $ 41.98 $ 44.08 $ 46.28 $ 48.59 $ BUILDING INSPECTOR I 118 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88 $ BUILDING INSPECTOR II 124 38.05 $ 39.95 $ 41.95 $ 44.05 $ 46.25 $ CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I 112 $ 29.71 28.29 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39 $ CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II 116 $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST I 108 $ 25.63 $ 26.91 $ 28.26 $ 29.67 $ 31.16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST II 111 $ 27.60 $ 28.98 $ 30.43 $ 31.95 $ 33.55 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR I 124 38.05 $ 39.95 $ 41.95 $ 44.05 $ 46.25 $ CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR II 128 42.00 $ 44.10 $ 46.31 $ 48.62 $ 51.05 $ DEPUTY CITY CLERK 120 34.47 $ 36.20 $ 38.01 $ 39.91 $ 41.90 $ ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN 122 36.22 $ 38.03 $ 39.93 $ 41.93 $ 44.02 $ ENGINEER TECHNICIAN I 113 $ 30.45 29.00 $ 31.97 $ 33.57 $ 35.25 $ ENGINEER TECHNICIAN II 117 $ 32.01 $ 33.61 $ 35.29 $ 37.06 $ 38.91 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER I 107 $ 25.01 $ 26.26 $ 27.57 $ 28.95 $ 30.40 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94 FLEET COORDINATOR 118 $ 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88 HOUSING SPECIALIST I 116 $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96 HOUSING SPECIALIST II 118 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88 $ MAINTENANCE WORKER I 105 $ 23.80 $ 24.99 $ 26.24 $ 27.55 $ 28.93 MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94 METER TECHNICIAN I 105 $ 23.80 $ 24.99 $ 26.24 $ 27.55 $ 28.93 METER TECHNICIAN II 109 $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER I 105 $ 23.80 $ 24.99 $ 26.24 $ 27.55 $ 28.93 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94 PROJECT COORDINATOR 118 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88 $ RECREATION AND EVENTS COORDINATOR 109 $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94 SENIOR ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 117 $ 32.01 $ 33.61 $ 35.29 $ 37.06 $ 38.91 SENIOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 $ 29.71 28.29 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39 $ SENIOR MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 $ 29.71 28.29 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39 $ SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 $ 29.71 28.29 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39 $

SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER/FACILITIES
TECHNICIAN 116 $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96

SENIOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
OPERATOR 119 33.63 $ 35.31 $ 37.08 $ 38.93 $ 40.88 $
SENIOR WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR 116 $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96 EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

HOURLY SALARY STEPS

Page 37 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN I 112 $ 29.71 28.29 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39 $

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN II 118 32.81 $ 34.45 $ 36.17 $ 37.98 $ 39.88 $

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN TRAINEE 108 $ 25.63 $ 26.91 $ 28.26 $ 29.67 $ 31.16 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR I 112 $ 29.71 28.29 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39 $ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR II 116 $ 31.23 $ 32.79 $ 34.43 $ 36.15 $ 37.96 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR-INTRAINING 107 $ 25.01 $ 26.26 $ 27.57 $ 28.95 $ 30.40 WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR I 109 $ 26.27 $ 27.59 $ 28.97 $ 30.41 $ 31.94 WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR II 112 $ 29.71 28.29 $ 31.19 $ 32.75 $ 34.39 $

Page 38 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
Classification Title Pay Range Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E ACCOUNT CLERK I 107 $ 52,015.01 $ 54,615.76 $ 57,346.55 $ 60,213.88 $ 63,224.57 ACCOUNT CLERK II 111 $ 57,414.84 $ 60,285.58 $ 63,299.86 $ 66,464.85 $ 69,788.09 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 116 $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I 118 $ 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 116 $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK 101 $ 44,852.38 $ 47,095.00 $ 49,449.75 $ 51,922.24 $ 54,518.35 ASSISTANT MECHANIC 112 $ 61,792.72 58,850.21 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 $ ASSISTANT PLANNER 122 75,333.24 $ 79,099.91 $ 83,054.90 $ 87,207.65 $ 91,568.03 $ ASSOCIATE PLANNER 126 83,153.81 $ 87,311.50 $ 91,677.07 $ 96,260.92 $ 101,073.97 $ BUILDING INSPECTOR I 118 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 $ BUILDING INSPECTOR II 124 79,146.99 $ 83,104.34 $ 87,259.56 $ 91,622.53 $ 96,203.66 $ CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I 112 $ 61,792.72 58,850.21 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 $ CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II 116 $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST I 108 $ 53,315.39 $ 55,981.15 $ 58,780.21 $ 61,719.22 $ 64,805.18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST II 111 $ 57,414.84 $ 60,285.58 $ 63,299.86 $ 66,464.85 $ 69,788.09 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR I 124 79,146.99 $ 83,104.34 $ 87,259.56 $ 91,622.53 $ 96,203.66 $ CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR II 128 87,363.47 $ 91,731.64 $ 96,318.22 $ 101,134.13 $ 106,190.84 $ DEPUTY CITY CLERK 120 71,703.27 $ 75,288.43 $ 79,052.85 $ 83,005.49 $ 87,155.77 $ ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS TECHNICIAN 122 75,333.24 $ 79,099.91 $ 83,054.90 $ 87,207.65 $ 91,568.03 $ ENGINEER TECHNICIAN I 113 $ 63,337.54 60,321.46 $ 66,504.41 $ 69,829.64 $ 73,321.12 $ ENGINEER TECHNICIAN II 117 $ 66,583.61 $ 69,912.79 $ 73,408.43 $ 77,078.85 $ 80,932.79 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER I 107 $ 52,015.01 $ 54,615.76 $ 57,346.55 $ 60,213.88 $ 63,224.57 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 FLEET COORDINATOR 118 $ 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 HOUSING SPECIALIST I 116 $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 HOUSING SPECIALIST II 118 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 $ MAINTENANCE WORKER I 105 $ 49,508.64 $ 51,984.07 $ 54,583.27 $ 57,312.43 $ 60,178.06 MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 METER TECHNICIAN I 105 $ 49,508.64 $ 51,984.07 $ 54,583.27 $ 57,312.43 $ 60,178.06 METER TECHNICIAN II 109 $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER I 105 $ 49,508.64 $ 51,984.07 $ 54,583.27 $ 57,312.43 $ 60,178.06 PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER II 109 $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 PROJECT COORDINATOR 118 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 $ RECREATION AND EVENTS COORDINATOR 109 $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 SENIOR ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN 117 $ 66,583.61 $ 69,912.79 $ 73,408.43 $ 77,078.85 $ 80,932.79 SENIOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 $ 61,792.72 58,850.21 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 $ SENIOR MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 $ 61,792.72 58,850.21 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 $ SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER 112 $ 61,792.72 58,850.21 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 $

SENIOR PARK MAINTENANCE WORKER/FACILITIES
TECHNICIAN 116 $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82

SENIOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
OPERATOR 119 69,954.41 $ 73,452.13 $ 77,124.73 $ 80,980.97 $ 85,030.02 $ SENIOR WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR 116 $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

ANNUAL SALARY STEPS

Page 39 of 730 ends

Classification Title Pay Range Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK MISCELLANEOUS EMPLOYEE GROUP
EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2026 (3% COLA)

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN I 112 $ 61,792.72 58,850.21 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 $

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN II 118 68,248.20 $ 71,660.61 $ 75,243.64 $ 79,005.82 $ 82,956.11 $

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN TRAINEE 108 $ 53,315.39 $ 55,981.15 $ 58,780.21 $ 61,719.22 $ 64,805.18 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR I 112 $ 61,792.72 58,850.21 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 $ WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR II 116 $ 64,959.62 $ 68,207.60 $ 71,617.98 $ 75,198.88 $ 78,958.82 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR-INTRAINING 107 $ 52,015.01 $ 54,615.76 $ 57,346.55 $ 60,213.88 $ 63,224.57 WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR I 109 $ 54,648.27 $ 57,380.68 $ 60,249.72 $ 63,262.20 $ 66,425.31 WATER DISTRIBUTION OPERATOR II 112 $ 61,792.72 58,850.21 $ 64,882.36 $ 68,126.47 $ 71,532.80 $

Page 40 of 730 ends

Classification Title
Pay
Range
**
Pay Basis Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E

LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR 301 Annual 125,330.00 $ 131,596.50 $ 138,176.33 $ 145,085.14 $ 152,339.40 $ MONTHLY $ 10,444.17 $ 10,966.38 $ 11,514.69 $ 12,090.43 $ 12,694.95 BI-WEEKLY $ 4,820.38 $ 5,061.40 $ 5,314.47 $ 5,580.20 $ 5,859.21 HOURLY $ 60.25 $ 63.27 $ 66.43 $ 69.75 $ 73.24
DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATION 307 Annual $ 145,344.38 $ 152,611.59 $ 160,242.17 $ 168,254.28 $ 176,667.00 MONTHLY $ 12,112.03 $ 12,717.63 $ 13,353.51 $ 14,021.19 $ 14,722.25 BI-WEEKLY $ 5,590.17 $ 5,869.68 $ 6,163.16 $ 6,471.32 $ 6,794.88 HOURLY $ 69.88 $ 73.37 $ 77.04 $ 80.89 $ 84.94
CITY ENGINEER 309 Annual 152,702.44 $ 160,337.56 $ 168,354.43 $ 176,772.16 $ 185,610.76 $ MONTHLY $ 12,725.20 $ 13,361.46 $ 14,029.54 $ 14,731.01 $ 15,467.56 BI-WEEKLY $ 5,873.17 $ 6,166.83 $ 6,475.17 $ 6,798.93 $ 7,138.88 HOURLY $ 73.41 $ 77.09 $ 80.94 $ 84.99 $ 89.24
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 311 Annual $ 160,433.00 $ 168,454.65 $ 176,877.38 $ 185,721.25 $ 195,007.31 MONTHLY $ 13,369.42 $ 14,037.89 $ 14,739.78 $ 15,476.77 $ 16,250.61 BI-WEEKLY $ 6,170.50 $ 6,479.02 $ 6,802.98 $ 7,143.12 $ 7,500.28 HOURLY $ 77.13 $ 80.99 $ 85.04 $ 89.29 $ 93.75
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 311 Annual $ 160,433.00 $ 168,454.65 $ 176,877.38 $ 185,721.25 $ 195,007.31 MONTHLY $ 13,369.42 $ 14,037.89 $ 14,739.78 $ 15,476.77 $ 16,250.61 BI-WEEKLY $ 6,170.50 $ 6,479.02 $ 6,802.98 $ 7,143.12 $ 7,500.28 HOURLY $ 77.13 $ 80.99 $ 85.04 $ 89.29 $ 93.75
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS 311 Annual 166,850.32 $ 175,192.83 $ 183,952.47 $ 193,150.10 $ 202,807.60 $ *Modified with Contract negotiated 4% COLA MONTHLY $ 13,904.19 $ 14,599.40 $ 15,329.37 $ 16,095.84 $ 16,900.63 BI-WEEKLY $ 6,417.32 $ 6,738.19 $ 7,075.10 $ 7,428.85 $ 7,800.29 HOURLY $ 80.22 $ 84.23 $ 88.44 $ 92.86 $ 97.50

ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/ADMIN SERVICES
DIRECTOR 315 Annual $ 184,171.53 $ 193,380.11 $ 203,049.11 $ 213,201.57 $ 223,861.64 *Modified with Contract negotiated 4% COLA MONTHLY $ 15,347.63 $ 16,115.01 $ 16,920.76 $ 17,766.80 $ 18,655.14 BI-WEEKLY $ 7,083.52 $ 7,437.70 $ 7,809.58 $ 8,200.06 $ 8,610.06 HOURLY $ 88.54 $ 92.97 $ 97.62 $ 102.50 $ 107.63
CITY MANAGER 319 Annual $ 203,290.91 $ 213,455.45 $ 224,128.23 $ 235,334.64 $ 247,101.37 MONTHLY $ 16,940.91 $ 17,787.95 $ 18,677.35 $ 19,611.22 $ 20,591.78 BI-WEEKLY $ 7,818.88 $ 8,209.83 $ 8,620.32 $ 9,051.33 $ 9,503.90 HOURLY $ 97.74 $ 102.62 $ 107.75 $ 113.14 $ 118.80

CITY OF RIVERBANK

RIVERBANK CONTRACT EMPLOYEES
EFFECTIVE FEBRURARY 6, 2026 ADOPTION OF CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY

COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
*Modified with Contract negotiated 4% COLA Effective July 10, 2026 1 of 1

Page 41 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

Item 8.5. - CC / LRA – 9/22/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.5.

SECTION : CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: 9/22/2026
Subject: Second Reading by Title Only of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 72 BICYCLES of Title VII: TRAFFIC CODE, by Amending Sections

72.04 & 72.99, and by adding new Sections 72.08 and 72.09. It is recommended City Council hold the second reading of a proposed ordinance amending Section 72.04 (License Fee) and Section 72.99 (Penalty), and adding Sections 72.08 (Unsafe Operation of Bicycle and Motorized Devices in Public Parks and Trails, Sidewalks, and Streets), and 72.09 (Administrative Appeal) to Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, of the Riverbank Code of Ordinances Related to Bicycle Regulations.

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Edward Ridenour, Chief of Police

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council do a second reading and consider adopting an ordinance amending Section 72.04 (License Fee) and Section 72.99 (Penalty), and adding Sections 72.08 (Unsafe Operation of Bicycle and Motorized Devices in Public Parks and Trails, Sidewalks, and Streets), and 72.09 (Administrative Appeal) to Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, of the Riverbank Code of Ordinances Related to Bicycle Regulations.

SUMMARY
Based on previous direction by the City Council, staff is bringing forward this consideration and adoption of an ordinance amending Section 72.04 (License Fee) and Section 72.99 (Penalty), and adding Sections 72.08 (Unsafe Operation of Bicycle and Motorized Devices in Public Parks and Trails, Sidewalks, and Streets), and 72.09 (Administrative Appeal) to Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, of the Riverbank Code of Ordinances Related to Bicycle Regulations. These updates are intended to address growing safety concerns about the unsafe operation of bicycles, electric bicycles (e-bikes), and motorized devices in public parks, trails, sidewalks, off-street parking facilities, and our streets.

STRATEGIC PLAN
This item supports the City Council's Goal to Support Public Safety.

BACKGROUND
Riverbank Police Services has identified growing issues within public spaces related to the unsafe and reckless operation of bicycles, e-bikes, and various motorized devices. Complaints include excessive speeds, unsafe behavior near pedestrians, street takeovers, property damage, and hazardous operation in the City, including our roadways, off-street parking facilities, and our parks and recreational areas.

Page 42 of 730 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

Item 8.5. - CC / LRA – 9/22/2026
On June 9, 2026, Riverbank Traffic Deputy Orr provided a bicycle safety presentation to the City Council. The presentation outlined key rules of the road for bicycles, e-bikes, and e-motorcycles, and included an overview of the current municipal code related to bicycle operation. Deputy Orr also discussed recent calls for service and incident data involving bicyclists riding recklessly, including unsafe maneuvers such as riding wheelies toward vehicles and pedestrians. These behaviors have prompted increased safety reminders and consideration of updated regulatory measures. Deputy Orr additionally shared examples of actions taken by nearby jurisdictions and the impacts those measures have had on improving safety and reducing problematic behavior.

On July 27, 2026, during a Special Council Meeting, Chief Ridenour delivered an informational presentation to the City Council and the public regarding bicycle safety awareness and emerging community concerns. The presentation covered recent trends and incidents involving bicyclists, current safety challenges, education and outreach efforts, enforcement activities, and recommendations intended to support safe interactions among bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians.

The information provided was intended to help the Council evaluate potential future ordinance updates and strategies to improve overall community safety.

The current Municipal Code lacks a dedicated section addressing these behaviors, limiting enforcement capability and impound authority. As outlined in the proposed ordinance, establishing Sections 72.08 and 72.09 will provide clear definitions, prohibited conduct, enforcement options, and administrative appeal processes.

Section 72.04 is revised to adjust the annual license fee from $2 to $4, reflecting updated operational needs and consistency with Cal. Vehicle Code §39004.

Additionally, Section 72.99 is revised to clarify that the penalty applies to Sections 72.01, 72.03,

72.05, 72.06, and 72.07. There is no change to the current penalty amount.

Notable Code Updates
Amendment of Section 72.04 – License Fee
• Updates annual bicycle license fee from $2 to $4.
• Maintains provisions for transfer, replacement, and renewal fees. • Consistent with existing fee schedule and state law.

Amendment of Section 72.99 – Penalty
Adds clarification to the penalties section of this code and where the penalty applies. The penalty is applicable to sections:
• 72.01, 72.03, 72.05, 72.06, and 72.07.
• No change to the current penalty amount.

Addition of Section 72.08 – Unsafe Operations of Bicycle and Motorized Devices in Public Parks and Trails, Sidewalks, and Streets.

Creates a comprehensive regulation governing unsafe, reckless, or hazardous operation of bicycles, e-bikes, and motorized devices in public parks, trails, sidewalks, streets, and off-street parking areas.

Provisions include:
• Definitions of bicycles, e-bikes, motorized devices, and public areas.

Page 43 of 730 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

Item 8.5. - CC / LRA – 9/22/2026
• Prohibited conduct, including excessive speed, failure to yield, stunts, off-path riding, and conduct that creates collision risks or property damage. • Authority for peace officers to seize and impound devices for up to 30 days under specified conditions.
• Administrative review process for owners seeking release of impounded devices. • Fee responsibility for impound costs.

Addition of Section 72.09 – Administrative Appeal
Establishes an appeal process for impound actions under Section 72.08, including:
• 10-day window to request an appeal hearing.
• Hearing conducted by a Riverbank Police Services supervisor. • Further appeal to the Chief of Police, whose decision is final.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The ordinance is not expected to have significant fiscal impacts. Increased license fees may provide only a minor additional amount of General Fund revenue. Enforcement and administrative hearing responsibilities will be carried out by existing staff.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance_Chapter 72_Bicycles_Redline Changes_2026

2. Ordinance_Chapter 72_Bicycle Ordinance Update_2026_Final

Page 44 of 730 ends

CHAPTER 72: BICYCLES
Section

72.01 License required

72.02 Application

72.03 Metallic license plate

72.04 License fee

72.05 Requirements for second hand bicycle dealers

72.06 Duty when selling or transferring ownership

72.07 Mutilating or destroying license plate

72.08 Unsafe operations of bicycle and motorized devices in public parks and trails, sidewalks, and streets

72.09 Administrative Hearing

72.99 Penalty
§ 72.01 LICENSE REQUIRED.

It shall be unlawful for any person to operate or use a bicycle propelled wholly or in part by muscular power upon any of the streets, alleys or public highway of the city, without first obtaining from the Riverbank Police Services Division a license therefor. (`67 Code, § 9-3-1) (Ord. 108, passed 11-10-52) Penalty, see § 72.99 § 72.02 APPLICATION.

The Riverbank Police Services Division is hereby authorized and directed to issue upon written application, bicycle licenses which shall be effective from January 1, 1980 and effective thereafter. The licenses shall be issued for a period of three years and the licenses must be procured on or before February 1 after each three-year period. The licenses when issued, shall entitle the licensee to operate such bicycle for which said license has been issued, upon all the streets, alleys and highways, exclusive of the sidewalks thereof.
(`67 Code, § 9-3-2)
§ 72.03 METALLIC LICENSE PLATE.

The city shall provide each year metallic license plates and seals, together with registration cards. The metallic license plates and seals shall have printed on them consecutive numbers assigned by the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The license plates shall be attached to the frame of each bicycle licensed. It shall be the duty of the Riverbank Police Services Division to attach the license plate to each bicycle licensed, and to issue a corresponding registration card to the licensee upon the payment of the license fee herein provided for. The metallic license plate shall remain attached during the existence of the license. The Riverbank Police Services Division shall also keep a record of the date of issue of each license, to whom issued, and the number thereof. (`67 Code, § 9-3-3) (Ord. 80-2, passed 2-11-80) Penalty, see § 72.99 § 72.04 LICENSE FEE.
(A) The annual license fee to be paid for each bicycle shall be as follows:
(1) For each new bicycle license and registration certificate, the sum shall not exceed $24 per year or any portion thereof;
(2) For each transfer of registration certificate, the sum shall not exceed $1; (3) For each replacement of a bicycle license or registration certificate, the sum shall not exceed $1; and
(4) For each bicycle license renewal, the sum shall not exceed $1 per year.

Page 45 of 730 ends

(B) All license fees collected under this chapter shall be paid into the general fund of the city. The license fees may be changed from time to time by resolution of the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Cal. Veh. Code § 39004. (`67 Code, § 9-3-7) (Ord. 80-2, passed 2-11-80)
§ 72.05 REQUIREMENTS FOR SECOND HAND BICYCLE DEALERS.
(A) All persons engaged in the business of buying second-hand bicycles in the city are hereby required to make a weekly report to the Riverbank Police Services Division, giving the name and address of the person from whom each bicycle is purchased, the description of each bicycle purchased, the frame number thereof, and the number of the metallic license plate found thereon, if any.
(B) All persons engaged in the business of selling new or second hand bicycles are hereby required to make a weekly report to the Riverbank Police Services Division, giving a list of all sales made by such dealers, which list shall include the name and address of each person to whom sold, the kind of bicycle sold, together with a description and frame number thereof, and the number of the metallic license plate attached thereto, if any.
(`67 Code, § 9-3-4) Penalty, see § 72.99
§ 72.06 DUTY WHEN SELLING OR TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP.

It shall be the duty of every person who sells or transfers ownership of any bicycle to report such sale or transfer by returning to the Riverbank Police Services Division the registration card issued to such person as licensee thereof, together with the name and address of the person to whom said bicycle was sold or transferred, and such report shall be made within ten days of the date of the sale or transfer. It shall be the duty of the purchaser or transferee of such bicycle to apply for a transfer of registration therefor within ten days of the sale or transfer.
(`67 Code, § 9-3-5) Penalty, see § 72.99
§ 72.07 MUTILATING OR DESTROYING LICENSE PLATE.

It shall be unlawful for any person to wilfully or maliciously remove, destroy, mutilate or alter the number of any bicycle frame licensed pursuant to this chapter. It shall also be unlawful for any person to remove, destroy, mutilate or alter any license plate, seal, or registration card during the time in which such license plate seal or registration card is operative, provided, however, that nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the Riverbank Police Services Division from stamping numbers on the frames of bicycles on which no serial number can be found, or on which said number is illegible or insufficient for identification purposes.
(`67 Code, § 9-3-6) (Ord. 108, passed 11-10-52) Penalty, see § 72.99 § 72.08 UNSAFE OPERATIONS OF BICYCLE AND MOTORIZED DEVICES IN PUBLIC PARKS AND TRAILS, SIDEWALKS, AND STREETS.
(A) Purpose.

The purpose of this section is to protect public safety, prevent damage to City property, and ensure the safe use of public parks and trails, sidewalks, and streets by regulating the unsafe and reckless operation of bicycles and motorized devices. (B) Definitions
(1) “Bicycle” shall have the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code §231.

Page 46 of 730 ends

(2) “Electric Bicycle (E-Bike)” shall have the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code §312.5, including Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 E-bikes. (3) “Motorized Device” means any device powered by a motor, including but not limited to electric bicycles, motorized scooters, minibikes, and similar devices. “Motorized Device” does not include a mobility device used by a person with a disability, a city-authorized maintenance or service vehicle, or any device expressly excluded by state law.
(4) “Public Park or Trail” means any park, open space, recreational area, pathway, or trail owned, operated, or maintained by the City of Riverbank. (5) “Street" is intended to include avenue, court, way, drive, or other principal public means of access to buildings, enclosures, or alleys. (6) “Off-Street Parking Facility” any off-street facility held open for use by the public for parking vehicles and includes any publicly owned facilities for off-street parking, and privately owned facilities for off-street parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park, and which are held open for the common public use of retail customers.
(C) Prohibited Conduct
(1) No person shall operate any bicycle, E-bike, or motorized device in a public park or on a trail, sidewalk, street, or off-street parking facility in a manner that demonstrates willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. (2) No person shall operate a motorized device in any area of a park, except where motorized devices are allowed to operate.
(3) Unsafe operation includes, but is not limited to: excessive speed for conditions, failing to yield to pedestrians, operating in a manner that creates a collision hazard, any unsafe operation in the California Vehicle Code, performing stunts, tricks, or exhibition riding, operating off designated paths causing damage to landscaping or trails, and towing persons or objects in an unsafe manner. (D) Authority to Seize and Impound
(1) Any bicycle, electric bicycle, or motorized device used in violation of this section may be seized and removed by a peace officer.
(2) A bicycle or motorized device may be impounded for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days when:
• The violation involves reckless or unsafe operation as described in subsection (C); or
• The conduct creates a risk to public safety; or
• The operator is a repeat violator (two or more violations of this section in a 12- month period); or
• The violation results in damage or is likely to cause damage to public or private property.
(3) Impoundment under this section is an administrative action intended to protect public safety and deter continued violations.
(E) Release and Administrative Review
(1) The owner of a seized bicycle or motorized device shall be entitled to a post seizure administrative hearing to contest the validity of the impound.

Page 47 of 730 ends

(2) The bicycle or motorized device shall be released prior to the expiration of the impound period upon a showing of good cause, as determined by the hearing officer.
(3) Riverbank Police Service shall provide notice within forty-eight (48) hours of impound, excluding weekends and holidays, that the owner is entitled to post-seizure hearing under subsection (E)(1). If the motorized device is classified as a motorcycle under the California Vehicle Code, notice shall instead be provided pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22852.
(4) Owners must request a hearing within 10 days of a device being stored or impounded. Any person requesting an administrative hearing regarding the impoundment of a bicycle or motorized device shall submit, at the time the hearing request is filed, a deposit in an amount equal to fifty percent of the total vehicle release fee established by City Council Resolution. The required deposit must be submitted within ten (10) calendar days of the date of notice of impoundment. (5) Failure to remit the deposit within the prescribed ten (10)-day filing period shall render the hearing request incomplete and untimely. An incomplete or untimely request shall not be accepted, and no hearing shall be scheduled. (F) Fees.

The owner is responsible for all reasonable costs related to the impound, including administrative, storage, and processing fees. This administrative fee shall be the same as the vehicle release fee established by City Council Resolution. (G) Exceptions.

This section shall not apply to:
• Authorized City personnel performing official duties. • Emergency responders.
• Individuals operating devices as part of a permitted event approved by the city. (H) Enforcement.

This section may be enforced by any peace officer or authorized code enforcement officer.
§ 72.09 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.
(A) Requesting an appeal hearing.
(1) Any impound may be contested by the vehicle owner by filing an appeal hearing request with Riverbank Police Services within 10 days of the date of the impound.
(B) Hearing Officer. The appeal shall be heard by a police supervisor within Riverbank Police Services.
(1) After consideration of all testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall issue a decision to uphold, modify, or reverse the impound, and shall state the reasons therefore.
(C) Finality of the appeal's decision.
(1) If an appellant is not satisfied with the action of the Hearing Officer, a request for an appeal hearing before the Chief of Police may be made by filing an appeal request with Riverbank Police Services within ten calendar days following the date of the Hearing Officer's decision.

Page 48 of 730 ends

(2) The Chief of Police is the final reviewing authority and no further administrative appeal is applicable. This subsection does not limit any right to seek judicial review as otherwise provided by law.
§ 72.99 PENALTY.

Every person violating any provisions of this chapterSection 72.01, 72.03, 72.05,

72.06, and 72.07 shall be fined not more than $10.

Page 49 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 7 ends

CC/LRA-09/08/2026 & 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance 2026-

CITY OF RIVERBANK
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 72.04, LICENSE FEE, AND SECTION 72.99, PENALTY, AND ADDING SECTIONS 72.08, UNSAFE OPERATION OF BICYCLE

AND MOTORIZED DEVICES IN PUBLIC PARKS AND TRAILS, SIDEWALKS, AND STREETS, AND 72.09, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, TO CHAPTER 72, BICYCLES,

OF TITLE VII, TRAFFIC CODE, OF THE RIVERBANK CODE OF ORDINANCES

RELATED TO BICYCLE REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, Chapter 72 of Title VII of the Riverbank Municipal Code governs the licensing, registration, and identification of bicycles operated within the City of Riverbank; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has amended California Vehicle Code Section 39004 to increase the maximum annual bicycle license fee that a local agency may charge from two dollars ($2) to four dollars ($4), and the City Council desires to amend Section 72.04 of the Riverbank Municipal Code to conform to this statutory change; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received reports of an increase in unsafe, reckless, and hazardous operation of bicycles, electric bicycles, and other motorized devices on the City’s public parks, trails, sidewalks, and streets, resulting in risks to public safety and damage to public and private property; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary and in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare to prohibit the unsafe operation of bicycles, electric bicycles, and motorized devices within the City, and to authorize the seizure and impoundment of such devices under appropriate circumstances as a deterrent to continued violations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that it is necessary to establish a fair and orderly administrative hearing and appeal process by which the owner of a seized or impounded bicycle, electric bicycle, or motorized device may contest the validity of the impound.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIVERBANK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Page 50 of 730 ends

4934-2840-9799, v. 2

Page 2 of 7 ends

CC/LRA-09/08/2026 & 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance 2026-
SECTION 1. Section 72.04, License Fee, of Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, of the Riverbank Municipal Code shall be repealed in its entirety and replaced with a new section 72.04 that shall read as follows:
§ 72.04 LICENSE FEE.
(A) The annual license fee to be paid for each bicycle shall be as follows:
(1) For each new bicycle license and registration certificate, the sum shall not exceed $4 per year or any portion thereof;
(2) For each transfer of registration certificate, the sum shall not exceed $1; (3) For each replacement of a bicycle license or registration certificate, the sum shall not exceed $1; and
(4) For each bicycle license renewal, the sum shall not exceed $1 per year. (B) All license fees collected under this chapter shall be paid into the general fund of the city. The license fees may be changed from time to time by resolution of the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Cal. Veh. Code § 39004.

SECTION 2. Section 72.99, Penalty, of Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, of the Riverbank Municipal Code shall be repealed in its entirety and replaced with a new section 72.99 that shall read as follows:
§ 72.99 PENALTY.

Every person violating Section 72.01, 72.03, 72.05, 72.06, and 72.07 of this chapter shall be fined not more than $10.

SECTION 3. Section 72.08, Unsafe Operations of Bicycle and Motorized Devices in Public Parks and Trails, Sidewalks, and Streets, of Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, shall be added to the Riverbank Municipal Code and shall read as follows:
§ 72.08 UNSAFE OPERATIONS OF BICYCLE AND MOTORIZED DEVICES IN PUBLIC PARKS AND TRAILS, SIDEWALKS, AND STREETS.
(A) Purpose.

Page 51 of 730 ends

4934-2840-9799, v. 2

Page 3 of 7 ends

CC/LRA-09/08/2026 & 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance 2026-
(B) Definitions
(1) “Bicycle” shall have the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code §231.
(2) “Electric Bicycle (E-Bike)” shall have the same meaning as defined in California Vehicle Code §312.5, including Class 1, Class 2, and Class 3 Ebikes. (3) “Motorized Device” means any device powered by a motor, including but not limited to electric bicycles, motorized scooters, minibikes, and similar devices. “Motorized Device” does not include a mobility device used by a person with a disability, a city-authorized maintenance or service vehicle, or any device expressly excluded by state law.
(4) “Public Park or Trail” means any park, open space, recreational area, pathway, or trail owned, operated, or maintained by the City of Riverbank. (5) “Street" is intended to include avenue, court, way, drive, or other principal public means of access to buildings, enclosures, or alleys. (6) “Off-Street Parking Facility” any off-street facility held open for use by the public for parking vehicles and includes any publicly owned facilities for offstreet parking, and privately owned facilities for off-street parking where no fee is charged for the privilege to park, and which are held open for the common public use of retail customers.
(C) Prohibited Conduct
(1) No person shall operate any bicycle, E-bike, or motorized device in a public park or on a trail, sidewalk, street, or off-street parking facility in a manner that demonstrates willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. (2) No person shall operate a motorized device in any area of a park, except where motorized devices are allowed to operate.
(3) Unsafe operation includes, but is not limited to: excessive speed for conditions, failing to yield to pedestrians, operating in a manner that creates a collision hazard, any unsafe operation in the California Vehicle Code, performing stunts, tricks, or exhibition riding, operating off designated paths causing damage to landscaping or trails, and towing persons or objects in an unsafe manner.
(D) Authority to Seize and Impound

Page 52 of 730 ends

4934-2840-9799, v. 2

Page 4 of 7 ends

CC/LRA-09/08/2026 & 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance 2026-
(1) Any bicycle, electric bicycle, or motorized device used in violation of this section may be seized and removed by a peace officer.
(2) A bicycle or motorized device may be impounded for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days when:
• The violation involves reckless or unsafe operation as described in subsection (C); or
• The conduct creates a risk to public safety; or
• The operator is a repeat violator (two or more violations of this section in a 12-month period); or
• The violation results in damage or is likely to cause damage to public or private property.
(3) Impoundment under this section is an administrative action intended to protect public safety and deter continued violations.
(E) Release and Administrative Review
(1) The owner of a seized bicycle or motorized device shall be entitled to a post seizure administrative hearing to contest the validity of the impound. (2) The bicycle or motorized device shall be released prior to the expiration of the impound period upon a showing of good cause, as determined by the hearing officer.
(3) Riverbank Police Service shall provide notice within forty-eight (48) hours of impound, excluding weekends and holidays, that the owner is entitled to post-seizure hearing under subsection (E)(1). If the motorized device is classified as a motorcycle under the California Vehicle Code, notice shall instead be provided pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 22852. (4) Owners must request a hearing within 10 days of a device being stored or impounded. Any person requesting an administrative hearing regarding the impoundment of a bicycle or motorized device shall submit, at the time the hearing request is filed, a deposit in an amount equal to fifty percent of the total vehicle release fee established by City Council Resolution. The required deposit must be submitted within ten (10) calendar days of the date of notice of impoundment.

Page 53 of 730 ends

4934-2840-9799, v. 2

Page 5 of 7 ends

CC/LRA-09/08/2026 & 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance 2026-
(5) Failure to remit the deposit within the prescribed ten (10)-day filing period shall render the hearing request incomplete and untimely. An incomplete or untimely request shall not be accepted, and no hearing shall be scheduled. (F) Fees.

This section may be enforced by any peace officer or authorized code enforcement officer.

SECTION 4. Section 72.09, Administrative Appeal, of Chapter 72, Bicycles, of Title VII, Traffic Code, shall be added to the Riverbank Municipal Code and shall read as follows:
§ 72.09 Administrative Appeal.
(A) Requesting an appeal hearing. Any impound may be contested by the vehicle owner by filing an appeal hearing request with Riverbank Police Services within 10 days of the date of the impound.
(B) Hearing Officer. The appeal shall be heard by a police supervisor within Riverbank Police Services. After consideration of all testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall issue a decision to uphold, modify, or reverse the impound, and shall state the reasons therefor. (C) Finality of the appeal's decision.
(1) If an appellant is not satisfied with the action of the Hearing Officer, a request for an appeal hearing before the Chief of Police may be made by filing an appeal request with Riverbank Police Services within ten calendar days following the date of the Hearing Officer's decision.

Page 54 of 730 ends

4934-2840-9799, v. 2

Page 6 of 7 ends

CC/LRA-09/08/2026 & 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance 2026-
(2) The Chief of Police is the final reviewing authority, and no further administrative appeal is applicable. This subsection does not limit any right to seek judicial review as otherwise provided by law.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this chapter, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this chapter or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its final passage and adoption, provided it is published in a newspaper of general circulation at least fifteen (15) days prior to its effective date or a summary of the Ordinance is published in a newspaper of general circulation at least five (5) days prior to adoption and again at least fifteen (15) days prior to its effective date.

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 September 8, 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; motioned by Councilmember _______, seconded by Councilmember ______; moved said ordinance by a City Council _____ vote of ____:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

_________________________ __________________________
Gabriela Hernandez,CMC Rachel Hernandez
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________

Page 55 of 730 ends

4934-2840-9799, v. 2

Page 7 of 7 ends

CC/LRA-09/08/2026 & 09/22/2026
CC Ordinance 2026-
Tom P. Hallinan
City Attorney

Page 56 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL/ LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 9.1
SECTION 9: PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: September 22, 2026
Subject: River Walk Specific Plan, Department File No. 20-0026. City Council consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment, River Walk Specific Plan, Prezoning, Sphere of Influence Amendment, Municipal Services Review update, Annexation Authorization and Development Agreement.

From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Joshua E. Mann, Director of Community Development

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the noticed public hearing, receive and consider the staff and applicant presentations, the Planning Commission recommendation, written and oral testimony, the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”), the proposed entitlement documents and the complete administrative record.

After deliberation, the Council may select either of the following decision paths:

Approval Path

1. Adopt a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and finding that it was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, was presented to and reviewed by the Council before project approval and reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

2. Adopt the CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

3. Adopt a Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment, including the land use and circulation map amendments.

4. Adopt a Resolution approving the River Walk Specific Plan.

5. Introduce and conduct the first reading of an Ordinance Prezoning the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area to the River Walk Specific Plan zoning designation, effective upon annexation.

6. Introduce and conduct the first reading of an Ordinance approving and authorizing execution of the Development Agreement between the City and River Walk, LLC.

Page 57 of 730 ends

Page 2 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026

7. Adopt a Resolution authorizing staff to submit applications to Stanislaus LAFCo for the Sphere of Influence amendment, Municipal Services Review update and annexation using the boundary alternatives selected by the Council.

Denial Path

1. Adopt a Resolution denying the River Walk Project based on findings supported by the administrative record and the findings contained herein. This path includes the following denial actions:
a. Decline to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report or adopt the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. CEQA does not require certification of an EIR when the City rejects or disapproves a project.
b. Deny the General Plan Amendment, River Walk Specific Plan, Prezoning and Development Agreement, and decline to authorize the Sphere of Influence amendment, Municipal Services Review update or annexation applications.

SUMMARY
The River Walk Project is a long-range mixed-use development proposal in unincorporated Stanislaus County adjacent to Riverbank. The Final EIR evaluates an approximately 1,522-acre Project Area proposed for inclusion within the City’s Sphere of Influence. Within the Project Area, the River Walk Specific Plan (“RWSP”) covers approximately 997.18 acres proposed for annexation, prezoning and eventual phased development. The remaining approximately 525 acres would remain unincorporated and designated Reserve.

The Specific Plan (see Attachment 1) would allow no more than 2,682 dwelling units and approximately 341,000 to 836,000 square feet of nonresidential development. It also includes parks, trails, open space, drainage facilities, a private active-adult clubhouse, roadways and public utilities. Buildout is anticipated to occur over approximately 15 to 20 years. Approval of the current actions would establish the legislative, contractual and environmental framework for the Project. It would not approve a subdivision map, grading plan, improvement plan or building permit.

The Planning Commission held a special public hearing on August 4, 2026. After receiving staff and applicant presentations and extensive public testimony, the Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial. The City Council is the final City decisionmaking body and may accept, modify or reject the Commission’s recommendation.

Stanislaus LAFCo would remain the final decision-making body for the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The RWSP is a long-range mixed-use plan intended to guide development over approximately 15 to 20 years. It provides conventional and age-restricted residential

Page 58 of 730 ends

Page 3 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026
neighborhoods, mixed-use commercial areas, a community core, a private active-adult clubhouse, parks, trails, open space, drainage facilities, roadways and public utilities.

The Final EIR evaluates the environmental effects associated with a maximum of 2,682 dwelling units within the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area. This is the maximum residential development analyzed under CEQA for the current Project. Accordingly, the RWSP and related approval documents limit total residential development to no more than 2,682 dwelling units. This includes up to 2,432 units within the 18 residential villages, consisting of 1,550 Low Density Residential units, 702 Medium Density Residential units and 180 High Density Residential units. Up to 250 additional dwelling units may be developed within the Mixed-Use areas, subject to the overall 2,682-unit limit.

Land Use Acres Specific Plan Component
Residential villages 555.90 Up to 2,432 units, including 1,550 LDR, 702 MDR and 180 HDR units Mixed Use 67.71 Commercial, office, service, retail, clubhouse and residential options, subject to the cumulative Project cap
Park 43.34 Public park and recreation uses
Bluff, ditch, river park and
dual-use basin
202.65 Buffers, greenways, open space, trails and drainage functions Reserve 64.21 Agricultural or reserve use pending any future approvals Rights-of-way 63.37 Roadway and circulation facilities
Total 997.18 2,432 to 2,682 dwelling units and 341,000 to 836,000 square feet of nonresidential development
The RWSP allows units to be transferred among villages and parcels to provide flexibility as individual development plans are prepared. Transfers do not create additional residential development capacity. Each transfer must remain within the applicable density ranges, satisfy the criteria established by the RWSP and may not cause total development within the Specific Plan Area to exceed 2,682 dwelling units. A transfer affecting more than 30 percent of the unit allocation assigned to a transferring or receiving parcel requires Planning Commission review.

The Final Specific Plan and Final EIR also identify a nonresidential Mixed-Use program ranging from approximately 341,000 to 836,000 square feet. The ultimate combination of residential and nonresidential uses within the Mixed-Use areas may vary, provided development remains within the approved land-use program and the development assumptions evaluated in the Final EIR.

Any future proposal to exceed the 2,682-unit residential limit or the maximum nonresidential development evaluated in the Final EIR would require City consideration of the necessary land-use amendments and evaluation under CEQA to determine whether additional environmental review is required.

REQUESTED ACTIONS AND FUTRUE APPROVALS
The Council is being asked to decide whether to take the following actions:

Page 59 of 730 ends

Page 4 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026

1. Certify the Final EIR and adopt the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”).

2. Approve the General Plan Amendment.

3. Adopt the River Walk Specific Plan.

4. Prezone the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area to the River Walk Specific Plan zoning designation.

5. Approve the Development Agreement.

6. Authorize submission of the Sphere of Influence amendment, Municipal Services Review update, plan for services and annexation applications to Stanislaus LAFCo.

The Council is not being asked to approve a tentative subdivision map, parcel map, final map, grading permit, improvement plan or building permit. Future development phases would require a comprehensive infrastructure phasing plan, utility-capacity verification, subdivision maps, improvement plans, financing districts, architecture and site plan review and permits from the City and other outside agencies. Approval by the Council would not guarantee that all units could be constructed immediately. Each phase must satisfy the applicable water, wastewater, roadway, drainage and public-service requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City is considered the lead agency under CEQA and determined initially that the scope and scale of the project would require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to study the potential impacts. The Notice of Preparation of an EIR was circulated beginning June 4, 2021 and a scoping meeting was held June 17, 2021. The City received 29 comments during the scoping process. The Draft EIR (see Attachment 2) was released January 31, 2024. The public review period was extended through May 16, 2024, providing 106 days for review. The City received 11 agency comment letters and 69 citizen comment letters on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR (see Attachment 3) is dated June 2026 and was released July 1, 2026. It includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses, revisions, errata and the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

Significant and Unavoidable Effects
The proposed CEQA findings identify the following Project-level or cumulative effects as significant and unavoidable after feasible mitigation. Approval would require the Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that identified economic, social or other benefits outweigh these remaining effects.

1. Aesthetics and regional visual character.

2. Conversion of approximately 854.29 acres of Important Farmland, including approximately 661.33 acres of Prime Farmland, 165.80 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance and 27.16 acres of Unique Farmland.

3. Greenhouse gas emissions and cumulative climate-change effects.

4. Construction noise, traffic noise, shooting-range noise and cumulative noise exposure.

Page 60 of 730 ends

Page 5 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026

5. Physical effects associated with park and recreational facilities and agricultural conversion.

6. Multimodal circulation policies, vehicle miles traveled, transportation safety and cumulative VMT effects.

7. Construction or expansion of wastewater, water and stormwater facilities and cumulative utility effects.

Other potentially significant effects would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through mitigation addressing agricultural compatibility, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology, hazards, hydrology, vibration and utility capacity.

Agricultural mitigation requires permanent conservation at a 1:1 ratio or payment of a qualifying in-lieu fee. The Final EIR concludes that this mitigation would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable conversion of Important Farmland.

Alternatives
The Final EIR evaluates the No Project/No Build, Increased Density, Lower Density and No Reserve alternatives. The No Project alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Because the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, CEQA also requires identification of an environmentally superior development alternative. The Final EIR identifies the Lower Density alternative for that purpose. The proposed CEQA findings (see Attachment 5) explain why the alternatives would not achieve the Project objectives to the same degree or are otherwise considered infeasible. The Council must independently consider those conclusions before approving the Project.

Final EIR Revisions and Recirculation
Following release of the Final EIR, an errata was prepared to clarify Mitigation Measure

3.4-6. As revised, the measure requires compensatory preservation of Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat at a 1:1 ratio for development within one mile of an active nest tree. It retains ratios of 0.75:1 for development located more than one mile but within five miles of an active nest tree and 0.5:1 for development located more than five miles but within ten miles of an active nest tree.

The revision removes an inconsistent alternative within the one-mile category and strengthens the mitigation requirement. It does not change the Project, environmental setting or significance conclusion. Staff recommends that the Council find that the revision does not result in a new significant environmental effect, substantially increase the severity of an identified effect, identify a considerably different feasible mitigation measure that the applicant has declined to implement or demonstrate that the Draft EIR was fundamentally inadequate. The revision clarifies and strengthens an existing mitigation measure and does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment.

Therefore, the revision does not constitute significant new information under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, and recirculation of the EIR is not required.

Page 61 of 730 ends

Page 6 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026

GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN AND PREZONING
The City’s 2005-2025 General Plan identifies substantial portions of the Project Area for possible long-range urban development and contemplated preparation of a specific plan for new growth areas. The proposed General Plan Amendment would refine and redistribute existing residential, mixed-use, park, open-space, drainage and Reserve designations. It would also revise planned roadway alignments to correspond with the Plan’s circulation system.

The existing General Plan designations have a theoretical residential capacity of approximately 4,702 units when calculated at maximum density on gross acreage. That figure is planning capacity, not an approved or reasonably anticipated development program. The proposed River Walk program is limited to no more than 2,682 units. The approximately 525 acres outside the Specific Plan Area and approximately 64 acres within it would remain designated Reserve. Reserve designation does not approve future development.

Government Code sections 65450 through 65457 authorize cities and counties to prepare and adopt specific plans as a method of implementation of their general plans. A specific plan provides detailed planning direction for a defined geographic area, including the distribution and intensity of land uses, open space, transportation facilities, water, wastewater, drainage and other essential infrastructure. It must also establish development standards, natural-resource conservation measures and an implementation program that may include regulations, public works projects, financing measures and other programs necessary to carry out the plan.

The River Walk Specific Plan would establish the detailed land uses, development standards, design guidelines, circulation system, utilities, parks, open space, phasing, financing concepts and administrative procedures for the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area. Once adopted, it would guide subsequent zoning, subdivision maps, public works projects and other development decisions within the Specific Plan Area.

A specific plan must describe its relationship to the General Plan and may not be adopted unless it is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment must therefore be approved before or concurrently with adoption of the River Walk Specific Plan so the documents remain internally consistent. The proposed prezoning would apply only upon completion of an annexation approved by Stanislaus LAFCo.

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, ANNEXATION AND CITY POLICY
The Project proposes to expand the City’s Sphere of Influence to include the approximately 1,522-acre Project Area and to annex the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area. A Sphere of Influence is a long-range service-planning boundary. It does not annex property, change jurisdiction or authorize development. If the Council authorizes the applications, LAFCo may approve, condition, modify or deny them after its own review of boundaries, agricultural and open-space effects, service capacity, water supply, fiscal effects and applicable LAFCo policies.

Page 62 of 730 ends

Page 7 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026
The Council packet includes the preferred annexation boundary and three alternatives.

The alternatives generally address whether Park Ridge and certain developed residential properties would be included. Before an application is submitted, the Council should identify the boundary it authorizes staff to move forward with.

The proposed resolution allows the Council to identify a preferred boundary and a separate alternative boundary that staff may pursue through a subsequent reorganization and annexation application. If the preferred boundary is not successfully completed through Stanislaus LAFCO, City staff would then be authorized to file a subsequent application for the separate alternative boundary. Final acreage, parcel lists, legal descriptions and a plan for services must conform to the selected boundary.

Council Resolution No. 2014-011
Resolution No. 2014-011 (see Attachment 13) amended the General Plan to establish criteria for new growth and annexation areas. These criteria guide Council review and are not a substitute for LAFCo’s independent standards. The principal considerations are summarized below.

Policy Consideration River Walk Application
Contiguity The Specific Plan Area is adjacent to the existing City boundary.

Specific plan size
City policy states that specific plan areas should generally be approximately 200 acres. River Walk is approximately 997 acres. The policy expressly allows smaller areas with Council approval but does not establish an absolute maximum. The scale remains a Council policy consideration.

Comprehensive planning
and fair share
One Specific Plan addresses the proposed annexation area. The applicant maintains a funding agreement for its pro rata share of entitlement costs. Other landowner obligations must be addressed through applicable funding arrangements.

Facilities and services
The Specific Plan, EIR and Development Agreement identify water, wastewater, drainage, circulation, parks, police, fire and maintenance requirements. Whether the proposed phasing and safeguards demonstrate adequate service capacity is a Council determination.

Rights-of-way, utilities,
buffers and connectivity
The Plan includes arterial and collector streets, utility corridors, agricultural interfaces, river and canal buffers and related rights-of-way. Final designs remain subject to later approvals and other agencies.

Infrastructure financing
The Development Agreement requires a comprehensive infrastructure phasing plan, developer construction obligations, impact fees and an infrastructure CFD if approved. It also requires a services and maintenance CFD or annexation to CFD 2016-01.

Progress in prior growth
areas
The policy states that the City should not consider new territory until substantial progress has been made in the prior annexation or plan area, described as approximately 50 percent built or improved beyond vacant parcels. Crossroads West includes active residential development and infrastructure improvements. The Council must determine whether that progress satisfies this policy consideration.

In reviewing the River Walk Project’s compliance with the City’s annexation policy, application of the approximate 50 percent benchmark requires closer consideration because the Crossroads West Specific Plan remains actively under construction.

Crossroads West has not reached 50 percent buildout if progress is measured only by completed residential units. However, the policy does not limit the benchmark to constructed homes. It refers more broadly to whether the prior annexation or Specific Plan area is approximately 50 percent built or improved beyond vacant parcels. The analysis

Page 63 of 730 ends

Page 8 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026
should therefore consider the entire Crossroads West Specific Plan Area, including commercial development, completed homes, approved projects and public infrastructure improvements.

Crossroads West, approved by Council in 2019, was the City’s most recent Specific Plan annexation. Approximately 80 percent of its commercial and mixed-use shopping center component has been constructed, while approximately 90 percent has received planninglevel approval and may proceed toward construction. On the residential side, 228 of the planned 1,314± homes have been constructed. Residential development was temporarily delayed by backbone infrastructure issues that have since been resolved and the required improvements are now under construction. Once the backbone infrastructure work is completed, an additional 298 homes are positioned to proceed. This represents 526 constructed or near-term homes, or approximately 40 percent of the residential program.

When the substantially developed commercial component, approved commercial projects, completed residences, active backbone improvements and residential phases positioned for construction are considered together, Crossroads West has progressed substantially beyond its former vacant condition. Based on the overall development and improvement of the Specific Plan Area, the Council could reasonably determine that the substantial-progress requirement and the policy’s approximate 50 percent benchmark have been satisfied.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The proposed Development Agreement is between the City and River Walk, LLC. It applies initially to approximately 769 gross acres controlled by the Developer within the approximately 997-acre Specific Plan Area. The agreement would vest specified development rights in exchange for infrastructure, financing, fee, maintenance and publicbenefit obligations. It preserves City review of subsequent discretionary approvals, lawful conditions, required public hearings and any additional CEQA review required by law.

DA Topic Proposed Term
Effective date Effective upon the ordinance’s effective date. The agreement becomes void if annexation is not completed within five years.

Term Twenty years. Five-year extensions may be earned after installation of at least $10 million in public infrastructure before each extension, subject to a cumulative maximum of 35 years.

Phasing A comprehensive infrastructure phasing plan must be accepted as complete before a tentative map or parcel map application is filed or processed.

Age
restrictions
Village C and Villages F through O, totaling 11 villages, must operate as qualified age-restricted housing through recorded restrictions and CC&Rs. Villages D and E are identified as age restricted in the Specific Plan but are not contractually restricted by the Development Agreement.

Infrastructure The Developer must construct identified water, wastewater, roadway, drainage, park, trail, buffer, greenway and open-space facilities, subject to City review and acceptance.

Financing and
services
The agreement allows an infrastructure CFD and requires a new services and maintenance CFD or annexation to CFD 2016-01. The City is not required to use its General Fund or bonding capacity for Project infrastructure.

Page 64 of 730 ends

Page 9 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026
DA Topic Proposed Term
Impact fees The Project is subject to the Citywide SDF schedule in effect at the first residential building permit, followed by the annual index provided by the agreement. Qualifying oversized facilities may receive Councilapproved credits or reimbursement.

Public benefit
fee
$1,750 per LDR and MDR unit and $500 per HDR unit, projected to generate approximately $4.031 million over buildout. Mixed-use and nonresidential development are not subject to this fee.

Improvement
and
Beautification
of Buffer Area
The Developer has agreed to enhance the designated buffer area along the Stanislaus River with pedestrian walkways, wayfinding elements, landscaping, and other complementary design features intended to improve connectivity and the overall appearance and function of the area. The final design and configuration of such improvements shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director.

Administration Annual compliance review. Major amendments require Council approval. Defined minor amendments and operating memoranda may be processed administratively.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES
Wastewater
The City’s wastewater treatment plant has approximately 1.8 million gallons per day of treatment capacity. Recent maximum flows have been reported at approximately 1.6 MGD. River Walk is estimated to require approximately 0.641 MGD at full buildout.

Existing unused treatment capacity is not sufficient for full buildout. The City is evaluating an expansion to approximately 2.29 MGD, but the Development Agreement does not guarantee the timing or completion of that expansion.

The planned collection system includes backbone gravity mains, three lift stations and offsite force mains. The South lift station must be operational before the first residential building permit. The reference to approximately 225 single-family residential equivalents concerns potential downstream conveyance capacity and remains subject to City verification. Development beyond that initial capacity would require the planned backbone conveyance improvements, including a force-main crossing under the Stanislaus River.

Each phase must obtain sewer allocation and demonstrate available collection and treatment capacity before construction may proceed.

Water Supply
The proposed water system includes three wells, a two-million-gallon storage tank and booster pump, pressure-regulating stations, transmission mains and related facilities.

Improvements would be installed in phases based on approved engineering and actual demand. At least one new well is anticipated for the first phase. Each phased subdivision must satisfy Government Code section 66473.7 and demonstrate an adequate water supply and required infrastructure. Existing agricultural irrigation and downstream MID service must be maintained or appropriately modified.

Transportation
The Final EIR identifies that Patterson Road would ultimately need four lanes between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road to meet the City’s operational standard. The complete improvement is not guaranteed to be funded solely through River Walk. Funding is anticipated from developer frontage improvements, traffic impact fees and other City,

Page 65 of 730 ends

Page 10 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026
County or Caltrans projects. The Development Agreement directly requires approximately 2,640 feet of Patterson Road widening, the Coffee Road entrance, the Patterson Road and Coffee Road signal and related frontage improvements. The Developer must also pay applicable fair-share fees. Later traffic studies may establish additional timing, safety, improvement and fair-share requirements. Work on State or County facilities remains subject to the responsible agency’s approval.

Parks, Open Space and Storm Drainage
The Developer would be responsible for a unified storm-drainage system that will be selfcontained within the River Walk area and not tied directly into the overall City Storm Drainage system. Temporary basins may be used when approved and must be maintained by the Developer until permanent facilities are completed and accepted. The Specific Plan includes approximately 43.34 acres of parkland, 41.01 acres of dual-use park and drainage land and 161.64 acres of river, bluff and canal buffers, greenways and open space. The Development Agreement assigns the Developer responsibility for approximately 204 acres of parks, trails, buffers, greenways and open space, including an approximately 15.5-acre community park.

Police, Fire, Maintenance and Schools
The Project would require police, fire, solid-waste and other public services as development occurs. A services and maintenance CFD or annexation to CFD 2016-01 would fund police and maintenance obligations for parks, trails, open space, landscaping, lighting and stormwater facilities. Fire service would be provided by the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District, subject to its requirements and available resources.

Eleven villages would be contractually age restricted. Other villages and potential MixedUse housing are not subject to the Development Agreement’s age restriction and may generate school-age students. The Developer must pay applicable statutory schoolfacilities fees. The school districts determine enrollment projections, facilities needs and use of those fees. Any future proposal to remove or materially change the age restrictions would require review under the recorded restrictions, Development Agreement and applicable law. It would likely require an amendment to the Development Agreement and evaluation of whether additional environmental review is needed for school, traffic and fiscal effects.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) prepared the Project’s fiscal analysis for River Walk, LLC and submitted it to the City as supplemental information during the Project review (see Attachment 12). The analysis estimates recurring annual operating impacts in 2025 dollars using the City and Fire District FY 2024-25 adopted budgets. It evaluates three development conditions: 50 percent residential development with nonresidential development delayed, 100 percent residential development with nonresidential development delayed and full residential and nonresidential buildout. The first two conditions are hypothetical test scenarios used to evaluate fiscal performance under delayed nonresidential development and do not represent the Project’s actual phasing plan.

Page 66 of 730 ends

Page 11 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026
Annual Fiscal Result 50% Residential 100% Residential Residential + Nonresidential Buildout
City General Fund revenue $937,000 $2,790,000 $4,010,000 City General Fund expenditures $1,037,000 $2,073,000 $2,229,000 City General Fund net ($100,000) $717,000 $1,781,000
Estimated CFD 2016-1 revenue $956,000 $1,913,000 $2,090,000 Fire District revenue $764,000 $1,527,000 $1,673,000
Fire District expenditures $662,000 $1,324,000 $1,463,000 Fire District net $102,000 $203,000 $210,000
The estimated City General Fund result is negative by approximately $100,000 in the 50 percent residential test and becomes positive when the analysis assumes 100 percent residential development. The Fire District analysis estimates a positive annual result in each of the three test scenarios, ranging from approximately $102,000 at 50 percent residential development to approximately $210,000 at full modeled buildout. Special assessments represent approximately 59 percent of Fire District revenue during the residential-only scenarios and approximately 58 percent at buildout.

The fiscal analysis models 2,707 dwelling units and 644,000 square feet of nonresidential development. The proposed entitlement documents cap residential development at 2,682 units and allow approximately 341,000 to 836,000 square feet of nonresidential development. The modeled commercial amount falls within that range, but neither the amount nor timing of nonresidential development is guaranteed. The buildout estimate also assumes approximately $147.7 million in annual taxable sales, including onsite retail performance and sales captured from new households and employees.

Estimated CFD 2016-1 revenue is based on FY 2024-25 maximum special-tax rates.

Those proceeds would fund eligible police, street, park, storm drainage and landscape maintenance costs.

The Development Agreement states that the City is not required to use its General Fund or bonding capacity for Project infrastructure. It requires developer payment of applicable fees and a services and maintenance CFD or annexation to CFD 2016-1. It also requires a comprehensive infrastructure phasing plan before map processing. The Council should consider the interim City General Fund deficit identified in the 50 percent residential test, together with the proposed CFD and other funding mechanisms intended to support ongoing services as development occurs.

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
The Planning Commission held a Special Public Hearing on August 4, 2026. The Commission received the staff report, Final EIR, proposed entitlements, Development Agreement, applicant and staff presentations, written comments and oral testimony (see Attachment 14). The Commission voted 4-1 to recommend denial. Commissioners Basso, Stewart and Zamora and Vice Chair Dinan voted in favor of the denial recommendation.

Chair Halterman voted against the motion.

Page 67 of 730 ends

Page 12 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026
The Commission’s adopted recommendation was based on findings that:

1. The proposed Sphere of Influence expansion and annexation would not represent orderly, efficient and fiscally prudent growth at this time.

2. The potential Project benefits did not outweigh the permanent conversion of approximately 854.29 acres of Important Farmland.

3. The Commission was not satisfied that the proposed infrastructure phasing, financing and Development Agreement provisions provided sufficient long-term protection for the City and existing residents.

4. The Commission was not persuaded that the identified benefits and overriding considerations warranted approval despite the significant and unavoidable environmental effects.

5. Because the Commission did not support the General Plan Amendment or Specific Plan, it also did not support the related prezoning, Development Agreement or LAFCo applications.

The Planning Commission recommendation is advisory. The Council must exercise its own independent judgment based on the complete administrative record.

Public Comments
The August 4 hearing included approximately 44 oral commenters, including approximately 40 in person and four by Zoom, together with six written submissions.

Based on the hearing transcript, approximately 41 speakers opposed the Project or requested postponement, two speakers clearly supported it and one speaker expressed mixed views. These are staff estimates based on the available hearing record and are provided for context.

Public concerns were not limited to one environmental topic. Testimony addressed concerns with infrastructure, environmental effects, fiscal exposure, timing in relation to the November Measure M vote, housing affordability, farmland, family history and Riverbank’s identity. The following estimates reflect overlapping comments, so one speaker may be counted under more than one theme:

Theme Estimated Oral
Commenters Summary
Farmland and agricultural
preservation
18–20 Permanent loss of Important Farmland, food production, farm employment and agricultural heritage
Delay action until Measure M
vote
18–20 Requests to postpone action until Riverbank voters participate in the November election
Infrastructure and wastewater
capacity
12–15 Concern that treatment, conveyance and other infrastructure are not currently available or adequately funded
Community character and
excessive growth
10–13 Fear that Riverbank will become like larger nearby communities Water supply and
groundwater recharge
10–12 Effects of new wells, groundwater decline and loss of agricultural recharge

Page 68 of 730 ends

Page 13 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026
Theme Estimated Oral
Commenters Summary
Traffic and roadway capacity 9–12 Congestion on Patterson, McHenry, Coffee and Oakdale Roads and adequacy of future improvements
Fiscal effects and taxpayer
exposure
7–10 Concern that existing residents will pay higher utility rates, taxes or service costs
Housing affordability and local
benefit
7–9 Concern that homes will be high-end and unavailable to existing Riverbank residents
Flood risk 7–9 Historical flooding, floodplain development, levee status and climaterelated risk Wildlife and environmental
resources
6–8 Riparian habitat, wildlife corridors, Swainson’s hawk, runoff, air quality and greenhouse gases
Schools 4–5 Student generation from unrestricted units and existing school capacity Police, fire and emergency
response
4–6 Existing staffing, response times and whether new funding will cover added demand

CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The Final EIR provides the Council with information regarding the Project’s environmental effects, mitigation measures and alternatives. It does not direct the Council to approve or deny the Project. In considering the requested approvals, the Council should evaluate the following policy factors:

1. The extent to which the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation would provide orderly, contiguous growth and an efficient extension of City services, including consistency with Resolution No. 2014-011 and progress within previously annexed growth areas.

2. The public benefits associated with the proposed housing supply, active-adult component, range of residential products, mixed-use areas, parks, trails and community amenities.

3. The permanent conversion of approximately 854.29 acres of Important Farmland, including the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation and consistency with applicable LAFCo agricultural-preservation policies.

4. The Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental effects and whether the identified housing, economic, infrastructure and community benefits are sufficient to support a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

5. The adequacy and timing of the proposed water, wastewater, transportation, drainage and public-service improvements throughout the anticipated 15- to 20- year buildout.

6. The Project’s fiscal performance during interim development phases and at buildout, including the assumptions regarding delayed nonresidential development, service CFD revenues and Fire District special assessments.

7. The balance established by the Development Agreement between vested development rights and the Developer’s infrastructure, financing, fee, maintenance and public-benefit obligations.

8. The internal consistency of the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, prezoning, Development Agreement, Sphere of Influence request and annexation

Page 69 of 730 ends

Page 14 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026
proposal, including the limitation of residential development to no more than 2,682 dwelling units and the nonresidential development evaluated in the Final EIR.

Based on the considerations outlined above, along with the Planning Commission’s August 4th recommendation and the complete public and agency record, the Council will determine whether to approve or deny the requested actions.

PUBLIC NOTICE
On August 19, 2026, notice of the September 22, 2026 City Council public hearing was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the Project Area and interested parties in accordance with applicable noticing requirements. The staff report, environmental documents and supporting materials was also made available through the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall North/South and on the City’s website before the hearing.

STRATEGIC PLAN
The Project relates to the 2025–2030 Strategic Plan goals addressing attainable housing, economic development, infrastructure, public safety, fiscal sustainability and community quality of life. The proposed residential and mixed-use development could expand housing options, employment, services and the tax base. The Project would also create long-term infrastructure and service obligations and would permanently convert agricultural land. Whether the Project advances the Strategic Plan as a whole is a policy determination to be made by the Council.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Applicant has fully funded preparation of the EIR and the City’s processing of the Project application through a deposit account. Planning, engineering, legal and consultant review costs have been charged against this account. As a result, preparation of the environmental documents and processing of the requested entitlements have not required General Fund support. Future plan review, permit processing and inspection costs would also be funded through applicable City fees and deposits.

If the Project is approved, the Developer would be responsible for the identified backbone infrastructure, applicable impact and capacity fees, financing district formation costs and the public benefit fee required by the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement also provides that the City is not required to use its General Fund or bonding capacity to finance Project infrastructure.

ATTACHMENTS (weblinks in blue)

1. Final River Walk Specific Plan, dated May 15, 2025

2. Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I and Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume II, dated January 31, 2024

Page 70 of 730 ends

Page 15 of 15 ends

Item 9.1- CC/LRA 09/22/2026

3. Final Environmental Impact Report Volume I and Final Environmental Impact Report Volume II, dated June 2026

4. City Council Resolution Certifying the Final EIR and Adopting the CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and MMRP

5. CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and MMRP

6. City Council Resolution Approving the General Plan Amendment and Related Exhibits

7. City Council Resolution Adopting the River Walk Specific Plan

8. Ordinance Prezoning the Specific Plan Area

9. City Council Resolution Authorizing the Sphere of Influence, Municipal Services Review and Annexation Applications, Including Boundary Alternatives

10.Ordinance Approving the River Walk Development Agreement and Agreement Exhibits

11.City Council Resolution Denying the River Walk Project

12.Fiscal Impact Analysis, dated November 15, 2025

13.City Council Resolution No. 2014-011 (Annexation Policies)

14.August 4, 2026 Planning Commission Staff Report, Adopted Denial Resolution and Minutes

Page 71 of 730 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

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

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

Page 72 of 730 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, VOLUME I AND DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, VOLUME II, DATED JANUARY 31, 2024 Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume I
AVAILABLE AT:
https://www.riverbank.org/DocumentCenter/View/3977/River-Walk-SP_Public-DEIRVol-1-1-31-24-final Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume II
AVAILABLE AT:
https://www.riverbank.org/DocumentCenter/View/3989/River-Walk-SP_Public-DEIRVol-2-Appendices--1-31-24 HARD COPIES AVAILABLE AT:

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

Page 73 of 730 ends

ATTACHMENT 3

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, VOLUME I AND FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, VOLUME II, DATED JUNE 2026, WITH

ADDITIONAL ERRATA/REVISIONS
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume I
AVAILABLE AT:
https://www.riverbank.org/DocumentCenter/View/5552
Final Environmental Impact Report, Volume II
AVAILABLE AT:
https://www.riverbank.org/DocumentCenter/View/5553
HARD COPIES AVAILABLE AT:

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

Page 74 of 730 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

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

CITY OF RIVERBANK
RESOLUTION NO. 2026- __

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

CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2021060098), ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS OF

FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING

THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (DEPARTMENT FILE NO. 20-0026) WHEREAS, the River Walk Specific Plan Project (Department File No. 20-0026) encompasses an overall Project Area of approximately 1,522 acres in unincorporated Stanislaus County adjacent to the City of Riverbank, including an approximately 997- acre Specific Plan Area proposed for annexation and development; and WHEREAS, the Project includes the River Walk Specific Plan, a General Plan Amendment, pre-zoning, an amendment to the City's Sphere of Influence, an updated Municipal Services Review, annexation of the Specific Plan Area, a Development Agreement and related approvals necessary to implement the Project (collectively, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR evaluates a maximum of 2,682 dwelling units and approximately 341,000 to 836,000 square feet of nonresidential development within the Specific Plan Area, together with parks, trails, open space, drainage facilities, roadways, public utilities and related improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Riverbank is the lead agency for environmental review of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation beginning June 4, 2021, and held a public scoping meeting on June 17, 2021, to receive comments concerning the scope of the environmental analysis; and
WHEREAS, the City published a Notice of Availability and released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) for public review on January 31, 2024, and extended the public review period through May 16, 2024, providing a total public review period of 106 days; and
WHEREAS, the City received 11 comment letters from public agencies and 69 comment letters from members of the public during the Draft EIR review period and prepared written responses to the environmental issues raised in those comments; and

Page 75 of 730 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___
WHEREAS, the City prepared and released the Final Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098, on July 1, 2026 (“Final EIR”); and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, comments and responses to comments, revisions and errata, technical appendices, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and other information added by the City collectively constitute the Environmental Impact Report for the Project (“EIR”), incorporated herein by this reference as though full set forth herein, is on file with the City Clerk, and is available on the City website; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identifies significant environmental effects that can be avoided or substantially lessened through mitigation and also identifies significant and unavoidable effects that would remain after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires the City Council, before approving the Project, to certify the Final EIR, make written findings concerning the Project's significant environmental effects and alternatives, adopt a statement of overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable effects and adopt a program to monitor implementation of mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed special public hearing to consider the EIR and the proposed Project, received the staff report, staff and applicant presentations, public testimony and all other evidence submitted into the record, and voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the Project; and WHEREAS, following release of the Final EIR and the Planning Commission meeting, an errata was prepared to clarify Mitigation Measure 3.4-6. As revised and described further therein, the measure requires compensatory preservation of Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat at a 1:1 ratio for development within one mile of an active nest tree. The revised mitigation measure does not change the Project, environmental setting, or significance conclusion. The revision further does not result in a new significant environmental effect, substantially increase the severity of an identified effect, identify a considerably different feasible mitigation measure, demonstrate that the Draft EIR was fundamentally inadequate, or deprived meaningful public review and comment. The revision clarifies and strengthens an existing mitigation measure and does not constitute significant new information which would otherwise require recirculation of the EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and WHEREAS, notice of the September 22, 2026 City Council public hearing was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall, and mailed on August 19, 2026 to property owners within 500 feet of the Project Area and to interested parties in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, received and considered the staff report, the EIR, the proposed CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the proposed Mitigation Monitoring

Page 76 of 730 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

CC/LRA – 09/22/2026
CC Resolution No. 2026-___
and Reporting Program, the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff and applicant presentations, public and agency testimony, and all other evidence in the administrative record; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the EIR and the entire administrative record before taking action on the Project.

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

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

2. The City Council certifies the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15090 and finds that:
a. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR before approving the Project; and
c. The Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis.

3. The City Council adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the River Walk Specific Plan Project, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated into this Resolution by reference. The findings address the Project's significant and potentially significant environmental effects, the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, the responsibility of other public agencies, and the feasibility of mitigation measures and Project alternatives.

4. The City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the Project and that certain significant and unavoidable environmental effects will remain after implementation of those measures.

5. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations included in Exhibit A and finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh and render acceptable the significant and unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR.

6. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B and incorporated into this Resolution by reference. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure that the mitigation measures adopted for the Project are implemented and enforced during Project implementation by the City, affected landowners, successors in interest and other parties identified in the program.

Page 77 of 730 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

7. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are made fully enforceable through the Project approvals, conditions of approval, Development Agreement, subsequent maps and permits, or other legally enforceable measures, as applicable.

8. The City Council finds that the responses to comments and other changes or clarifications incorporated into the Final EIR do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5.

9. The City Clerk is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. The documents and materials constituting the record are available for review at the City of Riverbank Community Development Department, Planning Division, 6617 Third Street, Riverbank, California 95367. Certain materials are also available through the City's River Walk Project webpage.

10.Certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program do not, standing alone, approve the Project. The Project's requested land-use approvals are considered by the City Council through separate actions.

11.If the City Council approves the Project through its separate actions, the City Clerk or designee is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the Stanislaus County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21152 and applicable CEQA requirements.

12.The City Manager, Community Development Director, City Clerk and their designees are authorized to make non-substantive clerical corrections to this Resolution and its exhibits that do not alter the City Council's action, the environmental analysis or the conclusions of the EIR, subject to review by the City Attorney.

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

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

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

AYES:

NAYS:

Page 78 of 730 ends

Page 5 of 4 ends

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

ABSTAIN:

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

Exhibit A – CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Page 79 of 730 ends

EXHIBIT A

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098
The document is attached separately and incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

Page 80 of 730 ends

EXHIBIT B

MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM

RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2021060098
The document is attached separately and incorporated into this Resolution by reference.

Page 81 of 730 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT / STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE

RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH: 2021060098)
SEPTEMBER 2026
Prepared for:

City of Riverbank, Development Services Department
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
(209) 863-7128
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818
D e N o v o P l a n n i n g G r o u p
A L a n d U s e P l a n n i n g , D e s i g n , a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l F i r m

Page 82 of 730 ends

Page 83 of 730 ends

FINDINGS OF FACT / STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE

RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN
(SCH: 2021060098)
SEPTEMBER 2026
Prepared for:

City of Riverbank, Development Services Department
6707 3rd Street
Riverbank, CA 95367
(209) 863-7128
Prepared by:

De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 580-9818

Page 84 of 730 ends

Page 85 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINDINGS FOR THE River Walk Specific Plan ......................................................................................2 I. Introduction............................................................................................................................2 II. General Findings and Overview..............................................................................................3 III. Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts....................................................14 A. Aesthetics.........................................................................................................................14 B. Agricultural Resources......................................................................................................16 C. Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy .............................................................19 D. Noise.................................................................................................................................24 E. Public Services and Recreation.........................................................................................31 F. Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................................34 G. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................41 IV. Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts Which Are Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level .............................................................................................................................48 A. Agricultural Resources......................................................................................................48 B. Air Quality.........................................................................................................................50 C. Biological Resources.........................................................................................................54 D. Cultural and Tribal Resources...........................................................................................61 E. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................64 F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................65 G. Hydrology and Water Quality...........................................................................................68 H. Noise.................................................................................................................................69 I. Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................................70 V. Findings Regarding Those Impacts Which are Less Than Significant or Less Than Cumulatively Considerable ..................................................................................................................................71 VI. Project Alternatives ..............................................................................................................72 A. Identification of Project Objectives..................................................................................72 B. Alternatives Analysis in EIR...............................................................................................74 VII. Statements of Overriding Considerations........................................................................86

Page 86 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
2 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan

FINDINGS FOR THE

RIVER WALK SPECIFIC PLAN

REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Public Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)
I. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code (PRC), § 21000 et seq.) requires the City Council of the City of Riverbank (City Council), as the CEQA lead agency’s decisionmaking body, to: 1) make written findings when it approves a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) was certified, and 2) identify overriding considerations for any significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR. (PRC, § 21081.) This document explains the City Council’s findings regarding the significant and potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR prepared for the River Walk Specific Plan (Project or RWSP) and the City Council’s ultimate determinations of the feasibility of the Project alternatives considered in the EIR. The statement of overriding considerations in Section VII, below, identifies the economic, social, technical, and other benefits of the Project that the City Council has determined override the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that would result from the Project and therefore make them acceptable considering those benefits.

As required under CEQA, the Final EIR describes the Project, significant environmental impacts of the Project, and potentially feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would substantially lessen or avoid those impacts. The information and conclusions contained in the Final EIR reflect the City’s independent judgment.

The Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, comments, responses to comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR) for the Project, examined the proposed Project and four alternatives to the Project including: (1) No Project (No Build) Alternative; (2) Increased Density Alternative; (3) Lower Density Alternative; and (4) No Reserve Alternative.

The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are presented for adoption by the City Council, as the City’s findings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code Regs., title 14, § 15000 et seq.) relating to the Project. The Findings provide the written analysis, substantial evidence, and conclusions of the City Council regarding the Project’s significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the Project, as well as the overriding considerations that, in the City Council’s view, justify approval of the Project, despite its significant unavoidable environmental effects.

Page 87 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 3
II. GENERAL FINDINGS AND OVERVIEW
Project Overview
The overall Project Area includes several distinct planning boundaries defined below. The following terms are used throughout this EIR to describe planning area boundaries within the Project Area:
• Sphere of Influence (SOI) Expansion Area – includes the area covered by the proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment and encompasses the entire Project Area, including the Reserve land.
• Specific Plan Area - includes all lands identified and included within the River Walk Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Area is proposed to be annexed into the City of Riverbank as part of the proposed Project. The Specific Plan Area is a portion of the SOI Expansion Area. • Berghill Boundary – includes areas within the Specific Plan Area that are controlled by the project applicant.
• Project area - includes the SOI expansion area, including the Specific Plan and Berghill Boundary. The Project Area has the same boundary as the SOI Expansion Area.

The current uses in the Project Area are predominantly agricultural operations, including almond and walnut orchards in the eastern/southeastern portion of the Project Area and cherry orchards and agricultural land in the western/central portion of the Project Area. The land in the north/northwestern portion of the Project Area contains agricultural land and various trees including Eucalyptus and Willow trees. In the Specific Plan Area, there are 22 parcels with a total of 17 residential buildings. Outside of the Specific Plan Area but within the Project Area, there are 39 parcels with a total of 22 residential buildings. Many of the residential and rural agricultural residences have accessory structures on-site, including storage buildings, shop buildings, and barn structures. Additionally, one horse ranch exists within the Project Area. The Project Area also includes a commercial nursery business and truck storage area. Additionally, an approximately 150- acre solar farm and the Modesto Rifle Club exist in the southwest portion of the Project Area directly northeast of the intersection of Patterson Road and McHenry Avenue; and the Morris Nursery exists in the southeastern corner of the Project Area directly northwest of the intersection of Patterson Road and Rock Creek Road.

The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) provides the water supply for the existing agricultural uses and maintains two easements in the Project Area. An MID main canal with a crossing is located approximately 950 feet to the west and approximately 0.45 miles to the east of the intersection of Patterson Road and Coffee Road in the southern portion of the Project Area. The canal enters the southwest portion of the Project Area and runs to the northeast, eventually curving to exit the Project Area in the southeast. A series of private irrigation ditches and pipes distribute the MID water from the on-site canals throughout the Project Area for agricultural use.

The proposed project includes the expansion of the City of Riverbank Sphere of Influence (SOI), and approval and subsequent implementation of the Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing

Page 88 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
4 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California. The Sphere of Influence expansion covers approximately 1,522 acres. The Specific Plan covers approximately 997 acres of the Sphere of Influence expansion area, and includes an annexation into the Riverbank City limits, extension of infrastructure to the annexed area to serve development, and the subsequent development of the annexed area for the following land uses: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, Mixed-Use, and Parks/Recreation, including all infrastructure and utilities necessary to service the development.

The Specific Plan is a Mixed-Use development project that provides for a range of residential housing densities, neighborhood-scale retail, commercial and health/medical services, private clubhouse, public recreation, a pedestrian/bicycle trail system, and extensive open space and landscaping. The Specific Plan provides an opportunity for an active adult community on a portion of the Specific Plan Area, with the remaining portion designed for all ages.

The underlying purpose of the proposed Project is the expansion of the City of Riverbank Sphere of Influence, and approval and subsequent implementation of the Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County and the State of California.

The underlying project purpose of providing housing for the county and state is in part a response to, and is driven by, strong policy direction from the Legislature, which has declared that “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state's environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5[a][2][A].) “California housing has become the most expensive in the nation. The excessive cost of the state's housing supply is partially caused by activities and policies of many local governments that limit the approval of housing, increase the cost of land for housing, and require that high fees and exactions be paid by producers of housing.” (Id., Section 65589.5[a][1][B].) “Among the consequences of those actions are discrimination against low-income and minority households, lack of housing to support employment growth, imbalance in jobs and housing, reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.” (Id., Section 65589.5[a][1][C].) “An additional consequence of the state's cumulative housing shortage is a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the displacement and redirection of populations to states with greater housing opportunities, particularly workingand middle-class households. California's cumulative housing shortfall therefore has not only national but international environmental consequences.” (Id., Section 65589.5[a][2][I].) The Project is intended to directly address these legislative concerns.

Consistent with the above-described underlying purpose and state policy considerations, the primary objectives of the Specific Plan are to establish the framework for a new mixed-use community, allowing residents to live in a community where they can enjoy a high quality of life with abundant opportunities for outdoor recreation and social activities. The following goals have been established as a framework to achieving the primary objectives for the Specific Plan and for purposes

Page 89 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 5
of satisfying the requirement, in CEQA Guidelines section 15124[b], to identify a “statement of objectives” for the Project:
• Goal 1: Develop a mix of residential housing products to accommodate a variety of desires in the market.
• Goal 2: Prioritize the age-restricted development as a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities allowing residents to age-in-place by remaining in the River Walk community as their housing needs may change.
• Goal 3: Develop a community core area that serves as a central community gathering place for social interaction, recreation, retail, services, and living space. • Goal 4: Promote health and wellness through extensive pedestrian and bicycle trails, outdoor recreation areas, and opportunities for social interaction. • Goal 5: Respect the natural resources (i.e., Stanislaus River), terrain, and character of land by designing a residential community that highlights the scenic views of the Plan Area. • Goal 6: Achieve a safe and efficient circulation system for all users and modes of transportation.
• Goal 7: Highlight village identity while promoting community amenities.

Refer to Chapter 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR (with Errata changes presented in the Final EIR) for a more complete description of the proposed Project.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Public Circulation of Notice of Preparation: The City of Riverbank circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project beginning on June 4, 2021, to State Clearinghouse, State Responsible Agencies, State Trustee Agencies, Other Public Agencies, and Organizations and Interested Persons. A public scoping meeting was held on June 17, 2021, to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft EIR.

The IS, NOP, and comments received on the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A of the Draft EIR (with Errata changes presented in the Final EIR). The commenters are provided below.

1. Native American Heritage Commission – Sacramento (6-09-21)

2. Central Valley Flood Protection Board – Sacramento (6-14-21)

3. Department of Toxic Substances Control – Sacramento (6-15-21)

4. Stanislaus County Resident (6-17-21)

5. California Department of Conservation – Sacramento (6-21-21)

6. Modesto Resident (6-21-21)

7. Modesto Resident (6-29-21)

8. Soluri Meserve, A Law Corporation – Sacramento (6-29-21)

9. Stanislaus LAFCo – Modesto (6-29-21)

10. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – Modesto (6-30-21)

Page 90 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
6 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan

11. Soluri Meserve, A Law Corporation – Sacramento (7-1-21)

12. City of Modesto (7-2-21)

13. Farmland Working Group – Turlock (7-4-21)

14. Not identified (7-4-21)

15. Riverbank Resident (7-4-21)

16. Stanislaus County (7-5-21)

17. Modesto Resident (7-5-21)

18. Modesto Resident (7-5-21)

19. Modesto Resident (7-5-21)

20. Riverbank Resident (7-5-21)

21. Not identified (7-6-21)

22. Not identified (7-6-21)

23. California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Fresno (7-6-21)

24. Central Valley Concerned Citizens - Escalon (7-6-21)

25. Central Valley RWQCB – Rancho Cordova (7-6-21)

26. Modesto Resident (7-6-21)

27. Modesto Resident (7-6-21)

28. Modesto Resident (7-6-21)

29. Not identified (7-6-21)
Notice of Availability of Draft EIR and Draft EIR: The City published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on January 31, 2024, inviting comment from the public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2021060098) and the County Clerk and was published in a local newspaper pursuant to the public noticing requirements under CEQA. The City extended the public review period to May 16, 2024, to accommodate a variety of community requests, including a Spanish translation, dissemination of additional technical information, and general requests for more time to review the document. The Draft EIR was available for public review and comment from January 31, 2024, through May 16, 2024, for a total of 106 days. (Compare Public Resources Code § 21091(a) [normal public review period for EIR is 45 days].)
The Draft EIR contains a description of the Project, description of the environmental setting, identification of Project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of potentially feasible Project alternatives, identification of significant irreversible environmental changes, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR identifies issues determined to have no impacts or less-than-significant impacts and provides detailed analysis of potentially significant and significant impacts. Comments received in response to the NOP were considered in preparing the analysis in the Draft EIR.

Final EIR: The City of Riverbank received 11 comment letters from public agencies, and 69 comment letters from citizens on the Draft EIR during the public review period. A Final EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 and released to the public in June 2026, prior to a duly noticed Planning Commission hearing held on August 4, 2026.

Page 91 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 7
Planning Commission Hearing: The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and the Final EIR on August 4, 2026, at the Riverbank Community Center. The hearing drew approximately 200 members of the public and included nearly four hours of public testimony.

Members of the public spoke both in opposition to and in support of the Project. Concerns raised in testimony included the conversion of productive agricultural land, wastewater treatment and containment capacity, groundwater and well water supply, water and sewer rate impacts, traffic congestion, and access to emergency services. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend that the City Council deny the Project, with Commissioners Basso, Dinan, Stewart, and Zamora voting in favor of the recommendation to deny and Chair Halterman voting against it.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation is advisory. Under Government Code section 65855, the Planning Commission’s recommendation is transmitted to the City Council in the form of a written recommendation stating the reasons for the recommendation and the relationship of the proposed actions to the applicable general and specific plans, and under Government Code section 65857 the City Council may approve, modify, or disapprove that recommendation. Under CEQA, the City Council, as the decision-making body that will act on the Project, is the body that must certify the Final EIR and make the findings required by Public Resources Code section 21081; those functions may not be delegated to an advisory body. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15025, subd. (b), 15090, subd. (a).) The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR together with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the record of the August 4, 2026 hearing, the staff reports, and the written and oral testimony received, and these Findings reflect the City Council’s own independent judgment and analysis. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.1, subd. (c)(3); CEQA Guidelines, § 15090, subd. (a)(3).)
The City Council has considered the environmental concerns raised at the Planning Commission hearing and reflected in the Planning Commission’s recommendation. To the extent those concerns relate to effects on the physical environment, they are analyzed in the Final EIR and addressed in these Findings: conversion of agricultural land under Impacts 3.2-1 through 3.2-3 and Cumulative Impact 4.4; wastewater treatment and collection capacity under Impacts 3.14-1 and 3.14-2 and Cumulative Impact 4.21; water supply, including groundwater, under Impacts 3.14-3 and 3.14-4 and Cumulative Impact 4.22; stormwater and drainage under Impact 3.14-5 and Cumulative Impact 4.23; traffic and circulation under Impacts 3.13-1 through 3.13-4 and Cumulative Impact 4.19; and fire, police, and emergency service demand under Impacts 3.12-1 through 3.12-3 and Cumulative Impact

4.18. Where the Final EIR concludes that an effect would remain significant after mitigation, the City Council has so found in Section III of these Findings rather than treating the concern as resolved, and has adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII with respect to each such effect. The City Council further notes that concerns regarding water and sewer rates, and other economic or social consequences of the Project, are not by themselves effects on the physical environment within the meaning of CEQA, although the City Council has considered them in exercising its legislative discretion. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21068; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064, subd. (e), 15131, subd. (a).)

Page 92 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
8 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
City Council Hearing: The City Council has scheduled a duly noticed public hearing on the Project for September 22, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. at the Riverbank Community Center, 3600 Santa Fe Street, Riverbank, California. At that hearing the City Council will receive the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the staff report, the Final EIR, and public testimony, and will consider whether to certify the Final EIR, adopt these Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and act on the Project.

The comments received after the release of the Draft EIR did not provide evidence of any “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered this question and finds, based on the Final EIR and the record of proceedings [record citation to be inserted], that no new significant environmental effect, no substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect, and no considerably different feasible alternative or mitigation measure that the Project proponents decline to adopt has been identified since the Draft EIR was circulated, and that the Draft EIR was not so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5, subds. (a), (b).) The City Council further finds, having considered the interval between circulation of the Draft EIR and certification of the Final EIR, that the environmental setting described in the Draft EIR and the analysis based on it remain adequate, and that changed circumstances during that interval have not deprived the public or the City Council of the information CEQA requires.

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:
• The NOP, comments received on the NOP, and all other public notices issued by the City in relation to the Project (e.g., NOA).
• The Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comment letters, and technical materials cited in the documents.
• All non-draft and/or non-confidential reports and memoranda prepared by the City and consultants in relation to the EIR.
• Minutes and/or transcripts of the discussions regarding the Project and/or Project components at public hearings held by the City.
• Staff reports associated with Planning Commission and City Council meetings on the Project. • The Planning Commission’s August 4, 2026 agenda, staff report, presentation materials, minutes, resolution, and written recommendation, and all written and oral testimony received at that hearing.
• All other materials, in addition to those described above, must be included in a CEQA record of proceedings as set forth in PRC § 21167.6(e).

The City Clerk is the custodian of the administrative record. The documents and materials that constitute the administrative record are available for review at the City of Riverbank Planning Division, 6617 3rd St, Riverbank, CA 95367. Some of these materials may also be viewed online at:

Page 93 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 9
https://www.riverbank.org/609/River-Walk-Project
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Further, the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Id.) Section 21002 also provides that “in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate and principles established by the Legislature in PRC § 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement in PRC Section 21081 that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an EIR is required. This same requirement is also set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Subdivision (a) of the latter provides the following direction regarding findings:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(See also PRC, § 21081, subd. (a)(1)-(3).)
As defined by CEQA, “feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. (PRC, § 21061.1; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f)(1) [determining the feasibility of alternatives] and § 15364.)
Regarding project alternatives, “[t]he issue of feasibility arises at two different junctures: (1) in the assessment of alternatives in the EIR and (2) during the agency’s later consideration of whether to

Page 94 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
10 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
approve the project.” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 981 (CNPS), citing Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 (Mira Mar).) “But ‘differing factors come into play at each stage.’” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981.) “For the first phase—inclusion in the EIR—the standard is whether the alternative is potentially feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489 [italics original]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) “By contrast, at the second phase—the final decision on project approval—the decision-making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981 [italics original], citing CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “At that juncture, the decisionmakers may reject as infeasible alternatives that were identified in the EIR as potentially feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 981, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.) “While it is up to the EIR preparer to identify alternatives as potentially feasible, the decision making body ‘may or may not reject those alternatives as being infeasible’ when it comes to project approval.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, quoting Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1504 (Sierra Club.) “Rejection by the decision makers does not undermine the validity of the EIR’s alternatives analysis.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489.) “Like mitigation measures, potentially feasible alternatives ‘are suggestions which may or may not be adopted by the decisionmakers.’” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, quoting No Slo Transit, Inc. v. City of Long Beach (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 241, 256.)
“When it comes time to decide on project approval, the public agency’s decision making body evaluates whether the alternatives are actually feasible.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing Mira Mar, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th at p. 489, and CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3) [original italics].) “While staff may draft the necessary findings, the decision making body is responsible for the ultimate determination of feasibility, which cannot be delegated.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 999, citing CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15025, subd. (b)(2), § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) “At this final stage of project approval, the agency considers whether ‘[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations ... make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.’” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1000, citing Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a)(3).) “Broader considerations of policy thus come into play when the decision-making body is considering actual feasibility than when the EIR preparer is assessing potential feasibility of the alternatives.” (CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1000.) Thus, “it does not subvert the CEQA environmental review process for the ultimate decision maker to reject as infeasible alternatives identified in the EIR.” (Ibid.) At the decision-making stage, “‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego, (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001; San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego, (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 17.) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project or does so well as a proposed project does. (See Sierra Club, supra, 121 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1506-1509 [upholding CEQA

Page 95 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 11
findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives]; CNPS, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1001 [“an alternative ‘may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record’”], quoting Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act [Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2009], § 17.30, p. 825); Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315 [court upholds lead agency decision not to select the “reduced project size alternative” because “it would not ‘entirely fulfill’ the project objective of developing a project site with a regional shopping center, [and] it would be ‘substantially less effective’ than the proposed project in fulfilling unmet retail demands, enhancing the city's fiscal resources through sales and property taxes, creating new jobs, or reversing retail sales leakage”]; In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 (BayDelta) [“a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”]; and Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills) [court upholds finding rejecting lower density housing alternative as infeasible, citing city council’s conclusion that the fact that “‘the houses would be necessarily more expensive than those of the proposed project’ and would defeat the project objective of providing the ‘the least expensive single-family housing for the vicinity’”].)
In addition, a proposed alternative may also be found to be legally infeasible. (Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715 [proposed reduced housing alternative would have violated Government Code Section 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act].) Moreover, an alternative may also be determined to be economically infeasible. To demonstrate this kind of infeasibility, lead agency decisionmakers must identify substantial evidence showing that “the marginal costs of the alternative as compared to the cost of the proposed project are so great that a reasonably prudent property owner would not proceed with the [alternative].” (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, 600; see also San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 693-694.) With respect to a project for which significant impacts cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency decision-making body may nevertheless approve the project if the body first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the body believes that the project’s benefits outweigh its significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21001, 21002.1(c), 21081(b).) CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 provides the following direction regarding a statement of overriding considerations:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse

Page 96 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
12 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for the Project and, if the Project is approved, will be adopted concurrently with these Findings. (See PRC, § 21081.6, subd. (a)(1).) The City will use the Mitigation Monitoring Program to track compliance with Project mitigation measures.

These Findings are presented to the City Council for adoption in connection with, and as a predicate to, the City Council’s separate actions to certify the Final EIR, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Project, including the Sphere of Influence Amendment application, the River Walk Specific Plan, and the related entitlements. No mitigation measure referenced in these Findings has yet been adopted. Each mitigation measure identified in these Findings is proposed for adoption, and, if the City Council adopts these Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approves the Project, each such measure will be imposed as a binding condition of Project approval and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Where these Findings state that a mitigation measure “is feasible and is hereby adopted,” that statement is made as of, and takes effect upon, the City Council’s adoption of these Findings, and the measure becomes fully enforceable upon the City Council’s approval of the Project.

Accordingly, the mitigation measures referenced in these Findings will be “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures” within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (a)(2).

The City Council further finds that none of the mitigation measures referenced in these Findings constitutes improperly deferred mitigation. Under CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (a)(1)(B), the specific details of a mitigation measure may be developed after project approval where the lead agency (i) commits itself to the mitigation, (ii) adopts criteria or performance standards governing the action to be taken, and (iii) identifies the type of potential actions that can feasibly achieve that standard. (See also Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028-1029; Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899.) The Project is a specific plan and a Sphere of Influence Amendment; it is a program-level, multiphase approval under which individual subdivision maps, site plans, improvement plans, grading

Page 97 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 13
permits, and building permits will be sought over a period of years. Several mitigation measures are therefore structured to apply at identified later approval milestones. In each such case, the measure fixes an objective, externally derived performance standard that the later submittal must satisfy, identifies the City decision or permit at which compliance is verified, and identifies the categories of action available to achieve the standard. The City Council commits to each of those standards through its adoption of these Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the City retains discretionary authority to withhold the later approval if the standard is not met. The City Council finds that this structure satisfies section 15126.4, subdivision (a)(1)(B), and does not delegate to any applicant the determination of what level of mitigation is adequate.

FINDINGS’ RELIANCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE In adopting these Findings, the City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, the decision-making body of the lead agency, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project. By these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments, and conclusions of the Final EIR. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. The Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City.

SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City, unless determined otherwise by the court.

ORGANIZATION OF FINDINGS BELOW
The findings below are organized as follows. The first set of impacts presented are those that would be significant and unavoidable for the project. Though feasible mitigation measures are adopted for many of these impacts, the measures do not reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The second set of impacts are those that, in the absence of mitigation, would be significant, but with adopted mitigation measures can be reduced to less than significant levels. The third and final set of impacts presented are those that are less than significant even in the absence of mitigation measures. Under CEQA, findings need not identify those impacts. The City Council has included them, however, for informational purposes.

The City Council also notes the following with respect to those findings in Section III that address the construction of Project infrastructure and public facilities, specifically Impacts 3.12-3, 3.14-1, 3.14- 3, and 3.14-5, and Cumulative Impacts 4.18, 4.21, 4.22, and 4.23. The wastewater, water, stormwater, park, and recreational facilities addressed by those findings would be constructed within the Specific Plan Area footprint and the offsite improvement area that have been analyzed throughout the Final EIR. The significant and unavoidable effects to which their construction contributes are the same effects identified elsewhere in these Findings, principally the conversion of Important Farmland addressed under Impact 3.2-1 and Cumulative Impact 4.4 and the change in

Page 98 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
14 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
visual character addressed under Impact 3.1-1 and Cumulative Impact 4.2. The City Council does not find that the construction of this infrastructure produces significant environmental effects distinct from those already identified, and those findings should not be read to count the same effects twice.

Because the construction of that infrastructure nonetheless contributes to effects that remain significant and unavoidable, the City Council conservatively carries that conclusion forward in each of those findings and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to each.

III. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS A. AESTHETICS

1. IMPACT 3.1-1:PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAY RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON SCENIC VISTAS AND RESOURCES OR SUBSTANTIAL DEGRADATION OF VISUAL CHARACTER. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character is discussed on pages 3.1-7 through 3.1-9 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Development of the proposed Project would result in new developments adjacent to the Stanislaus River and its riparian habitat but would not result in any direct disturbance to the river or habitat. Development of the proposed Project would eliminate most of the orchard/agricultural areas within the Specific Plan area, but all other areas in the Project Area would remain unchanged. Much of the Specific Plan Area is in the lower area (i.e., Berghill property), which is not visible from the main public roadways fronting the Project Area (i.e., Patterson Road and McHenry Avenue). The residents who live within the Project Area predominately along the top of the bluff and outside the Specific Plan Area would have the most notable visual changes because of their proximity to the new development and their views of the existing uses in the Berghill Property.

The proposed Project would result in the conversion of land in the Specific Plan Area from agricultural uses to a developed use. There are no designated scenic vistas or resources that would be impacted. Nevertheless, the “attractive” aesthetics of the agricultural areas in the Specific Plan Area would be visually changed in perpetuity.

There are a variety of design elements, such as open space, park, landscaping, and natural features in the Specific Plan area that will provide “attractive” elements to the human environment. However, the proposed Project would permanently convert the agricultural and undeveloped uses to a developed use and would create a change in the visual characteristics of the site that is generally considered less “attractive” than the existing condition. This is considered a significant and

Page 99 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 15
unavoidable impact. There is no feasible mitigation available that would lessen the severity of this impact or reduce it to a less than significant level.

Based on the above, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (2) Given the nature of this impact, which cannot be avoided with the development of the Project area, specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. Because the significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policybased, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas and resources or substantial degradation of visual character, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.2: CUMULATIVE DEGRADATION OF THE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE REGION.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative impact on the existing visual character of the region is discussed on page 4.0-4 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Under cumulative conditions, buildout of the General Plan for Riverbank and the surrounding jurisdictions could result in changes to the visual character and quality of the City of Riverbank through development of undeveloped areas and/or changes to the character of existing communities. Development of the proposed Project, in addition to other future projects in the area, would change the existing visual and scenic qualities of the City. There are no mitigation measures that could reduce this impact while also achieving the Project purpose and objectives.

For these reasons, cumulative impacts on the visual character of the region are significant, and the proposed Project’s contribution thereto is a cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Given the nature of this impact, which cannot be avoided with the development of the Project area, specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other

Page 100 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
16 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
considerations make infeasible the imposition of any mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially lessen the cumulatively considerable, and thus significant, environmental impact. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. Because the cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be substantially lessened or avoided, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on the existing visual character of the region, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

1. IMPACT 3.2-1: THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN THE

CONVERSION OF FARMLANDS, INCLUDING PRIME FARMLAND, UNIQUE FARMLAND, AND

FARMLAND OF STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAPS PREPARED PURSUANT TO

THE FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY, TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in the conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses is discussed on pages 3.2-18 through 3.2-22 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 661.33 acres of Prime Farmland, 165.80 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 27.16 acres of Unique Farmland, as shown on Figure 3.2-1, to non-agricultural use. The loss of the 854.29 acres of Important Farmland would have a potentially significant environmental impact.

Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 requires the Project applicant to conserve farmland in accordance with the City of Riverbank’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy. This requires conservation of equal value to the land that will be converted at a 1:1 ratio, in perpetuity, or pay in-lieu fees that would functionally achieve the conservation

Page 101 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 17
intent. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 requires consistency with the Stanislaus LAFCo Agricultural Preservation policy, consistent with the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy. While the implementation of these mitigation measures would assist in offsetting some impacts from farmland conversion by preserving farmland, the proposed Project would still result in the permanent conversion and loss of 854.29 acres of Important Farmland within Stanislaus County. Based on the above, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
(2) Given the nature of this impact, which cannot be fully avoided with the development of the Project area even with the use of agricultural conservation easements (see V Lions Farming, LLC v. County of Kern (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 412, 421-437; King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814 [agricultural conservation easements at a 1:1 ratio are not alone sufficient to reduce the conversion of agricultural land to a less than significant level]), specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Final EIR and described above. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 are feasible and are hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), the City Council further finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, although those changes do not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to conversion of Farmlands, including Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural uses, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.4: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in a cumulative impact on agricultural resources is discussed on pages 4.0-5 and 4.0-6 of the Draft EIR.

Page 102 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
18 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
(b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As described in Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources, development of the proposed Project would result in a conversion of 661.33 acres of Prime Farmland, 165.80 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 27.16 acres of Unique Farmland as shown on the map prepared under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), to nonagricultural uses. The loss of Important Farmland as classified under the FMMP is considered a potentially significant environmental impact. Development under the Specific Plan inherently involves the conversion of high-quality agricultural land. Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 requires the Project applicant to conserve farmland of equal value to the land that will be converted at a 1:1 ratio, in perpetuity, or pay in-lieu fees that would functionally achieve the conservation intent. Mitigation Measure 3.2-2 requires participation in the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy. While the implementation of these mitigation measures would assist in preserving farmland, the proposed Project would still result in the permanent conversion and loss of 854.29 acres of Important Farmland within Stanislaus County.

For the reasons discussed above, cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources would be significant, and the proposed Project’s contribution to those impacts would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. (2) Given the nature of this impact, which cannot be fully avoided with the development of the Project area even with the use of agricultural conservation easements (see V Lions Farming, LLC v. County of Kern (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 412, 421-437; King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814 [agricultural conservation easements at a 1:1 ratio are not alone sufficient to reduce the conversion of agricultural land to a less than significant level]), specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any additional mitigation measures beyond those identified in the Final EIR and described above. These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. Mitigation Measures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 are feasible and are hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), the City Council further finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, although those changes do not

Page 103 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 19
reduce the effect to a less than significant level. To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on agricultural resources, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

C. GREENHOUSE GASES, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

1. IMPACT 3.7-1: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD GENERATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS,

EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THAT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment is discussed on pages 3.7-26 through 3.7-31 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Estimated maximum GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project are summarized in Table 3.7- 1 in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR.1 As presented in the table, short-term construction emissions of GHGs are estimated at a maximum of approximately 3,546 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year.

Estimated operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project are summarized in Table 3.7-2. As shown, a conservative estimate for the unmitigated annual GHG emissions associated with the proposed Project would be approximately 34,364 MT CO2e. Additionally, Table 3.7-3 provides the annual emissions associated with the proposed Project after accounting for these Project design features that would further reduce Project emissions, as well as the mitigation included in Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, where quantification was possible. 1 Emissions in Table 3.7-1 account for the required construction-related control measures required by the SJVAPCD, including watering exposed surfaces, watering unpaved construction roads, limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, and sweeping paved roads.

Page 104 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
20 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
As shown in the above tables, the Project with design features (including those required by Title 24) and mitigation measures incorporated (where quantification was possible) would reduce total operational GHG emissions by approximately 1,762 MT CO2e per year.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 provides GHG reduction measures to reduce Project emissions to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1, it cannot be guaranteed that the proposed Project would reduce GHG emissions to the full extent needed to ensure that the State GHG reduction targets (such as those under AB 1279) are met. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 includes two distinct categories of measures as described in CalEEMod User Guide. “Quantitative” measures include those measures that when implemented have a measurable reduction in emissions as reflected in the model outputs, or with separate outside the model calculations. Examples would be the usage of energyefficiency appliances. “Qualitative or Supporting Measures” include those measures that are not currently quantified by CalEEMod. The CalEEMod User Guide notes that methods for quantifying these measures have not yet been developed, are not fully supported by available research, or require specific details that are difficult to address under a methodology with general applicability. Although not quantitatively evaluated, qualitative or supporting measures may achieve emissions reductions and co-benefits on their own or may enhance the ability of quantified measures to attain expanded reductions and co-benefits. User-selected qualitative or supporting measures are noted in the CalEEMod output report but are not quantified. The quantified measures, in conjunction with Project features discussed above, are anticipated to reduce GHG emissions. It is anticipated that the Qualitative or Supporting Measures would provide additional, or co-benefits toward reducing GHG emissions.

However, there are no additional, feasible mitigation measures to reduce Project VMT (beyond what is already required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-2, as provided in Section 3.13: Transportation and Circulation), which is the main contributor to the Project’s carbon emissions. Based on the above, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measure identified in the Final EIR and described above. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above.

In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), the City Council further finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR,

Page 105 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 21
although those changes do not reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

These considerations include (i) the City’s inability to guarantee that the proposed Project will reduce GHG emissions to the full extent needed to ensure that the State GHG reduction targets are met and (ii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 3.7-2: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COULD CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN,

POLICY, OR REGULATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases is discussed on pages 3.7-31 through 3.7-39 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-1. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As shown in Table 3.7-4 in Section 3.7, based on proposed Project attributes, many of the key project attributes identified by the CARB cannot be guaranteed to be implemented due to the Project’s location in a growing (rather than built out) City. Appendix D notes that for projects that do not meet the criteria shown in Table 3.7-4, they can nevertheless be consistent with the Scoping Plan if they would either be net zero or would comply with an air district threshold addressing SB 32. With the requirement for all electricity supplied by utilities such as PG&E or other providers such as the Modesto Irrigation District to be carbon neutral by 2045, the residential units would support the State’s goal of carbon neutrality. Nevertheless, due to the uncertainty of the level of electric vehicle penetration, the Project would not necessarily be net zero, even with mitigation, by 2045.

Over time, as EV penetration increases and transit improves, VMT will be reduced.

Here, there is substantial evidence to support the finding that emissions from

Page 106 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
22 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
mobile sources will decrease by 2045, consistent with the Scoping Plan. First, the Project would have EV-ready parking spaces, making it easy for future owners to charge EV vehicles, encouraging the purchase of such vehicles. Second, the state is committed to improving EV infrastructure and the sale of gas-powered vehicles must cease in 2035, suggesting that by 2045 most state residents would own EVs.

Therefore, even though the Project is not consistent with all the local guidance in the Scoping Plan, sufficient evidence exists to conclude that the Project would not impede the State from reaching its climate goals.

Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, this EIR concludes that because the Project is inconsistent with several attributes that the CARB suggests projects should include, impacts would be significant and unavoidable as related to the Scoping Plan.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures, beyond Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact. These considerations include (i) the suburban nature of the Project, (ii) its location in the Central Valley as opposed to within a denser, more urban metropolitan area, and (iii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.

Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, although those changes do not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

3. IMPACT 4.9:CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE FROM INCREASED PROJECT-RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Page 107 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 23
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts on climate change from increased project-related greenhouse gas emissions is discussed on pages

4.0-11 and 4.0-12 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 3.7-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As described in Impact 3.7-1 in Section 3.7, to reduce GHG emissions, mitigation strategies have been developed either for the Project as a whole, or for the individual components of the overall Project. Mitigation Measure

3.7-1 provides GHG reduction measures to reduce Project emissions to the maximum extent feasible. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.7-1, it cannot be guaranteed that the proposed Project would reduce GHG emissions to the full extent needed to ensure that the State GHG reduction targets (such as those under AB 1279) are met.

However, there are no additional, feasible mitigation measures to reduce Project VMT, which is the main contributor to the Project’s carbon emissions. Therefore, the impact related to whether the Project generates greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly that may have a significant impact on the environment would remain cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

Overall, the proposed Project generally does not conflict with, and is consistent with, applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Specifically, the Project is generally consistent with the State’s long-term climate goals and strategies except for reducing VMT.

The analysis includes an assessment of the Project’s consistency with the CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, Air District requirements, and the latest applicable RTP/SCS. This assessment includes a consistency analysis with regulations or requirements adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and evaluates Project specific GHG emissions and the extent to which they can be reduced by effective mitigation strategies including Project design features and mitigation measures.

For the reasons discussed above, this EIR concludes out of an abundance of caution that the impact related to consistency with the Scoping Plan is cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measure identified in the Final EIR and described above. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above.

In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and

Page 108 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
24 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), the City Council further finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, although those changes do not reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

These considerations include (i) the suburban nature of the Project, (ii) its location in the Central Valley as opposed to within a denser, more urban metropolitan area, and (iii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts on climate change from increased projectrelated greenhouse gas emissions, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

D. NOISE

1. IMPACT 3.11-1: CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY GENERATE SIGNIFICANT NOISE.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate significant noise during construction is discussed on pages 3.11-15 through 3.11-17 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As indicated in Table 3.11-11 in Section

3.11, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 82 to 96 dB Lmax at 50 feet. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant Project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours, consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance.

Per the Table 3.11-6 standards, daytime construction noise would be limited to 70 dBA Lmax under the City’s General Plan standards. With construction noise levels ranging between 82 to 96 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, construction noise control measures achieving a reduction of 12 to 26 dBA would be required when construction activity

Page 109 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 25
occurs within 50 feet of an existing residential use. This would primarily occur during construction of Village B, which borders existing single-family homes to the east.

Use of a temporary construction barrier 8-foot in height would typically reduce construction noise by up to 5-6 dBA, resulting in maximum noise levels of 77-91dBA Lmax. This would still result in construction noise levels exceeding the City’s Table

3.11-6 standard of 70 dBA Lmax. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2, temporary construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and described above. Mitigation Measures 3.11-1 and 3.11-2 are feasible and are hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), the City Council further finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, although those changes do not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. These considerations include (i) the technical infeasibility of reducing temporary construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels and (ii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with construction noise, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 3.11-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY GENERATE UNACCEPTABLE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AT EXISTING RECEPTORS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to generate unacceptable traffic noise levels at existing receptors is discussed on pages 3.11-18 through 3.11-21 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitigation measures were identified.

Page 110 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
26 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. Tables 3.11‐13 and 3.11‐14 in Section 3.11 indicate where increases in traffic noise levels due to the Project exceed the FICON criteria for increases in traffic noise. Table 3.11‐15 indicates where significant traffic noise increases will occur, and the segments which the Project would result in an exceedance of the City of Riverbank exterior noise levels standard, under the Cumulative Plus RWSP condition. Based upon Tables 3.11‐13, and 3.11‐14, the Project would cause increased noise levels exceeding the FICON substantial increase criteria shown in Table 3.11-10, which would be a potentially significant impact.

Potential mitigation measures would require increasing the height of existing sound walls, building new off‐site sound walls, including traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds, and/or using quieter pavement technologies. Generally, construction of new sound walls is not practical due to the openings for driveway accesses which would compromise any barrier effectiveness. Increasing the heights of existing sound walls requires additional engineering of footings and is also not practical. Additionally, City General Plan Policy NOI 1.5 states that “[s]ound walls are prohibited as a method for reducing noise exposure that could be addressed through other means.” Sound walls are not feasible or recommended in this case.

Traffic calming measures generally have not been found to reduce overall traffic noise levels by a significant amount.

The City Council recognizes that Mitigation Measure 3.11-4 requires the construction of sound walls within the Plan Area to address shooting range noise, and finds that requirement consistent with the conclusion reached here. General Plan Policy NOI 1.5 prohibits sound walls only where the noise exposure at issue could be addressed through other means. The traffic noise increases addressed by this impact occur along existing off-site roadways fronted by existing driveway access, where a continuous barrier cannot be constructed and where quieter pavement is an available alternative means; Policy NOI 1.5 therefore forecloses sound walls in that setting. By contrast, the shooting range noise addressed by Mitigation Measure 3.11-4 affects new receptors within the Plan Area, where no other feasible means of reducing the noise to the City’s standard is available and where a continuous on-site barrier can be constructed as part of Project development. Policy NOI 1.5 does not prohibit sound walls in that circumstance.

With the use of quiet pavement on Coffee Road, noise level increases are expected to be in the range of 0.0 to 1.3 dBA. Approximately 6,600 feet (approximately 1.25 miles) of quiet pavement would be required. See Figure 3.11-3 for approximate required pavement locations. However, the implementation of quiet pavement on Coffee Road may not be considered practical or feasible due to overall costs and

Page 111 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 27
long-term maintenance coordination and requirements. Therefore, these traffic noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the imposition of any mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact. These considerations include (i) the undesirability of sound walls, (ii) the long-term costs of quiet pavement, and (iii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with unacceptable traffic noise levels at existing receptors, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

3. IMPACT 3.11-4: THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT TO SHOOTING RANGE NOISE AT NEW SENSITIVE RECEPTORS.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to be subject to shooting range noise at new sensitive receptors is discussed on pages 3.11-21 through 3.11-24 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.11-4 through 3.11-5. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As shown in Figure 3.11-2 in Section

3.11, the maximum noise levels emanating from the shooting range are predicted to exceed the City of Riverbank 70 dBA Lmax standard on Villages D, E, F, H, I, J, P, and Q without mitigation. Saxelby Acoustics developed noise control solutions to reduce the maximum noise level to below 70 dBA at as many of the Specific Plan residential Villages as possible.

Shooting range noise control may be achieved by the addition of an acoustically absorptive sound wall, partial enclosure of the shooting area, and acoustical panels in the pistol range area. Certain of these noise control measures would have to be implemented at the shooting range itself, although they would be funded by the Specific Plan applicants. As shown on Figure 3.11-5, implementation of these noise control measures would reduce maximum noise levels to below 70 dB on Villages D, F, H, I, J, and Q, as well as a partial section of Village E. Village P and the remainder of Village E would continue to experience maximum noise levels exceeding the City of Riverbank’s 70 dBA Lmax standard even with implementation of these measures,

Page 112 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
28 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
which is the basis for the significant and unavoidable conclusion reached below.

Shooting range noise control may be further improved by enclosing the back (south side) of the rifle range firing line.

Successful implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-4 through 3.11-5 would ensure that potential rifle range noise impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. Measure 3.11-4 is assured of success if the Project is implemented, as the obligations therein are under the sole control of the applicant. Measure 3.11-5, however, is not assured of ultimate success. Although it creates obligations for the applicant, the measure will only be fully effective if the shooting range operator agrees to make certain on-site improvements at the applicant’s request. Although Measure 3.11-5 would require the applicant to fund the proposed improvements, neither the applicant nor the City has any way to ensure the cooperation of the shooting range operator. For that reason, the EIR conservatively assumes that the impact will be significant and unavoidable due to a lack of cooperation by the shooting range operator.

Figure 3.11-8 shows the resulting noise levels on the project site with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-4, which requires the construction of 8- to 10-foot-tall sound walls on the project site. Based upon this Figure, which assumes that the construction of the improvements called for in Mitigation Measure 3.11-5 does not occur, noise levels from shooting range operations are predicted to range from 71 to 79 dBA Lmax, after construction of on-site sound walls.

This would exceed the City of Riverbank 70 dBA Lmax noise standard by up to 9 dBA for daytime shooting events. Therefore, this would remain a significant and unavoidable impact.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 3.11-4 and 3.11-5 are feasible and are hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. If successfully implemented, these measures will reduce the significant effect to a less significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.11-5, however, is not certain to achieve a reduction of noise emanating from the above-described shooting range, as the success of the measure will depend on cooperation from the shooting range operator, which cannot be assured. Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond those described in this paragraph. These considerations include (i) the inability of the applicant or the City to force the shooting range operator to make the improvements set forth in that measure and (ii) City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project

Page 113 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 29
objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with the potential for the Project to be subject to shooting range noise at new sensitive receptors, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

4. IMPACT 4.17: CUMULATIVE EXPOSURE OF EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES TO INCREASED NOISE RESULTING FROM CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative exposure of existing and future noise-sensitive land uses to increased noise resulting from cumulative development is discussed on pages 4.0-23 through 4.0-25 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measures 3.11-1, 3.11-2, 3.11-4, and 3.11-5. (c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As discussed in Section 3.11, under cumulative conditions, sensitive receptors located adjacent to Coffee Road exceed the City's 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard for transportation noise sources. Under Cumulative Plus RWSP conditions, these roadways will continue to exceed the City standards.

The Project's contributions range between 1.6 dB and 4.3 dB Ldn. These increases exceed the FICON criteria. Table 3.11‐15 indicates where significant traffic noise increases will occur, and the segments which the Project would result in an exceedance of the City of Riverbank exterior noise levels standard, under the Cumulative Plus RWSP condition.

Potential mitigation measures would require increasing the height of existing sound walls, building new off‐site sound walls, including traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds, and/or using quieter pavement technologies. Under the Cumulative scenario shown in Table 3.11‐15, each roadway segment which shows a significant impact could include future overlays of alternative quiet pavement.

However, the implementation of these types of measures along this 2.3-mile roadway segment, which is located within the jurisdiction of Stanislaus County, may not be considered practical due to overall costs and benefits at all locations, as well as jurisdictional considerations. Therefore, this would have a cumulatively significant unavoidable impact.

Additionally, noise generated by construction would be temporary, and would not add to the permanent noise environment or be considered as part of the cumulative

Page 114 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
30 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
context. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 82 to 96 dB Lmax at 50 feet. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant Project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration and would occur primarily during daytime hours, consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance.

The proposed project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Stanislaus County), would be expected to cause significant and unavoidable cumulative construction noise impacts. The proposed Project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulatively considerable impact associated with construction noise.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and described above. Mitigation Measures 3.11-1, 3.11-2, 3.11-4, and 3.11- 5 are feasible and are hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(1), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(1), the City Council further finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR, although those changes do not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. These considerations include (i) the technical infeasibility of reducing temporary construction-related noise impacts to less than significant levels, (ii) the long-term costs of quiet pavement, (iii) the inability of the applicant or the City to force the shooting range operator to make the improvements set forth in Mitigation Measure 3.11-5, and (iv) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts related to noise, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

Page 115 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 31
E. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

1. IMPACT 3.12-3: THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO INCREASE THE USE OF

EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AND REGIONAL PARKS OR OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, SUCH

THAT SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL DETERIORATION OF THE FACILITY WOULD OCCUR OR BE

ACCELERATED, AND IT WILL REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WHICH MAY CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to require the construction of park and recreational facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts is discussed on pages 3.12-23 through 3.12-24 of the Draft EIR. (b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. While the proposed project would increase the demand for parks and other recreational facilities based on the population growth, the amount of parkland and open space provided within the Specific Plan Area sufficiently meets the City’s General Plan parkland requirements. Furthermore, the Crossroads West Specific Plan, located within the City of Riverbank and in proximity to the Project site, will provide an opportunity to expand the Regional Sports Park with an additional 11 acres upon development to a total of 22 acres. No additional need for park space is required, and it is not anticipated that any substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur or be accelerated.

Project implementation would require the construction of park facilities, which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impact. Potential environmental impacts associated with the future construction of park and other recreational facilities within the Specific Plan Area are addressed throughout this EIR. This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects that may occur because of development and introduction of new urban land uses within the Specific Plan Area.

Each future park, if constructed, would fall within the range of environmental impacts disclosed in this EIR, and would be subject to relevant mitigation measures included in this EIR.

It is noted, however, that development of park land within the Specific Plan Area would contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts as discussed in this EIR.

Therefore, consistent with the analysis included in the Draft EIR, impacts related to constructing new park facilities to serve the proposed Project are considered significant and unavoidable. The City Council clarifies that this conclusion is a conservative one and is derivative rather than additive: the parks and recreational

Page 116 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
32 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
facilities required by the Project lie within the Specific Plan Area footprint already analyzed throughout the Final EIR, and the significant and unavoidable effects to which their construction contributes are the same effects identified elsewhere in these Findings, principally the conversion of Important Farmland addressed under Impact 3.2-1 and the visual character effects addressed under Impact 3.1-1. The City Council does not find that park construction produces a distinct significant effect beyond those already identified, and this finding should not be read to count those effects twice. Because park construction contributes to effects that remain significant and unavoidable, however, the City Council conservatively carries that conclusion forward here and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to it.
(2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of developing parks but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which new parks will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact cannot feasibly be mitigated to less than significant levels, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with requiring the construction of park and recreational facilities which may cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 4.18: CUMULATIVE IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION. (b) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to result in cumulative impacts related to public services and recreation is discussed on pages 4.0-25 through 4.0-27 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measures. No feasible mitigation measures were identified specifically for this impact, but all measures addressing the direct physical impact of development of the overall Project are indirectly applicable here.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:

Page 117 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 33
(1) Remaining Impacts. Under cumulative conditions, past, present, and probable future projects would result in increased demand for public services and recreational facilities. The impact fees developed and reviewed by the City will recover future development’s proportionate share of City-related capital asset costs. Fees, as applied only to new developments, represent future development’s proportionate share of public services and facilities capital costs. It is important to note that impact fees may not be used to correct existing deficiencies, but may be used to pay for increased demand for public facilities or increased demand upon existing capital facilities provided that those facilities are needed to serve additional development and have the capacity to do so, given relevant level-of-service standards. The construction of public facilities to serve past, present, and probably future projects may be required, which could cause substantial adverse physical environmental impacts. The construction and operation of future public facilities required to serve cumulative development could potentially cause cumulatively significant impacts, but such physical impacts cannot be fully defined at this time because the exact facilities are not proposed or known. Any future public facility would undergo its own environmental review to determine physical environmental impacts once it is contemplated and proposed for construction.

Nevertheless, the proposed Project, when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Stanislaus County), would be expected to cause significant cumulative public services or recreation impacts. As such, cumulative impacts on public services and recreation would be significant and unavoidable. This impact is associated with the development of the parks within the footprint of the Specific Plan Area. These physical impacts associated with development in the Specific Plan, such as agricultural conversion, etc., have been analyzed throughout this EIR. For some environmental topics it was determined that the Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact (i.e., loss of prime farmland). The development of parks would contribute to physical impacts, including those that have been determined to be cumulatively significant and unavoidable. The project will be required to implement mitigation measures under each physical environmental impact identified. The topic does not require separate mitigation. (2) Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond the measures identified in the Final EIR and throughout these findings. Those measures do not specifically relate to the impacts of developing parks but rather relate to the impacts of development of the overall Project, of which new parks will be a part. These considerations include, among other things referenced elsewhere in these findings, the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact cannot feasibly be reduced to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the

Page 118 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
34 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with cumulative impacts related to public services and recreation, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

F. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

1. IMPACT 3.13-1:IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN COULD CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM,

PLAN, ORDINANCE OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING TRANSIT, ROADWAY, BICYCLE, AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES.
(a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities is discussed on pages 3.13-16 through 3.13-18 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. The Specific Plan includes sidewalks on proposed streets, and a comprehensive on-site trail system to be provided.

Proposed improvements to SR 108 (Patterson Road) will include sidewalks. The Specific Plan does not physically disrupt an existing pedestrian facility. It is highly likely that some residents will travel on foot to reach destinations that are relatively close to their residences, such as commercial areas, parks, clubhouse, and trails. The extent to which safety issues could occur on these pedestrian facilities has been considered.

With implementation of planned improvements on SR 108 (Patterson Road), a 400- foot gap will remain between the Specific Plan’s sidewalk on Patterson Road and the existing sidewalk that ends west of Oakdale Road. Increased pedestrian volume in this area represents a potential safety concern. This has a potentially significant impact.

As the previously approved Crossroads West Specific Plan proceeds, the MID Main Canal trail will become a likely pedestrian route between the Specific Plan Area, the Riverbank Sports Complex and Crossroads Shopping Center. Increased pedestrian activity across SR 108 is a safety issue due to the speed of vehicles in this area. This has a potentially significant impact.

Page 119 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 35
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 would require the Project applicant to design and fund 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. Because improvements to State facilities are subject to Caltrans approval, there is no assurance that Caltrans would approve the improvements included under Mitigation Measure 3.13-1. Because the City of Riverbank cannot ensure installation, Impact 3.13-1 may not be fully mitigated, and this impact is significant and unavoidable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. If successfully implemented, it will reduce the significant effect to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure 3.13-1, however, is not certain of implementation, in that it will require approval of Caltrans, which cannot be assured. Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond Mitigation Measure 3.13-1. These considerations include (i) the inability of the applicant or the City to force Caltrans to approve the improvements contemplated in Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 and (ii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.

In addition, and in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(2), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(2), the City Council finds that the improvements required by Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 lie within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and not the City, insofar as they would be constructed within the State highway right-of-way on State Route 108 (Patterson Road) and require an encroachment permit and Caltrans design approval. The City Council finds that such changes can and should be adopted by Caltrans, and the City Council urges Caltrans to approve them. Mitigation Measure 3.13-1 obligates the applicant to design, fund, and pursue those improvements, and the City will require the applicant to apply for and diligently pursue the necessary Caltrans approvals; what the City cannot do is guarantee that Caltrans will grant them.

Page 120 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
36 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

2. IMPACT 3.13-2: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN COULD CONFLICT WITH OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINE SECTION 15064.3, SUBDIVISION (B). (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b), is discussed on pages 3.13-18 through

3.13-23 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. Table 3.13-5 in Section 3.13 compares total model area VMT under base year and 2042 conditions with and without the proposed Specific Plan. As shown, the residential uses within the proposed Specific Plan generate 76,730 VMT under the base condition, while non-residential uses generate 168,900 VMT. The Specific Plan generates a total of 245,630 VMT. NCC model Year 2042 total regional VMT is also presented for comparison. Under year 2042 conditions, the change caused by the proposed Specific Plan is less, (i.e., 163,195 VMT). This reduction would be expected to result as additional development occurs in the Modesto-Riverbank areas of northern Stanislaus County.

The Specific Plan’s mixed-use retail areas would provide additional options for future residential development and incrementally reduce the length of shopping trips made in this area.

With regards to residential development, because no relatable forecasts for the City of Riverbank or Stanislaus County are available, it is not possible to determine whether the Specific Plan’s residences will generate VMT per capita rate that is 15 percent below the current area average (based on the geographic area covered by the regional travel demand model), as required under the OPR recommendation.

Thus, it must be presumed that the VMT impact of the proposed residences is potentially significant.

With regards to non-residential uses, the net increase in regional VMT caused by the Specific Plan’s non-residential uses is the difference between the overall difference in total regional VMT (195,682 VMT) and the VMT caused by residential uses (76,730 VMT) is 118,952 VMT. Because this increase exceeds the OPR

Page 121 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 37
directive’s threshold of no net increase in regional VMT, the impact of the Specific Plan’s non-residential uses on regional VMT is also potentially significant.

Though not all individual VMT reduction measures may be applicable, Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 is considered generally feasible because it is within the applicant’s purview to implement and has been found to be effective in peer-reviewed academic studies. However, the precise effectiveness of a given VMT reduction strategy is difficult to accurately measure. Because there is no assurance that Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 would fully mitigate these VMT impacts, these impacts are significant and unavoidable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 is feasible and is hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Mitigation Measure

3.13-2, however, is not certain to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels.

Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond Mitigation Measure 3.13-2.

These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project. (3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with conflicts with or inconsistencies with CEQA Guideline section 15064.3, subdivision (b), as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

3. IMPACT 3.13-3: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN COULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURE (E.G., SHARP CURVES OR DANGEROUS INTERSECTIONS) OR INCOMPATIBLE USES (E.G., FARM EQUIPMENT). (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) is discussed on pages 3.13-24 and 3.13-25 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measures 3.13-3 and 3.13-4.

Page 122 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
38 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Effects of Mitigation and Remaining Impacts. As indicated in the traffic operations analysis presented in Appendix G, there are two locations where development would result in significant safety impacts on State facilities. At the McHenry Avenue / Ladd Road / Patterson Road intersection, the Specific Plan would cause the queue of peak hour traffic to exceed the available storage length in the southbound left turn lane and in the eastbound left turn lane. This is a potentially significant safety impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-3 requires the applicant to contribute its pro rata fair share to the cost of improvement to the McHenry Avenue / Ladd Road / Patterson Road intersection. While this improvement would eliminate the identified safety impact, there is no guarantee that funding would be available for the balance of construction cost. In addition, these improvements would be subject to the design requirements and approval of Caltrans, and there is no guarantee that Caltrans will permit their construction. Because the City of Riverbank cannot ensure installation, Impact 3.13-3 may not be fully mitigated, and this impact is significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.13-4 requires the applicant to construct a westbound left turn lane on SR 108 at the Skittone Road intersection. While this improvement would fully mitigate the identified safety impact, this improvement would be subject to the design requirements and approval of Caltrans, and there is no guarantee that Caltrans will permit its construction. Because the City of Riverbank cannot ensure installation, Impact 3.13-3 may not be fully mitigated, and this impact is significant and unavoidable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 3.13-3 and 3.13-4 are feasible and are hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as conditions of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. If successfully implemented, they will reduce the significant effect to a less than significant level. These measures, however, are not certain of implementation, in that they will require approval from Caltrans, which cannot be assured. Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond Mitigation Measures 3.13-3 and 3.13-4.

These considerations include (i) the inability of the applicant or the City to force Caltrans to approve the improvements contemplated in these measures and (ii) the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the

Page 123 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan 39
project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this significant adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.

In addition, and in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a)(2), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, subdivision (a)(2), the City Council finds that the improvements required by Mitigation Measures 3.13-3 and 3.13-4, consisting of improvements to the McHenry Avenue / Ladd Road / Patterson Road intersection and a westbound left turn lane on State Route 108 at the Skittone Road intersection, lie within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and not the City. The City Council finds that such changes can and should be adopted by Caltrans, and the City Council urges Caltrans to approve them. Mitigation Measures 3.13-3 and 3.13-4 obligate the applicant to contribute its fair share of, or to construct, those improvements and to pursue the necessary Caltrans approvals diligently; the City cannot compel Caltrans to grant them.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with impacts related to substantially increased hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), as more fully stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

4. IMPACT 4.19: UNDER CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD CONFLICT WITH OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15064.3, SUBDIVISION (B). (a) Potential Impact. The potential for the Project to conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), under cumulative conditions is discussed on pages 4.0-27 and 4.0-28 of the Draft EIR.
(b) Mitigation Measure. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2.
(c) Findings. Based upon the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council finds that:
(1) Remaining Impacts. As noted previously, with regards to residential development, because no relatable forecasts for the City of Riverbank or Stanislaus County are available, it is not possible to determine whether the Specific Plan’s residences will generate VMT per capita rate that is 15 percent below the current area average, as required under the OPR directive.

With regards to non-residential uses, the net increase in regional VMT caused by the Specific Plan’s non-residential uses is the difference between the total regional

Page 124 of 730 ends

CEQA FINDINGS
40 CEQA Findings – River Walk Specific Plan
VMT increase attributable to the Specific Plan and the VMT attributable to its residential uses, as those figures are quantified in Impact 3.13-2 in Section 3.13, above. That net increase in regional VMT exceeds the OPR directive’s threshold of no net increase in regional VMT
Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 in Section 3.13 requires the Project Applicant to implement feasible VMT related mitigation measures / strategies which could reduce the VMT generated by the proposed land uses. Though not all individual VMT reduction measures may be applicable, Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 is considered generally feasible because it is within the applicant’s purview to implement and has been found to be effective in peer-reviewed academic studies.

However, the precise effectiveness of a given VMT reduction strategy is difficult to accurately measure.

For a specific project to have a less than significant impact related to VMT, the project must demonstrate that per capita VMT would be 15 percent below the regional average. Because future development would be equal to the regional average, or above average (or less than average but not fully 15 percent less than average), impacts related to VMT would be cumulatively significant. Exceptions to this would be infill projects, or small projects which include VMT reducing strategies.

Due to the size of the Project, the incremental contribution to this cumulative VMT impact would be cumulatively considerable.
(2) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that will reduce the severity of the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR, but may not reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3.13-2 is feasible and is hereby adopted, and, upon the City Council’s certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of the Project, will be fully enforceable as a condition of Project approval, as described in Section II, above. Mitigation Measure

3.13-2, however, is not certain to mitigate impacts to less than significant levels.

Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make infeasible any additional mitigation measures beyond Mitigation Measure 3.13-2.

These considerations include the City Council’s policy decision to pursue and achieve the underlying purpose of the project and the specific project objectives described earlier. To the extent that this cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant) adverse impact may not be mitigated to a less than cumulatively considerable (i.e., less than significant) level, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, policy-based, and other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project.
(3) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, economic, social, and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impact of the Project associated with conflicts with or inconsistencies with CEQA Guidelines Section

Page 125 of 730 ends

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

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