Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Hello everyone. Calling to order the regular planning commission meeting for today, Tuesday, August 19th. Can we get roll call, please? Chair um Tidy Zamora here. Vice Chair Michael Sid Alderman here. Commissioner Joan Stewart, Commissioner Natasha Boso here. and Commissioner John Dyn and in the audience we have our alternate um Armando Rodriguez.

Excellent. Our conflict of interest statement. Any planning commission member or staff who has a direct conflict of interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time. Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to public comments. 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 planning commission board. Individual comments will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes um or 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. For record purposes, state your name and city of residents. Please make your comments directly to the planning commission members. So, public comments are open. Hello. Yeah, I got it. Okay. Uh, my name is Fred Walton. I am from Modesto. I live on Hogue Road above the Riverwalk project. And, um, I've I've lived there my whole life. Um, as you have noticed recently, the floods in Texas, 135 people were killed, the floods in Mexico City that have flooded the whole city. These catastrophic floods do happen on occasion. And river bottoms are meant to help us with floods. That's what they're designed for by nature. Now these lakes and these reservoirs, these wheds, they may not be able to hold the water at certain years and certain times when there's masses amount of rain in a short amount of time. It has to be considered. Um so I I believe

that the river bottom, the lower part should be used for green belt things. It should be used for parks, golf courses, athletic fields, farming, that type of stuff. Now, they have an upper piece that's up near Park Ridge about 150 acres. If that was to be subdivided because the city of Riverbank needed homes, that might be an the obvious spot there. So, um it's a wonderful farm piece. It's big. It's profitable. Lots of water. has three types of water. It has repairarian river wa water. It has groundwater that's not too low only what 20 30 ft below easy to draw up and it has some mid mastrigation district water on some of it. So um my opinion should there should be no subdivision on that river bottom floor. It's not meant for houses. It's just not what it's meant for. But if you had to the upper piece possibly for that. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Aaron Conrad. I live in Modesto. I'm here to let you know that I oppose the Riverwalk project for seemingly endless valid reasons. It's a highly productive agricultural land. It's a flood plane, designated flood plane. There's infrastructure difficulties and cost. It's adjacent to the Stannis Loss River, which is wildlife, plant life, wildlife habitat, wildlife corridors. There are water recharge issues, well depletion, etc. I I ask you to please continue to read and familiarize yourself with the draft EIR and the valid and specific personal and agency criticisms of this project. Another point that I'd like to make is that a lot of your residents showed up for the July 9th meeting to express their desire to have the opportunity to vote on the urban women's initiative before the city council takes action on Riverwalk project. So, I'm asking to please listen to the people you represent as well. Thank you. Good evening, chair, planning commissioner, staff. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, Milt Treeweiler. I was born in Stanos County. I've lived here all my life. First, I want you to know that I have no interest of any kind in any land anywhere. I'm here tonight to speak for our children and descendants since they're most of them cannot speak for

themselves since they're too young or they haven't been born yet. The prime farmland in the proposed Riverwalk project is a natural resource that cannot be replaced or mitigated because its unique nature, its quality soils, its water availability, and its cl good climate. There's no other farmlike uh land in the world like it. The proposed Riverwalk sphere of influence is 2.4 square miles in size. That's larger than the entire city of Houston and as large as the entire city of Waterford. There is a major shortage of prime farmland and water in the world today. We know now that we will need to take almost 1 million acres of farmland south of Stannis Loss County out of production because there's not enough water to irrigate it. Currently, this land here is being irrigated by private wells and by Modesto Irrigation District. There is an MID canal as just mentioned that goes through the property does irrigate some of it. This could be used to irrigate all of it. And this would Modesto irrigation district would recharge your uh riverbank subbasin. City riverbank planning commissioners and residents. We have many things to be concerned about today. We have to be very careful about who we listen to and what we believe. There are people here in Stannis Los County and River uh Riverbank who are scheming to destroy the future for our children and our descendants. This farmland within the specific plan area is prime farmland plus repairarian habitat. The majority of the land in the specific plan area is flood plane. This flood plane will be necessary to prevent flooding up river in the river cove ho homes development and down river during an atmospheric river rain event. Be strong, do the right thing and save this riverwalk farmland for our children and descendants. Please do not vote to approve this project. There is an abundance of poor lands and soils and

wastelands in California and our nation for the developers to build houses on like the Altimont Pass area or the area east of Oakdale. There's also the large landmass area west of Patterson along Interstate 5 and east of Fairfield along Highway 12. We also have the entire states of Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado for the developers to build houses on. Vote no and completely stop this proposed Riverwalk project. There's no other farmland in the world like it. Please do what is best for and right for our children and descendants. That's what our responsibility is as adults and as parents to take care of our children. They need food. We need to save this land for them. Please vote no when this comes to you. Thank you.

Are there any other public comments on matters not on the agenda? Okay, we'll close public comments. We'll move on the consent agenda or the consent calendar. All items listed on the consent calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the planning commission board unless requested by an individual planning commission member or member of the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by motion of the planning commission board. The items on the consent calendar are item 2.1 posting of the agenda. The agenda for the August 19th, 2025 planning commission meeting was posted on the city community center bulletin board, city hall north and south bulletin boards post office, city website, and email to the library on August 14th, 2025. Item 2.2, approval of the August 19th, 2025 agenda. This provides an opportunity for the planning commission or staff to recommend that an item be placed on the agenda for discussion or to adjust the proposed agenda to allow an item to be taken out of order. Item 2.3, approval of the June 17th and July 15, 2025 planning commission mi meeting minutes having been read by the individual commissioners and stands approved as submitted. Uh abstaining from voting on June 17th was Commissioner Rubin and July 15, 2025, Commissioner Rubin again and Commissioner Stewart. That is a consent calendar. I entertain a motion to accept the consent calendar.

So moved. Uh, second. Uh, first and second. Can we get roll call? Chair Zamora? Yes. Vice Chair Alterman? Yes. Commissioner Stewart? Yes. Commissioner Boso? Yes. And Commissioner Dinan? Yes. Thank you. 350.

Okay. Motion passes. New business. Item 3.1. G. This is a general plan consistency determination for road abandonment application number 01-2025 department file number 25-0016. It's the old Crawford Road which is now Westgate Drive uh resolution number 2025-014. The project is a request to formally abandon slashvate 64 plus or minus acres of Westgate Drive to facilitate the future alignment and intersection of Westgate Drive and Machado Parkway consistent with the Crossroads West specific plan and to support the development of a new K through8 school adjacent to the area proposed for abandonment. The project is a component of a previously evaluated project and has been determined to be exempt from the California Envirmental Quality Act.

Thank you, Chair Zamora. Um, members of the planning commission. So, tonight we have kind of a unique item that it's not too often that we see a road abandonment. Um, and this one I just have a couple slides I want to go through and kind of tell the history and whatnot and the future uses for um, this area. Um, so so again, as you mentioned, this is a request to abandon or vacate um, a little bit over half acres of land. Uh, it's considered the old part of Crawford Road. As most of you know, Crawford Road has now been or since has been renamed Westgate Drive. Um, so the this abandonment will ultimately facilitate the future alignment intersection of both Westgate Drive and Machado Parkway. Um, here's a a little bit of background. So on your right hand side of the screen, this is the Crossroads West Pacific Plan land use map. So back in 2019, um both the planning commission and city council adopted and approved the crossroads west specific plan. So um this specific plan also included a general plan amendment of the circulation element of the city and um what that amendment did was kind of realign some of the roads interior to crossroads west. So as we start looking at the land use plan um to make it just to kind of orient everybody. So, at the bottom of the screen or at the south, uh that pink area. So, that's the Crossroads West Shopping Center, we have Costco and the various commercial uses down there. Um, as we get up towards the middle of the property, you'll see uh maybe it's hard to see, but that's Crawford Road kind of going left to right across the screen. And then as it starts to dip up, so that was what was um envisioned as a realignment in a way. Um, and it also provides a eventual connection to Machado Parkway, which is the the main north south collector road

of Crossroads West. Um, as I mentioned, so as Crossroads West was adopted, the um part of that adoption was a general plan amendment. So the city's general plan circulation um or general plan was adopted in 2009. this has included a circulation element and as I mentioned the crossroads west amended this so I'd like to kind of walk you through this um so on the right hand screen so that is the main kind of the backbone infrastructure circulation network network of crossroads west so again you can kind of see in the middle of the screen you have Crawford Road and as it's sort of realigned to go eventually to the west for future development but for purposes of crossroads quest it it would basically terminate at the intersection of Crawford and Machado. Um just wanted to show you guys. So this was the original 2005 to 25 general plan circulation diagram. So you my next slide I think kind of zooms in on this area. So as you look into the middle of the screen on the left so that was how it was originally envisioned and then on the right was kind of the amendment um that was made to Crawford. So mainly the reason I want to show you this is it's always been kind of planned to be realigned and not only that our general plan's been amended to kind of reflect this um as we start looking at development or eventual development of the what I'll call the Machado property which is where this um area lands. So on the right hand screen you can kind of orient yourself is Costco um and then in the circle is sort of the abandonment area. Now, when this area fully develops, that's kind of what this map is showing. So, you have um I've kind of highlighted on the right hand side of the screen FCB

Homes, which is um has has since been built out. KB Homes on the on the below FCB, that's the one that's currently under construction. And then what I've done is I've highlighted the green area. That is the future K through8 Sullivan school site. And so as we start looking at the application tonight, that red area that's highlighted just above the green, that's the old Crawford Road stretch that will be abandoned. And so you can kind of see how how Westgate curves up and then you you have that intersection with Machado Parkway. Again, this is just to highlight um that section that's being abandoned, but I also wanted to note, this is important, that the public utility easement that's in place will remain for future use, whether it's for school site development or existing utilities that are within that area. Now, what we're doing tonight is just looking for a general plan consistency finding. The streets and highway code requires the planning commission to find that this vacation is consistent or in conformance with the city's general plan. As I mentioned, um the general plan amendment was approved by the city council in 2019 as part of the Crossroads West project. And also just wanted to hit on a few um general plan policies that this um action falls under as being consistent with. So, um, originally in the Crossroads West specific plan, uh, both the planning commission and council found that the specific plan was consistent with the following three circulation element, um, policies. Um, 1.2, new growth are shall provide fully connected network of smaller roadways. Uh circulation 2.1 new growth areas will provide an appropriate balance of higher activity land uses which shall not be focused in linear pattern along large

roadways and circulation 3.3 projects will accommodate transit facilities consistent with transit agency planning. Um again I just kind of wanted to hit on the public utilities side of this action. So again, um, as it stands currently, there's no city-owned utilities within this area, but there is some, um, existing utilities that, uh, remain in place. I believe it's a gas line, a fiber optic line. Um, so again, that that utility easement will stay in place. Now, the exhibit on your right is just to show that the applic um establish a new utility easement that for the most part would go around the future school site. And so that that would basically be the road area and utilities. And again, just to kind of um spur that school site development, this is something that needed to take place. Um, in terms of environmental review, this project or this action is considered exempt. Plus, it had previously been evaluated under the Crossroads West Environmental Impact Report. And as such, staff would recommend the planning commission adopt resolution 25 2025-014 finding the proposed vacation conforms to the general plan and also rec recommending the vacation of the rideway area to the city council. Um, that concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay, let's open to public comments regarding this item 3.1. We'll start there.

Yes. Once again, Milt Treeweiler. I look at this and I wonder, you know, why are we even looking at the other uh portion of land that we just talked about? Because this is a large area that's all that's not developed. And you have more large areas like this already in your general plan that or in your sphere of influence that will provide you with housing forever. I just took a 15-day trip across country, ended up in Deuke, Iowa, where I have relatives, and I was amazed at, first of all, the lack of farmland. They have some of the best farmland for growing corn and soybeans. That's all they have. Nebraska and Iowa only has soybean, soybeans, and corn. We have 240 crops we can grow here. We definitely do not want to develop the the property. uh that we have been discussing because it's another reason not to do that. And another thing I noticed in the in the Midwest as I traveled through the Midwest, they build their housing up. I mean, they have um I was also in um Iowa City and it's just a city with a population of 73,000. They have many 8 10story buildings there. In California, we have this fear or we have something wrong. I don't know if the developers here don't know how to build multi-story buildings, but I think that you should I mean really I don't even know if you should approve this change in the roads, but it sounds like that is something that you're really concerned about. But it's just going to promote more sprawl, build up and not out. And you have to understand that once the land is gone, you've lost the best land in the world. And again, I emphasized to you the first

time that we're going to have to fellow one almost 1 million acres of farmland south of Status Los County. We're going to have the only farmland we can use to produce food. Why do we keep wanting to develop this? I know there's money in it. Yes, there's money in it for a few people, but what about the people who live here? What about the citizens of Riverbank? Um, the school area there, I don't know if you need a school there or not. Schools can be used simply as a means of jumping into an agricultural area, but it's on the borderline. So, apparently in this case, that must not be the purpose of it. But think, please think. This is so important for the future and you're the ones who are going to vote on it. Vote no against the Riverwalk project so that we have land for our children and our descendants. Thank you.

Thank you, chairman, members of the commission. Dave Romano on behalf of Crossroads West. I didn't know Crossroads West was going to be another opportunity to complain about the Riverwalk, but but here we are. It's it's a great pleasure to be here. Um, this Riverwalk or this Crossroads West project has been approved by the planning commission. that's been approved by the city council. We're very excited about the opportunity to continue to build out there. Um, every piece of land in our county almost has some agricultural benefit. So, you have to balance that issue of growth versus agricultural conversion. I think Riverbank's done a fantastic job of it. Um, when we developed the crossroads, the people on Crawford Road were not that excited about Crawford Road ultimately going through. For those of you that have been in Riverbank for a long time, you remember the little island we put uh in Oakdale Road and Crawford so people couldn't turn left on Crawford Road. And so then the city actually put into their general plan uh a disconnection in Crawford Road when we developed Crossroads West when we designed it. We actually honored that. But we did feel that there would be the necessity for future connectivity. So rather than just creating a road that was discontiguous, we did a minor adjustment to it so that if the city chooses in the future, you could continue that over to Coffee uh Coffee Road. So it was wise planning and and um that's far into the future. What's before you this evening is just a determination if this is consistent with your general plan and it has been now for over 15 years. So we would ask for your support for this resolution and we thank you for your time. Any further comment on item 3.1 of the agenda? Then we will close public comments. Any commissioners have any comments? Uh yeah, I just a quick question here. Um you actually already answered. I was going to ask what utilities might still

be out there, but that that makes sense. Gas line and fiber optic. Those are really a lot harder to relocate. I'm just curious that I see on the exhibit you have here denoting the future school site um that's appears to be superimposed over the residential lots that were approved on the tenative map. Was that uh something that was changed in the plan or is that an application coming through?

Yeah, let me let me pull that up. That's a great question. Um Norma, can we pull that slideshow up? See, so let me start off with this slide. Um, so this slide, this is an approved tenative map. I believe the number of lots is around, it's plus or minus 8 860 or so. Um, not including which is kind of in the middle at the top of the screen. So that's the KB and um FCB developments. So you can kind of see uh just kind of within the circle and to the right of the circle that's the school site sort of hatched out. So at the time the tenative map was done um there was some thought that the school district would be interested or wanted to purchase that properties. So the way the map was done, it was done sort of like a puzzle piece. you could pull out all those lots and drop in the exact site that the school needs. Um, so I believe that's what you're kind of referencing on this slide. Um, so yeah, you can see it basically the school, you know, takes up the exact footprint of those lots even to the streets. So that was my other slide I was showing where, you know, they're they're creating an easement around where those streets would be.

Okay. and and that was just that was something that was planned with the original tenative map I guess then yeah I think I think the developer had been meeting with Sullivan school district at that time and there was already a thought that hey the school is most likely going to be in this location so whether or not the school ends up going there they still wanted to map those lots in case the deal didn't come to fruition that makes sense all right thanks any other commissioner comments okay then I'd entertain a motion to adopt Resolution number 2025-14 and also the recommendation recommend vacation of the ride-of-way area to the city council. So moved.

I'll second. Okay, we have a first and a second. Roll call. Chair Zamora. Yes. Commissioner or Vice Vice Chair Alderman? Yes. Commissioner Stewart, yes. Commissioner Boso, yes. and Commissioner Dyn. Yes. Approved 50. Excellent. Motion passes. Moving on to item number four. Any planning commission comments in general? Okay. Any county referrals or correspondence information? Looks like we have a letter received from the League of Women Voters. That That's correct, Chair Zamora. I believe that's the only correspondence we received this past uh month.

Okay. and any staff comments? Yeah, just uh one quick comment. I wanted to make the commission aware or at least provide an update on the housing element. So, um as you may recall, we had sent the housing element um a revised housing element, our second draft up to the state um HCD about middle of June, late late June. So, we're um our due date to get or to receive comments from HCD is this week. So, we're expecting any day to receive um additional feedback or a clearance letter that the document is good as proposed. Okay. Excellent. Hopefully, it doesn't have to keep going back and forth.

All right. Excellent. With that, uh we get to item eight, which is adjournment. So, the meeting is now closed. Ajourned.