Planning Commission - Special Meeting

To speak in un...

Good evening, everybody. I would like to call this special meeting of the Riverbank Planning Commission to order. The time is 6 p.m. Welcome, and thank you for joining us this evening. City Clerk, could we get roll call, please?

Alternate Alex Rodriguez?

Here.

Alternate Armando Rodriguez?

Here.

Commissioner Bosso. Here. Commissioner Stewart. Here.

Commissioner Zamora. Here.

Vice Chair Deinen. Here. Chair Halterman.

Here. Thank you. Good evening everybody. Welcome to tonight's special planning commission meeting. We recognize that there is a significant public interest in tonight's project and we appreciate that everyone is taking the time to participate in this public process here. The Planning Commission is committed to conducting this hearing in a fair, respectful, and impartial manner. Our goal this evening is to hear the staff presentation, the applicant's presentation, comments from members of the public before the Commission deliberates and makes a decision. Before we begin, I would like to review a few procedures and particulars for tonight's meeting. The City is providing live language translation through Wordly this evening. If you require translation services, please see the staff at the welcome table. that can assist you in accessing this service.

Thank you. If any of you wish to speak tonight during the public hearing, please complete one of the speaker comment cards provided to city staff.

If you have not yet completed a card, the staff at the entrance can help you get that done as well. Tonight we would ask everyone to help us maintain a respectful and orderly meeting environment. So please refrain from applause and cheering and booing or shouting or other demonstrations of support or opposition. We understand this project's important to many members of our community, and these demonstrations can disrupt the meeting and prevent others from being heard. So please allow each speaker to address the commission without interruption. All comments should remain respectful and focused on the project that is under consideration tonight. I would add that Measure M, which is on the upcoming ballot in November, is not under the purview of the planning commission sitting here tonight. So we cannot act upon any comments from that. We are committed to providing everyone an opportunity to speak. If the meeting becomes disruptive, I may need to issue a warning to restore order. Individuals who continue to disrupt the meeting after being warned may be asked to leave in accordance with the applicable law so that the commission may continue conducting this public business. We appreciate everybody's cooperation and respect with that. At this time, I think council had something to address.

Hello, commission. My name is Thomas Rumlinger from the city attorney's office. I'd just like to take a moment to talk about the scope of your review tonight. I know Measure M is on a lot of people's minds. However, it's out of the scope of your review for this project this evening. In formulating your recommendation, the commission should focus on existing legal frameworks and the criteria applicable to the project. This is not the opportunity for the city to address Measure M. That's reserved for the city council. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Okay, and I believe at this time, we're ready for city staff to present the staff report.

Thank you, Chair, Joshua Mann, Community Development Director, and I have kind of a two part presentation tonight, I'm going to go through kind of my presentation, I'm going to hand it off to the city's EIR consultant to handle the review of the EIR. so again just kind of quickly wanted to go over the purpose of the public hearing so the public hearing tonight is to review the proposed Riverwalk project we're going to summarize the specific plan document itself and then go through a summary of the EIR and we're also going to talk briefly about the proposed development agreement we'll receive public testimony and ultimately the planning commission will consider a recommendation to City Council So first, just wanted to go through the location of the project. So generally speaking, the Riverwalk project is north of Patterson Road or State Route 108. This is east of McHenry Avenue, south of the Stanislaus River, approximately two miles from where we're sitting tonight. And it's currently outside the city limits and sphere of influence of Riverbank. So the project area and the proposed SOI or sphere of influence amendment, it would cover approximately 1,522 acres. The specific plan itself and the proposed annexation area is approximately 997 acres. The developer property that's subject to the development agreement consists of 769 acres. Just one point of note here, the reserve land is outside the specific plan area and is not part of the requested annexation. In terms of the city's existing general plan, it has a variety of land uses currently of this area. And these areas or these land uses consist of an agricultural resource conservation area. There's some buffer, open space, greenway areas. There's a civic use designation. as well as a variety of residential designations. Then we have mixed use. There's some multi-use recreational as well as some parks and right-of-way areas. So the actions before the city tonight and the Planning Commission's recommendation include a recommendation on the final EIR, a general plan amendment, the Riverwalk specific plan itself, pre-zoning of that approximately 997 acres, a development agreement, and then ultimately authorization to pursue a sphere of influence and annexation through LAFCO. Following the city's action, the SOI and annexation applications would go to Stanislaus LAFCO. LAFCO, for those not familiar, would be the final decision maker on any boundary changes. Later city approvals that this commission may see would include residential subdivision maps, improvement plans, and ultimately building permits to construct the homes. So the applicant is proposing a general plan amendment. So on our left is the existing general plan. On the right is the proposed general plan amendment. For the most part, it consists of some of the same type of uses that are currently in the general plan. They've just been shifted around to better suit the property and the plans here. In terms of pre-zoning, the 997 acres would be considered specific plan four, as the city has currently three specific plan areas. The pre-zoning would only become effective upon annexation. And just a point of note, the reserve lands outside the specific plan area would remain I'm sorry, reserve lands outside the specific plan area would remain outside of city zoning jurisdiction, meaning they would still be subject to Stanislaus County. Now, the specific plan itself, it's organized through a series of nine chapters. This includes the existing conditions, the vision of the Riverwalk project, land use and development standards, a chapter on circulation and mobility, infrastructure, parks, and public services. Then we have design guidelines, and then kind of a chapter on aging together hitting on the active adult area. Finally, Chapter 9 talks about implementation and administration for city staff. In terms of the project objectives of Riverwalk, the objective is to provide conventional and active adult housing choices. This will be done through creation of a mixed-use community core with services and recreation for those adults. Neighborhoods would be connected through a system of parks, trails, and neighborhood electric vehicle routes. they would protect the bluff river corridor canals and open space infrastructure be phased and coordinate local and regional transportation improvements the amenities within this specific plan area they include a clubhouse kind of centrally located neighborhood electric vehicles is a very big component of this proposal there's a series of riverwalk trails A COMMUNITY CORE THAT WOULD PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE PEOPLE LIVING THERE. AND THEN A VARIETY OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST THE 997 ACRES. IT'S SPREAD OUT AND THIS KIND OF SHOWS THE DENSITY. SO LOW DENSITY WOULD BE ZERO TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. GOING UP ALL THE WAY TO 16 PLUS IN THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. The mixed use would consist of 16 plus dwelling units an acre as well as an allowance for limited types of retail uses. We also get into again heavy components as the bluff and open space areas along the river. In terms of the age restriction component of this project, I've kind of highlighted the villages. So the project itself is split up in a variety of village areas. So the ones with the red arrows would be not age-restricted, and the ones showing with no arrows would be age-restricted. So you can see these age-restricted ones, mainly throughout the property, the less restriction is kind of near the coffee, Patterson Road area, I would call it. This map here shows kind of the circulation and mobility throughout the project. The project itself would be constructed with a variety of arterial, collector, and local streets. There would be two main connections, one at Patterson Road and then one on McHenry. The map also kind of highlights the Riverwalk Trail bicycle and pedestrian network as well as the neighborhood electric vehicle routes. Roadway improvements. So again, with a variety of different roads, just wanted to hit on the developer's obligations. So the developer would be obligated to construct approximately 2640 linear feet of Patterson Road. This includes widening and frontage work. There would be some project entrance and related improvements at the Coffee Road-Patterson intersection. This would include a new traffic signal. interior to the project, there would be a responsibility to construct the internal collectors, obtain the right away and utility relocation if necessary. Later approvals related to Riverwalk may require additional traffic analysis, which could lead to safety improvements or fair share contributions. The neighborhood electric vehicle plan for this project, not sure if everyone's familiar with this, but these are generally low speed electric vehicles, golf carts, if you will, that travel no more than 35 miles an hour. The specific plan provides these electric vehicle routes within the active adult area. These routes would connect the neighborhoods, parks, and trails, and the community core area. There's basically three classes. So a class one route would be separated shared paths. A class two would be striped lines or restricted rights away. Class three would be shared streets with posted speed limits of 45 miles or less. Ultimately final designs will be reviewed by the city with future subdivision maps and improvement plans. Here's just a map showing some of the trail system that's throughout the project. And again, this trail system is envisioned for bicycle pedestrian. In terms of developer obligations for water infrastructure, there will be three new domestic wells provided, a two million gallon water tank, two pressure regulated stations, a 12 inch transmission line for the water main, phased installations based on the approved engineering and subdivision maps, and then agricultural irrigation would be maintained or would need to be modified with Modesto Irrigation District. In terms of the wastewater capacity and phasing, just a couple of points I wanted to hit on. So the south lift station would be required. And so just to kind of point out, I know the map is small, so south lift station would be the part on the bottom of the map. And that would be required before the first residential building permit. Now there is a potential for initial capacity of up to 225 units. This was something that was discovered as we were working through the project. But as you note on there, this must be verified through engineering studies and vetted through the city before that can move forward. Once the first subdivision map's submitted, again, we'll review the data and it'll be determined at that time. Later phases will require river crossing with the force main and offsite conveyance improvements. The wastewater treatment plant expansion from 1.8 to 2.29 million gallons a day is not currently in place and capacity is not guaranteed. For storm drainage, the developer will be responsible for the entirety of their storm drain obligations within the project site, mainly meaning it will not be tied into the overall city system. Temporary basins, they would be permitted and maintained by the developer until they're turned over and accepted by the city. There is a design for dual use basins. This will provide drainage for the project as well as recreation opportunities for the residents. Ultimately, the final design must meet the city's low impact development standards and agency approvals will be required for any discharge into the adjacent canals, drains or river connections. I just briefly wanted to go over some of the development agreements. So the applicants proposed a development agreement, and some of the key terms, just wanted to walk you guys through them real quick. So the development agreement would be between the city and Riverwalk LLC. Again, they only control approximately 769 acres, so the development agreement would only cover those areas. The initial term is for 20 years, although there is discretionary five-year extensions that could extend it up to 35 years. Each extension would require city acceptance of at least 10 million in new qualifying public infrastructure during the prior five-year period. Comprehensive infrastructure phasing plan would be required before any tentative or parcel map applications. The age restriction component would apply to villages C and villages F through O. Again, this is a property that the applicant controls. Later approvals remain subject to city review. And again, later approvals would be things like residential subdivision maps, hearings, conditions, and legally required secret review. The development agreement allocates service and financing responsibilities, and I just wanted to walk you through a few of these. In terms of infrastructure, a CFD may finance eligible improvements. The services and maintenance CFD would be required, or the property would be required to annex into the citywide CFD. The city general fund and bonding capacity are not pledged. School district review school district will review future residential maps and may identify additional facility needs. The citywide SDF, which is our system development fees or impact fee schedule, would be set at the first residential building permit and adjusted by the citywide cost index. Just a side note on that, we are currently going through a system development fee update, so that is some of the reason of putting it off until we see kind of the conclusion and results of that study. There is a five-year SDF cap for the first 350 lots, and this is in villages A, B, and D. One thing that's important to note on, there is a public benefit fee component of this. Each home in the low-density or medium-density residential would have to pay a fee of $1,750 per home, and in the high-density residential, it would be $500 per home. Based on that the city would be looking at approximately four million dollars that we could then use as a citywide project. We haven't really identified it. There is a list of some projects but that would be something to discuss at a future date. A plan area fee and approved credits or reimbursements may apply to this project. In terms of public notice and access, just wanted to hit on a few things. So landowner notices were sent out on July 1st to properties within 500 feet. This is kind of an extended area than what we would typically do. We also publicized in the Riverbank News on July 1st. Public notice signs were provided by the applicant both on McHenry and at the Patterson Coffee Road intersection. And then the city provided English and Spanish EIR documents online as well as at City Hall North and South and the Riverbank Library. I wanted to kind of go over the planning commission's role tonight briefly. So the role tonight is obviously to conduct the public hearing. We're going to review the final EAR and proposed actions consider public and agency testimony and then ultimately make a recommendation to the city council. Again the commission does not certify the EAR or approve the project. City Council is the city's final decision maker on a project like this. And then, as I mentioned earlier, Stanislaus LAFCO will decide the sphere of influence and annexation requests. So just some items for the commission to consider tonight. Is this project orderly and contiguous growth? Consider housing supply, what the city currently has for active adult housing, and the potential mixed-use benefits of the project. Another consideration would be the conversion of farmland, infrastructure, service capacity and phasing, the development agreement terms, the vested rights and public obligations, transportation, VMT and safety improvements, significant and unavoidable impacts and the proposed benefits, public and agency testimony, and then ultimately internal consistency across all approved documents. So the planning commission's decision pass as laid out in the staff report if if they choose to make a recommendation of approval they would recommend the council certification of the final EIR and approval of the legislative actions as outlined in the attached resolutions and ordinances. Its recommendation for the denial Please state the reasons supported by the record and recommend the council denial. If the council denies the project, EIR certification and approval findings are not required. I next want to turn it over to Steve McMurtry with De Novo Planning Group. His firm has been helping us along the EIR. They're the EIR consultants for the project, and Steve's going to walk through a summary of the EIR. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Steve McMurtry, principal planner with De Novo Planning Group, consultant to the city. I have a quick presentation here, just a couple of slides. I wanted to walk you through the CEQA process, talk about some of the steps that we took, some of the conclusions in the environmental impact report, and then obviously I'll be available for any questions. So this illustration just lays out the process in totality. So it starts with a preparation of an initial study. That document goes out with a notice of preparation. And that's really a scoping process. It's a process where we do a kind of a entry-level analysis and determine what environmental topics we should study in more depth. That document goes out for a 30-day public review period and during that period we hold a scoping meeting where we invite citizens, agencies to provide any comments that they have to help us in identifying what the scope of the EIR should be. After that concludes we move into the draft EIR phase which is a pretty large process in terms of lots of technical studies a substantial document that's prepared that ultimately goes out to the public also again for their review and comment once that process concludes we'll have responses to any comments that were provided those go into the final environmental impact report and then often in most cases we do make some edits to the draft year based on comments and they can be for clarification or amplification of the analysis and that goes in the final year and then ultimately we end at a certification hearing where the the planning commission city council consider certification of the EIR So the NOP went out for public review on June 4th, 2021. That document went out to the state clearing house and through the state clearing house, they disseminate the document to many state agencies, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Conservation and so forth. Also on the local level, the city maintains a list of local agencies that the document goes out to and then it goes out to citizens. Again, the scoping meeting was held on June 17, 2021. That was during the 30-day public review period. And then any comments that we received through that process become an appendix attachment to the draft EIR, and all of those comments are considered within the scope of the draft EIR. So the areas that were brought up during the NOP process, they're all outlined here. It ranges from loss of agricultural land, floodplain issues, cultural resources. So there's a whole host of topics, and they generally follow the full gamut of environmental topics that are outlined within the California Environmental Quality Act. So ultimately we took those comments and we formulated what the scope of the year is and this year is a full scope year, which means that all of the environmental topics in the California Environmental Quality Act have their own chapter in their own independent analysis. within the draft EIR. All of the topics are outlined here. It ranges from aesthetics and visual resources to agricultural resources to transportation and utilities, public services, and so forth. The EIR also includes an alternatives analysis. And so the way that you think of this is there is a proposed project and then there's a series of what's called a reasonable range of alternatives. And there is a requirement for a no project alternative that's essentially you don't approve anything, you don't build anything, the land stays as is. then there's also an increased density alternative and this can be a scenario where you take the footprint of the project and you just increase density so you end up with more houses more commercial but within the same footprint there's also a low density alternative which is going to be looking at an alter scenario where you have larger lots we're going to have fewer fewer houses larger lots And in this scenario, we also reduced the footprint of the project. And then there's also a no reserve alternative. And this is effectively everything that's proposed to be part of the sphere of influence but not developed would not be part of the project. So the boundary of this alternative would be confined to just the specific plan area. The EIR includes a whole host of mitigation measures. As you can see there, there's 43 different mitigation measures that were included in the draft EIR. And these are designed to try to reduce an environmental impact where one is identified. And so the range of mitigation measures cover agricultural, aesthetics, biological resources. Almost every chapter of the EIR includes a series of mitigation measures. As you can see, 43 in total. COVERING ALL OF THESE TOPICS. A SIGNIFICANT AND AVOIDABLE IMPACT IS AN IMPACT WHERE EVEN IF YOU APPLY A MITIGATION MEASURE AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE NO MITIGATION MEASURES, YOU END UP WITH A CONCLUSION THAT THE IMPACT IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THE PROJECT AND DEVELOP THE PROJECT, YOU WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AND AVOIDABLE IMPACT. And so what we have here is two lists. On the left-hand side, you have your project level impacts. These are attributed just to the project. And then you have your cumulative level impacts, which are the project impacts plus other impacts associated with other projects and existing development that occurs within the region. As you can see, they're almost the same. So if there is a project level impact, for the most part, there is also a cumulative level impact. There were two topics, air quality and biological resources. They have an asterisk next to it in the cumulative section. Those were identified as cumulative impacts only. They exceeded the threshold under cumulative, but not under the project level. So the document went out for public review. There is a mandatory 45 day public review period, and it went out on January 31st, 2024. during that period there was a public presentation to the city council and that occurred in late february of 2024 and then the city based on some of the comments provided during that hearing or during that meeting was to extend the public review period and also add a spanish translation TO THE DRAFT EAR SO THAT OCCURRED IN THE CITY EXTENDED THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD UNTIL MAY OF MAY 16TH 2024 SO IT WOULD ENDED UP BEING A TOTAL OF 106 DAYS OF PUBLIC REVIEW THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT IS 45 SO IT FAR EXCEEDED THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT After the EIR, the draft EIR concluded its public review period, we assembled all of the comments that were provided. In total, it was 80 comment letters received. We break down each of those comments into individual comments within each letter and provide a formal written response. In some cases, I mentioned that we do provide an errata change. If there's a correction that needs to be made, sometimes there's clarifying text that we need to add to make sure that we clarify what the intent of the draftee error text was. And that's all done in an errata. Because there was 80 comments, a lot of comments, when you break down the letters, they cover the same topics. And instead of being very redundant and saying the same thing over and over again, we prepare what's called a master response. And so for an environmental topic such as noise, there might be a comment that's reoccurring. And we'll prepare one comprehensive master response. And then in the response to the individual comment, we just refer the commenter to the master response for an answer or a response to their comment. So the document is structured with a lot of master responses. ON SOME MAJOR TOPICS. AND THEN THERE ARE CERTAIN TOPICS THAT ARE CERTAIN COMMENTS THAT ARE JUST VERY SPECIFIC AND IT'S ONLY ONE COMMENT FROM THAT COMMENTER. AND SO WE ADDRESS THOSE INDIVIDUALLY. THE FINAL YEAR ALSO INCLUDES A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A CONSOLIDATED TABLE WITH EVERY SINGLE MITIGATION MEASURE. IT'S GOING TO OUTLINE WHEN THE MITIGATION MEASURE NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING IT AND MONITORING. AND SO IT PROVIDES KIND OF AN OUTLINE IF THE PROJECT WERE TO BE APPROVED. IT'S A DOCUMENT, SORT OF A LIVING DOCUMENT THAT THE CITY STAFF CAN MAINTAIN OVER THE COURSE OF THE PROJECT. THE FINAL ER, IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENT. IT'S 1,900 PAGES. IT'S PREPARED UNDER TWO VOLUMES. So the topics that were raised within the final EIR range from, and there's a lot of topics, obviously 1,900 pages of response, but these were some of the common themes within multiple comments. So LAFCO appeared under several comments regarding policies related to the agricultural lands the SOI or sphere of influence expansion, islands and island annexations. There was comments on the type of EIR. The EIR that was prepared was a program EIR to the extent that there was CERTAIN AREAS ARE NOT PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT, SO THERE'S PROGRAMMATIC LEVEL OF ANALYSIS. AND THEN THERE'S CERTAIN LANDS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO GO OUT AND PHYSICALLY SURVEY, SO WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO ON THAT PROPERTY, AND WE CAN'T ANALYZE AT A PROJECT LEVEL. AND THEN WHERE WE DID HAVE ACCESS TO THE LAND, WE DID GO OUT AND PHYSICALLY SURVEY THE LAND AND ANALYZE THAT AT A PROJECT LEVEL. So there's really a twofold analysis project level to the extent that we had access and then program level, which is more of a broader analysis in areas where we didn't have access to visit the property. Other topics were the reserve designation came up, Williamson Act contracts, agricultural resources, vacant lands, groundwater sustainability plans, water demand and recharge, and biological resources mitigation. These were some of the common topics. And I believe every one of these has their own master response in the final year. So the draft EIR and the final EIR combined, they're both two volumes. The draft EIR is 2,600 pages and two volumes. As I mentioned, the final EIR is two volumes with 1,900 pages, so a total of 4,500 pages. So it's a substantial document, and it's intended to provide information. Ultimately, an EIR is an informational document intended to inform decision makers as well as the public on the consequences or the outcomes that would occur if the project were to be approved. It does disclose significant unavoidable impacts. It identifies impacts that are determined to be less than significant if you are to implement mitigation measures that are built into the draft EIR. And then it also identifies in certain areas where there is a less than significant impact and there's really not a need for any mitigation measures. And then lastly, it does include that evaluation of alternatives. If the project were to be approved, and I know Josh touched on some of these, but some of the additional requirements or approvals from the city would be improvement plans, grading plans, final maps. There's building plans and master building plans, various permits. So a whole host of additional approvals. This isn't a final approval. There's lots of additional approvals that have to be approved by the city in order to build. The expectation is that the build out is somewhere between 10 and 20 years. It's often dependent on market conditions and demand and absorption of homes and commercial mixed use and so forth. But it's expected with a project of this size that it would be a 10 to 20 year build. And I know Josh talked on this. The next steps is that there would be a hearing. Every EIR needs to be certified by the city council, the approving body, prior to consideration of the entitlements. And there's a whole host of entitlements that the city would be asked to approve. And then there's another step of going to LAFCO because this is a boundary change of the city limits and also the sphere of influence. And those require LAFCO approvals. And that concludes my presentation. I'll hand it back to Josh.

Thank you, Steve. Chair, that concludes the staff's presentation on the project. I believe the applicant also had a presentation.

Yeah, thank you. I want the applicant now to come up to provide their presentation.

Chairman, members, let me see.

There we go.

Don't start my time yet.

It'll be on the screen for you, Dave.

want to make sure there we go want to make sure I can be heard it's a great pleasure to be here this evening chairman and commissioners my name is Dave Romano I've had the great pleasure of working in the city of Riverbank now for over 40 years when I is that better you're welcome and my time away In 1984, I graduated from college, and I went to work for Welty Engineering. They were the Riverbank City engineers, and so for about six years, I got to get to know your community, and it was a real pleasure. In 1990, I went to work for a firm that worked on development projects, and one of the first things we did was we annexed the Gruen Winters Annexation. It was on Morrell Road just north of Crossroads, and since then, been able to work on other annexation projects over on the east side of town, the Crossroads project, the Crossroads West project. And this project is really an exciting project. We've never seen anything quite like this in the county, and I commend the developer for bringing this to you. So anyway, I'll kind of walk you through this very briefly. I'm not getting my next slide. There we go. So this property is Riverbank's next high quality development. It has river frontage, it has a diversity of housing, and it is a highly amenitized community. Your general plan, and it is in your general plan, was started, undertaken in 2006. This project was actually a prior project that was being considered at the time, and the planning commission and the general plan considered its inclusion. The property was placed in your general plan in 2009. The application for development was filed in 2020. We held neighborhood meetings in 2021 and 2022 in groups. It was COVID, so we did some of those remotely, but we got the best attendance that we could. There were community-wide meetings in this building on the draft EIR in 2023. and a Joint Planning Commission City Council meeting here in 2025. I don't think there's any mystery that the community is aware of this project. There's been a lot of information. And here we are today in 2026 asking for consideration of the project. This is a copy of your existing general plan. You can see that this area is planned for development. A lot of the issues that you're going to hear this evening were discussed in 2009 were addressed in your general plan and the project is basically the implementation of it expands a little bit outside of the area, but it has a reserve area to the west and it has the project. For project details, it is an active adult community. Your planning director did a good job of going through issues associated with that. There's mixed use along Patterson Road. Village B, which is the village that is adjacent to the Park Ridge neighborhood, That originally was more of a low density neighborhood. We looked at that and we knew there would be concerns with that and so we adjusted those lots so that entire eastern edge, every lot is as wide as the Park Ridge or River Heights lot next to it. So you won't have two neighbors, you would have one neighbor adjacent to you. We also made sure that there was no vehicular access between this project and those neighborhoods so it will go down to Patterson Road. Villages A, B, P, Q, and R are traditional single family lots. Those are up on top of the bluff. There are about 348 of those lots. Villages D and E, we'll call them flex lots. They could be single family or they could be active adult. It depends on the size of the active adult. There's about 355 lots there. And then the active adult portion of the project has about 847 low density lots, about 702 medium density lots, and 180 high density lots. And the goal here is that if you live in Riverbank, I was in Escalon last night and a gentleman actually got up and talked about downsizing in Escalon. He wanted to stay in Escalon and downsize. As you age in your community and you have a large house, 2,500, 3,000, 3,500 square feet, If that's too much for you, this project would give you an opportunity to stay in your community and get into a new home that's more designed for somebody as you age, zero threshold, would have other amenities. And then within this core of the project, as you keep moving in, you get into even lower density lots that would be smaller. And then you get into some high density, then you're able to put kind of some care there. So it allows people to stay in your community as they age. And as people move into a community like this, they vacate homes behind them, which allow new families to move up. And as they move up, it allows people to move into other homes. And as we know, most first time home buyers, my son just bought his first home, uh, built in 1954 with plaster walls, but it's, you know, we don't buy a brand new car for our first car. We usually buy a used car. We don't usually buy a brand new house for our first house. We learn to be homeowners, and we move up through the system. So it'll be great for the community, and it'll create that diversity that we need.

Dave. Yes. Sorry to interrupt. Can you speak into the mic? Yes. They're having a hard time hearing you on Zoom.

OK.

Please. Or if you want to make it closer to you, maybe. That'll help.

All right. Thank you. next exhibits are just similar they're the circulation plan they're the neighborhood electric vehicle plan those were discussed by your planning director the plan has trails bike and pedestrian trails all the way around it and it is substantially over parked so you can see the park plan there and the parks Uh, the city standard for parks is five acres per thousand. A project of this size under your park standard should provide about 35 acres of parks. That would be the park obligation. It actually has about 43 acres of what would be considered active parks. So it's over parked plus it has about 203 acres. of buffer, greenway, open space along the river will stay more natural, but there will be trails that you can move along the river. You can make a circle of the community and it can connect up and then back into the community. So, you know, Any project has controversy. Any time you bring a new project, there's change. And people are comfortable where they are. And I've worked on high density projects. And they're frustrating to people that there's going to be apartments by them. I worked on a setter project in Tracy. And it was a... a medical office building that would have blood draws and it was right by the hospital, but it was a change to a vacant site and it had some controversy. And so a lot of these things you'll hear, but you know, when you hear sprawl, um, I've heard sprawl on every project I've worked on for 35 years, that's considered kind of a bad word. If we just yell sprawl, then that means that you won't approve this project. But the reality is a number of projects. You know in 1955 Park Ridge was built and it was off by itself and it was built on prime farmland and it was sprawled in 1955 and it is a gorgeous community. Next to Park Ridge is River Heights are fantastic communities. but they can be determined to be sprawl. The firm that I worked with in 1988 annexed North Landing, and with North Landing, we ended up getting the shopping center, Now you've got the new tractor supply. You've got a Dutch Bros. You've got that development. That was all part of the North Landing. And clearly, as you cross Patterson Road and you moved east at the time, that was sprawl. In 1992, we did the Santa Fe Clause annexation. That's over by Clause Road and Santa Fe. Those new homes are getting constructed over there. And that was the city. sprawling to the east. 1997, the crossroads was a sprawl project. The people that lived on Glow Road did not like that project. They lived in the country and they wanted to remain in the country. The people that lived on Crawford Road did not like that project because people were going to drive down the road. We resolved those issues the best we can. But Riverbank's been the beneficiary of not only that project, but the Crossroads Shopping Center. And I'll tell you, Crossroads Shopping Center is the envy of your neighbors. It's a fantastic shopping center. And it's really helped the city in growth and in finances. So we worked on those projects. And then finally, in 2019, we worked on the Crossroads West project. Crossroads was building out. We worked on Crossroads West. There were maybe rumblings at the time, but nobody knew if it would occur. But ultimately, that became the Costco that you now have. And again, you have envious neighbors. And I don't blame them, but Riverbank has been progressive in its planning. You've allowed these opportunities to occur. The Crossroads project is underway now. About 300 homes are in process with KB. And then you're getting a new Trader Joe's. So there's a lot of nice stuff that's going on, and development brings those things to you. You will also hear that we need to preserve agriculture. And I understand that we need to preserve agriculture, but we also need to provide housing. There's no question. We need to provide housing and we need to do it in a sensible and a thoughtful way. But I just want to walk you through a little kind of a case study. In 1997, we annexed the crossroads. It was 648 acres and all of the issues that you will hear today were spoken of at the time. In 1997, the county population was 420,000 people. In 2022, 25 years later, as Crossroads was finishing out, the population was 550,000 people. So we had a countywide population growth of about 130,000 people. In that same 22-year period, our harvested acreage increased from 795,000 acres to almost 885,000 acres. There was an 89,000-acre increase in harvested acreage in this county. The crossroads did not stop agriculture. It did not keep it from progressing. It did not keep farmers from farming. And in fact, in that same 25-year window, our crop value increased from $1.3 to $3.7 billion in crop value, a 280% increase. So farming, agriculture, water consumption, housing provision, all of these things can exist in unison. If you don't like the project, you don't like the project. But this is in your general plan, and this has been planned for development, and we didn't put it there. The city put it there. We're just trying to implement that. You also heard at the neighborhood workshop that the county supported riverbank sphere of influence modification of 1479 acres, and this was supposed to be your growth area for the next 20 years. And the statement was that this is the largest border expansion in the county's history. Well, Patterson's general plan expanded their sphere by 1840 acres in 1992. Newman by 2,500 acres in 1993. Oakdale by 2,500 acres in 1994. And Waterford by 1,600 in 2007. It was not a large expansion. It was crossroads west. It was the Army ammo plant to the east and a little bit of land. And it was taking the area to Coffey because that was a natural boundary. And so that's important. When Riverbank updated their general plan in 2009, they did not go to LAFCO and ask for a sphere modification. That only occurred with the Crossroads West project. Riverbank has always been thoughtful and judicious as they've grown, and the county's always asked them to grow and LAFCO with a project, with a project. We show them what we're gonna do. That's why we got Crossroads. We showed them what we were gonna do. That's why we got Crossroads West. And now with Riverwalk, we're showing them what we're gonna do. There's also kind of a flyer that's flying around that it's just a little bit of a rub because we can't oppose that but this drops in your mailboxes and it says that Riverbank already has designated space for 6700 housing units in the city limits. I'd be here fighting, too, if that was the case. But that's not true. You can ask your planning director if that's true. You can ask him how many units there are and what you're likely to get to. Crossroads West is building out. The city needs its next growth area now. These projects take a while to get off the ground. And actually, the area between Crossroads West and Coffee Road, which is in your sphere, can't develop unless we get this river crossing in that that this Riverwalk project will provide. So this is your sewer master plan. This shows where infrastructure is going to be provided to service the west side of the town. See if I find my notes here in the right spot. If you look in the area in yellow is served by this river crossing. and the Crossroads West project, or the Riverwalk project, excuse me, will construct this river crossing. It's needed. You can't develop in reverse. You can't develop without infrastructure and it's needed for the infrastructure. You will hear that it's a water recharge area and we need to preserve it for water recharge. The reality is this property pumps about 2,146 acre feet a year to service this orchard, open ground, walnuts, almonds. That's what the groundwater consumption is. The project will use about 1,657 acre feet. There's a reduction of about 23% in water use. And once we implement the new state standards, and those are coming, these homes are more and more and more efficient in water use, we're gonna be down to about a 40% reduction. And so that's the reality. You may hear other things, that's the reality. You will hear flooding is an issue. You wouldn't have put it in your general plan if it was an issue. It's in your general plan. People will reference that this area flooded in 1955. You have that testimony from your general plan hearing. New Maloney's was built I think in 1979. I'm in the vicinity. That basically changed all the flood consideration down the Stanislaus River. There is a very small area of this project that is in the 100-year floodplain. It has been preserved. It is an existing cherry orchard. And there are about 20 homes that are right at the edge of that flooding area. And we will take care of that with design features. But if we can't, ultimately, those could be omitted. So that's the reality. You may hear other, you know, you will hear otherwise, but it will be anecdotal and not true. you will hear about increased traffic and that's the one thing development brings and none of us will get up here and tell you that with new homes you don't get more traffic but the reality is this the North County corridor is under construction and traffic is going to be substantially different right now Roselle Avenue is closed I come to Riverbank almost every day and I live south of here and I drive through because my mother-in-law lived on Zarrillo Roselle Avenue is closed. Terminal Avenue is closed. Claus Road work is underway. Oakdale Road work is underway. And this creates a traffic mess. It's not this project that's doing that. It's going to slowly work its way out, but it's a mess. The project is a lower traffic generator by design, by the ages of the community. The project will construct master plan road improvements. The project will pay city traffic fees on the order of $10 million. Growth will occur in this area, and you will get traffic with or without this project. But if Riverbank controls its growth, it also has a say in its traffic improvements. And finally, you will hear about utility rates. The reality is this project will construct three wells, a two million gallon water tank connected the existing system on its back. This will increase the redundancy in your system, the reliability in your system, and it's like a new car. Its need for maintenance is substantially reduced and will help your public works department. The project will pay $10 million plus any new increases in wastewater fees, and 2,400 new units will allow you to spread your rates across more homes, and that will be beneficial. People can disagree with that, but that's just common sense. Again, this is your general plan. The project is in your general plan. The project has fiscal benefits, including a $4 million community benefit fee. It will pay over $4 million in fire impact fees, which will allow the construction of the Morrell Fire Station together with Crossroads West. It has a general fund surplus of up to $2 million a year at build out. These new homes will pay an $800 per year CFD maintenance fee that Crossroads West pays and development on the east side of the town pays. and nobody in the existing community pays for this. This means these homeowners will not only pay what the existing homeowners pay for fire fee for police service and fire service they will generate new money for police service and fire service and a general plan general plan general fund increase up to 1.2 million dollars a year will go directly to police service so the city will be able to increase their officers per thousand. The project will be able, the project will pay up to $600,000 a year in fire department staffing, which will assist with the Morrell Fire Station. So, project benefits, and I've got 20 minutes, right? I've got 1.15 left. Ready? The benefits are positive for the general fund, funds fire facilities and staffing, funds police staffing over and above general fund levels, and that's what existing residents pay, provides community benefit fees that can be used at the city's discretion, provides a diversity of housing, implements your general plan, constructs master-planned improvements, and those are all based upon your general plan, your fees are based upon your general plan, provides parks above the city standard, and provide to the city a new high-quality development along the river, again, as planned by your general plan. So I appreciate your time. I appreciate you listening to this. I'm excited to represent this project. And at the conclusion of the public testimony, I'll have a few closing comments. But I really appreciate your time and consideration. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you Before we move on to the public hearing portion. I just want to go over a few of our Excuse me procedures and expectations for the evening city staff has already presented the staff report and the applicant has given their 20 minutes on the project i'm going to officially to the public for hearing when your name is called by the city clerk will please come to the microphone clearly state your name for the record and direct your comments to the planning commission here each speaker will have three minutes to address the planning commission timer will be displayed to help you monitor your time We respectfully ask that you conclude your remarks when your time is expired so that everybody here will have the equal opportunity to be heard Remember the comments should be directed to us as the Commission as a whole and not to individual audience members or to other speakers Excuse me again members of the public who have submitted speaker cards will be invited to address the Commission and Then once all the public testimony has been received. I'll close the public hearing at that time the Planning Commission will deliberate ask questions of staff or the applicant if necessary and and take action. So with that, I will declare the public hearing open.

Thank you, Chair. I will be calling in groups of three, so that way you can make your way to the microphone up in the front. If you're far or near, that way you know you're coming up next. You will have three minutes, and they will show on both the screens up here. And my first three speakers are Vivian Lopez, Karen Conrado, and Kate Donovan. So in that order please, Vivian Lopez, Karen Conrado, and Kate Donovan. You can make your way to the microphone and I will let whoever's here first go.

While they're coming up, I just want to mention to the few of you standing in the back, there are some seats over here in the front if you want to come up and sit down. I think there's a few in the middle over there. So I know you've been standing, but we do have a few more seats if you'd like to take them.

And then if you can each, as you come up, please state your name for the record.

Hello. Kate Donovan. I've lived in Riverbank for 27 years. I'm a registered nurse, retired. I think this project is like Swiss cheese. There's a lot of holes in it. I'm going to speak about one specific thing, being of a medical background. I'm very concerned about the fire and police. So I did a little deeper dive. Riverbank, as you know, does not have its own fire and police. It's contracted out. to the county. We already do not meet the goals stated by the city. The general plan goal is 1.25 sworn officers per 1,000. The city runs closer to 0.77 to 0.85. FOR FIRE, THERE'S SOMETHING CALLED AN ISO RATING. I'M SURE YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THAT IS. THE WORST IS 10, THE BEST IS 1. RIVERBANK'S GOAL IS 2. WE ARE AT 4. SO BUILDING THIS PROJECT, I HEARD, I DIDN'T HEAR HIS LAST NAME, DAVE, ADDRESS IT VERY BRIEFLY. I SAW SOMETHING ABOUT 64%, WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN. BUT WE'RE ALREADY BEHIND, SO IT'S WAY MORE THAN THAT. So we're not just straining. The city is not being strained. These agencies are being strained. Our fire and our police do a great job, but they're behind. It's not their fault. It's the city's fault. We fund these agencies, but we don't control their staffing. I really haven't heard much about what the city intends to do about that. I'm really concerned that this is just gonna be waved off as unimportant, okay? I heard the disclaimers about the law, that Measure M doesn't pertain to your decision tonight. I have several attorneys in my family. I know there's something called the law and the spirit of the law. And in the spirit of the law, I would ask that you delay your decision till after the voters, the Riverbank residents, have a chance to show you how they feel and what they want for our town. Okay, so my request is you delay. You delay your decision until the voters speak? Or do we live in a town where a few of you get to decide what's best for the rest of us? I know all of you have a conscience. I know all of you have integrity. And when you lay your head down tonight, I hope and I pray that you go to bed knowing you made the right decision for the citizens of Riverbank. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Vivian Lopez. I just want to ask Gabby, because I submitted for two public comments.

So you're only allowed to speak once. So you can choose which you want to speak on.

OK. I was going to speak a statement from the League of Women Voters and then my personal comment.

That'll be fine. Just state which comment you're doing now and then the next one.

Okay. So good evening. I'm Vivian Lopez and I'm a resident of Riverbank. I want to start off with a statement from the League of Women Voters of Stanislaus County. The League has a history of study and advocacy regarding land use decisions. including comments on the 2026 Riverbank general plan update. We recognize that farmland is an irreplaceable resource and prime farmland in particular needs to be preserved and protected. Riverbank's current sphere of influence contains land which can be developed for housing, avoiding unnecessary conversion of the prime farmland in the proposed Riverwalk development area. The League of Women Voters advocates for urban development that is contiguous with existing development. Development provides more economical provisions of urban services, allowing for adequate funding for infrastructure, Our organization also supports water policies and practices that protect and ensure coordinated sustainable use of groundwater and surface water supplies for urban, agricultural, and environmental purposes. We are concerned that the urbanized land use proposed for Riverwalk will affect the ability of the land to serve the purpose of aquifer recharge that can occur when the land is in agricultural use. Thank you. Okay, so now. Okay, so now I'd like to go ahead and read some of my personal comments. We're here tonight to consider the Riverwalk General Plan, a proposal covering approximately 1,522 acres and includes more than 2,000 new homes. Over the past several years, the City of Riverbank has also had the opportunities to approve affordable and supportive housing projects. including proposals at the corner of Stanislaus Street and Jackson Avenue and at Muriel and Oakdale Road. Those proposals were ultimately not approved due to public opposition. Every California city is required to adopt a housing element that addresses its regional housing needs allocation, the RHNA numbers. It needs to go across all income levels. from above moderate to extremely low income. While providing housing for very low and extremely low income households can be challenging, those are still legal obligations that cities are expected to plan for and work towards meeting. That is why I struggle to understand the different standards being applied. Tonight, the city is considering approving a large market rate housing development that requires annexing approximately many acres into the city. Yet previously, affordable housing proposals located within the existing city limits, including infill projects that could strengthen established neighborhoods and make efficient use of existing infrastructure were denied. and field development should be prioritized. It reduces urban sprawl, makes better use of existing infrastructure, and helps create housing opportunities for residents of all income levels. I have serious concerns also about the city wastewater treatment capacity. The city has publicly acknowledged that the wastewater treatment plant is operating at or near its capacity. And discussions have been underway regarding costly upgrades or expansion. If the city has not yet identified or funded a long-term solution, I question how a development of more than over 2,000 additional homes can be responsibly approved. Before moving forward with a project of this magnitude, the public deserves clear answers. Our residents are at risk because approving this development before critical infrastructure- Ms. Lopez, your time is up. Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Karen Conrado.

I'm glad to see you Planning Commissioners. Thank you for your time. I'm here to let you know that I oppose the proposed Riverwalk development. The reasons are as valid now as they were when this proposal started and the concerns have still not been adequately addressed. The reasons are as follows, and Josh mentioned them, but I want to go over them again. The destruction of approximately 1,000 acres of unique, rare, world-quality prime agricultural farmland. productive farmland should be retained for food production. The increased efficiency of current ag techniques does not replace the increased need to produce high quality nutritious food, not only for our cities and counties, but for the world. And Dave Romano mentioned the increased efficiency, but when you take out those acres for homes, that's that much more land that was not efficiently used for agriculture. depletion of the aquifer, destruction of water recharge capabilities, and mention of the adverse effect on existing wells, so the surrounding farmlands. could have their wells go dry. Flooding, this area is a flood plain. It has flooded numerous times in the past and will again in the future. It wasn't addressed that there's a snow and water warm weather changes when you have a lot of heavy rains because the weather is warmer and then it snows and then the snow melts with the rain and the rivers flood and they have to release that water for the dams not to break. and that causes flooding downstream. Destruction of repairing habitats and wildlife corridors, inadequate infrastructure, increased water, sewage, and garbage rates, which you've already been seeing. Increased traffic, the north corridor will not be adequate for these increased vehicles on the road. Delayed emergency response times. The police and sheriff, fire, ambulance staff will all be overwhelmed. A retired deputy sheriff told me that Riverbank contracts for a certain number of deputies with a huge amount of additional land and development for fire and police. With this new development, the emergency response time would be horrendous with a 30 to 60 minute delay in arrival. Overburdened schools. The plan allows children but does not cover building schools or addressing the burden of increased enrollment in existing schools. It was mentioned as an after the fact, but it should be before.

schools building.

Cultural resources, accumulative impact, urban sprawl, leapfrog development, isolated county islands, unwanted annexation, loss of a greenbelt, all of those were mentioned and have not been addressed adequately. A resident asked me, how does this improve the lives of people that are already living here? The traffic is horrendous as well as the sewer water and garbage rates. The city of Riverbank already has more than the needed acres in their SOI. And I wanted to, and nothing was mentioned about the prediction. Ms. Conrado, your time is up. Okay, decreased population has not been considered.

If I can have the next three speakers, Mr. Robert Donovan, Celia Duran, and Diego Hernandez.

I'm Mark Licecchio.

Hello, everyone. I'm Robert Donovan, and I'm an emergency physician. My family and I have been in Riverbank for over 27 years. Now, I really spend my working life working on some interesting cases, but essentially when systems fail, they'll come to the emergency department. And when I look at this project, the idea of the emergency room really comes to mind. And as a doctor, I'm going to take a little bit of license, particularly as an emergency doctor. I'm going to be talking about poop. In polite circles, we call it wastewater. But the lack of planning for it in this proposal really is astounding. I want to get practical. The average person flushes the toilet about five times a day. If you add showers, laundry, dishes, and sinks, a typical California household sends about 200 gallons of wastewater down the drain every single day. Now let's do some math. Let's multiply that by the number of proposed houses, which is at least 2,250 homes in the most recent report I saw. If you do the math, that's 450,000 gallons of wastewater every day, day after day. Now let me give you a graphic. If you take that same amount, put it over a football field, it's going to stand about one foot in height. And that's day after day. Now, if you look at the staff report that they gave earlier, they mentioned that our existing system may have capacity to take care of an additional 225 single home residents subject to verification. Notice that main word, subject to verification. It hasn't been verified. And what about the other 2,000 homes? Where are they going to flush? What are we going to do with that extra waste? In the documents we look at, they essentially say it's not being confirmed. I did see in one of the earlier slides, they mentioned, I think, a very favorable hope of reducing water consumption to 40%. I think that's a wonderful goal. I don't think it's very realistic. And to start basing things based on hopes is not a really good way to go. I think one of the things that I also worry about is that the expansion for the sewer system has been talked about. We actually have a rate increase that's going on all the way to 2032. it's hopefully to pay for the expansion. But even with the approved expansion, it's not going to meet the existing needs. And so I think my ask is simple for the board. I want you to wait for the engineering analysis to actually be performed and look at it. What can the current system actually take care of? And then unlike the state of California, high speed rail, don't go on funny ideas of money and gee whiz hopes. Look what Riverbank can afford and what Riverbank needs, thank you.

Good evening, Planning Commission, fellow residents. My name is Diego Hernandez. And I've lived in Riverbank long enough to know when the people who are supposed to represent us decide that they want to use us as an ATM. Let's be crystal clear about how we got here. Special interests between William Berryhill and our former mayor, Richard O'Brien, put us in the position that we're in today. And the ordinary rate payers are the ones that are getting screwed. PUBLIC RECORDS SHOW THAT THE SEWER EXPANSIONS, THE RATE HIKES, THEY WERE NEVER ABOUT FIXING THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT. IT'S BECAUSE WE LACKED CAPACITY FOR THIS PROJECT. THIS PROJECT WAS STUCK ON HOLD BECAUSE WILLIAM BARRY HILL WAS IN LITIGATION WITH A KUWAITI BUSINESSMAN WHO WAS RUNNING MONTEREY FINANCIAL ADVISORS. THIS IS LITIGATION THAT CLEARED UP WHAT HE WON IN 2017 AND IT WAS APPEALED. AND ON MARCH 19TH OF 2019, HE WON final appeal that was lodged against him two days later the title was cleared and five days five months and six days later on august the 27th in 2009 item 6.2 for the city of riverbank to get into contract with ksn engineering was signed to begin the work on the wastewater treatment project 640 000 gallons of capacity is what we need for that project and we've been paying for it and we can't fund the wastewater project in fact on September of 2025 they said Eric helgelson said that in order for us to fund the project we would have to do six percent increases for five additional years and maybe we would be able to pay for it the city refused my public records request to get the pro forma documents when I spoke to Eric helgelson he said he had them It gets a little bit more troubling because we can't even cover the debt service. The ratio is so low that he has to extend it years or else we can't cover it. And do you guys know what that looks like? That's $146 per month. And the original projections capped out at $109.39 per month. We're going to have a $300 sewer bill, all because William Berryhill and Richard O'Brien, who sat together for years on LAFCO, decided to pass this project on our dime. That's why we're here today. And that's what the Riverwalk has been about. And that's what the wastewater treatment project has always been about. And I hope that the residents are pissed now that they know this. And if you guys want to see the documents, the histories, the APNs, the documents, the appellate court filings. I'll show it to you guys so you guys can track this and you guys can see how the interest works. At the same time that this was happening, Amir Al-Jaseem, who represented Barusa LLC, purchased this property in 2003 and took it out of Hancock Natural Resources Group where it was held as preserve land and it was added to our general plan. Thank you.

I'm going to ask the public again to keep the cheering and shouting to a minimum. I appreciate your enthusiasm for this and participation, but it does add time to what we're doing, and it takes away from the other speakers. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Senator Duran, and I've been a resident of Riverbank for 35 years. And I don't feel like this Riverbank plan is for the community. This plan is not for us. A country club, that's not for the residents of us today. This topic about the police increase, that's to fulfill the Riverwalk housing, to fulfill that community, not to fulfill our community. Regarding the fire department, it's the same thing. The money that's allocated to that, it's allocated to the development of the Riverwalk, not to help our community here. So I'm against it as well. Sorry, I got nervous. That's it.

Thank you.

If I can have the next three speakers come up. Jamie Agers, Bob DeMont, and Dan Whetstone. And if you're closer to the mic, you can come up as you get here. No particular error is necessary.

Jamie Yeagers. I live within the proposed project area. We've owned property for 42 years there and have had a contract with Blue Diamond Growers that entire time. I have a few comments. First, the draft EIR for the project included the following, which is a quote. The process included the appropriate outreach to Native American tribal organizations. This was done because the law requires that tribes be notified. The list, however, failed to include the tribe closest to the project area, specifically Chicken Ranch Rancheria in Jamestown. This is a serious oversight that needs to be corrected by completing this required step, including that information in the final EIR, and then recirculating it again before the project goes forward. Second, at the public meeting held 13 months ago here in this very same room, Commissioner Stewart asked whether there was sufficient wastewater capacity for the project, and the consultant responded that there was. Given that, during the public comment period I pointed out that there was an entire discussion in the draft EIR about the shortfall in capacity, and that discussion can be found on page 4.0-99, which states this. The city currently has excess capacity that amounts to approximately 31% of the needs for the entire specific plan. I bring this up because tonight we've heard something very different, meaning that there's only enough for maybe 225 homes. That's a difference of 31% that was previously reported and less than 10% now. Why hasn't the real number already been verified? As Joshua said, tonight it was, quote, discovered as they were working on the project. I guess in the last 13 months. Lastly, you heard a little bit about the state's required housing numbers. What's important to understand is that the state doesn't require units to be built. It requires jurisdictions to have sufficient space available that is properly zoned such that the units could be built. In the most recent updated version of Riverbank's housing element that I reviewed, it demonstrates that Riverbank could meet its numbers for the next cycle without the Riverwalk project. In other words, the need for this project has not been demonstrated. What's primarily been built historically are the higher end homes, and Riverbank has consistently failed to meet the numbers in the other three lower income categories. Because I actually asked the former mayor in a meeting once, how does Riverwalk help meet your housing numbers? He said, it doesn't. And I agree with that. What Riverbank needs is more attainable housing, not more high-end housing. I also wanted to point out that Mr. Romano said tonight that this project expands, quote, a little bit outside of the planned area. If you look at the numbers and do the math, it's approximately a third of the project area. That's the reserve area right now. That's more than a little. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Bob DeMont. I'm not a resident of Riverbank. I'm a resident that lives in smack dab in the middle of this development area for the last 28 years. Um, I, I just like to say, you know, that while the, while the doors are open, these meetings are hard to attend, uh, for the residents of Riverbank. And, and that may be hard to believe, but a lot of the residents of Riverbank, they've got soccer practice to go to. They've got meals to make for their family. They've got homework to help their kids with. And I think that's kind of represented maybe by the age demographic of the group here tonight, of the folks who could actually make it here. But while the residents of Riverbank maybe have a hard time getting here, the residents of Riverbank have made a statement. And I understand that the city attorney has said that Measure M is irrelevant. But the residents of Riverbank have said that they want to vote on this. They want to vote on this expansion. They want to vote on 36,000 additional vehicle trips onto McHenry and Patterson Road. They want to vote on this issue. And so I would ask you again in the spirit of the law to consider abstaining tonight, deferring the decision until after the election to let the citizens of Riverbank have the voice that they've asked to have.

Good evening. My name's Dan Whetstone. I live adjacent to where they're going to put the four-lane road from the project onto McHenry. My house will be about 50 feet from the road probably. The back of my house has all windows and it looks right down on the river bottom. Now that we have our windows open, we hear the coyotes yipping at night, the owls, possum, Raccoon, Swainson Hawk, the wildlife there is very plentiful. We don't need homes down there. You know, we're jumping out two miles, right? You know, Crossroads wasn't a jump out. It was, you know, you build it adjacent. That makes sense. I'm not jumping out two miles. He also mentioned, he didn't mention the recharge. He talked about the water usage difference, but how much recharge are we gonna get out of lawns and streets and that's all gonna drain out in the gutter and go over to the sewer. Again, I bought my house in April of 2021. June of 2021, we heard this project was coming around. Why now? You know, can we wait another 90 days for the election? You know, I guess if things finally came to the head or whoever decided to have this meeting knows when the election is. I guess that's about it. Thank you.

If I can have the next three speakers, Mr. Gary Pearson, Mr. Cal Campbell, and Gretchen Brown.

You ready. My name is Cal Campbell I've lived in this area for over 50 years a graduate of Oakdale High School taught school in Riverbank and Oakdale for 40 years before I retired that. And what bothers me is we're eating up all things. And if you look all around the state You go from Fresno, and it's getting closer to the next city. You go down to, I don't know if you've known or not, but they, by LA, they're coming right over to Bakersfield. And I see this growing in our county. And I grew up in an area where we could go out, hunt, have fun things. That's going, because all these lands are being eaten up. Now, I agree that houses have to be done, but they have to be done and homes and without taking land that should be maybe park or otherwise used. The particular land that you have is actually a historic land. It was a land where the Stanislaus Indians fought the, uh, San Jose priests when they put them, made them Christians and then made them slaves. And they had battles right there down around that particular area. So there's a historic value there, too. We also need more of a park area down here. We have only one small park, Jacob Myers Park. That's been around with about 3,500 people when it started. We're way above that. We need enough of land to have a better park area along this way because that is good for everybody. And if you take away too much of it, you know, it's gone. I'll make a couple comments. North County Corridor. They started it when I was a junior in high school. Took up 70 years to get it done. I was on the city council for nine and a half years, by the way, and I talked to a couple of those guys because we were doing more about it, and I told them, you sure wasted money over the years. You should have had it done a long time ago. I don't want to see that happen, too, and feet being drugged. And I don't want to see people that are just building these houses and I don't want to see them become millionaires more, let's put the houses at a better price. Because if you want them, they ought to be at a price and you shouldn't make other people millionaires. That's one of the comments that I have. And likewise, I do agree with letting the citizens of this community vote on this. That's the whole basics. of the United States, and I would be very disappointed if it had taken. You need to hear from your citizens. If you don't, you're not really caring for us. Mr. Campbell, your time is up. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you guys hear me? It's a little difficult here. Sorry, I'm a tall guy. Good evening. My name is Gary Pearson. I'm a resident of Riverbank, a farmer, and a member of the BPAC for Stancock. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you tonight regarding this FEIR for the project before this commission. I've spent numerous hours reading, studying, and researching this project, and I have been through all 4,200 pages. First, farmland preservation. My family are strong advocates for preserving Stanislaus County's prime agricultural land. This project would permanently remove valuable farmland from agricultural production. Once prime farmland is converted to urban development, it's gone forever. Stanislaus County, having been here since I was born, is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the nation. produces high-value crops, supports local economy, jobs, and food security. We have a responsibility as citizens to preserve these irreplaceable resources for future generations. Second, you've heard about flooding. The proposed development is located within a known floodplain. In fact, to correct a misnomer, the last time it flooded was 1997. If you want to know where to find that, go to the History Museum in Riverbank. History has shown that this area has experienced flooding and flood risk continued to evolve as weather patterns become more extreme. My question is simple. Would you want your family living in an area with a well-documented history of flooding? I believe we should not place future residents in harm's way. Third, groundwater. Water is one of Riverbank's most valuable resources. Analysis of the groundwater's The city's groundwater system indicates a system-wide groundwater depletion, even with recharge from the Stanislaus River. Before approving a large residential development, we should have confidence that our long-term water supplies are sustainable for both existing and future residents. And I applaud Riverbank as they've joined together with other regional cities to form a joint sustainable groundwater management plan. Fourth, wastewater. The staff report states that 225 equivalent dwelling units may proceed before planned backbone convenience improvements are completed, subject to verification and capacity and safety. This raises important questions. Will these 225 homes be connected to the city of Riverbank? I think we need to study that and get the reports from the consultants about the wastewater system. We need to make informed infrastructural decisions today which can save residents significant costs in the future. And finally, well, my time is up, but that levy down there is not a certified levy by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Thank you, Mr. Pearson.

Some of us are shorter than Gary. Good evening. My name is Gretchen Brown. I live adjacent to Riverbank in Park Ridge. and our neighborhood borders the proposed Riverwalk. My family has been here for 57 years, since 1969. I do have three main concerns. My neighborhood is approximately 96 houses, and we are serviced by two wells. Our wells have dropped 25 feet in the last 10 years. You are proposing a development of at least 2,400 houses with three wells. I'm wondering what your long-term plan is for obtaining water and making sure the rest of us who are already here will have water. My second concern is, as Gary alluded to, flooding. I moved here in 1969. The river flooded in 1970. And again, after New Melonis Dam was built in 1977. Now we're on the high side, so that's not a problem for us. But when we couldn't see the other side of the river, that was kind of a big deal for the people across the river and the people that are in the neighborhood that is adjacent to the railway line and the viaduct that's that low neighborhood that has to be protected by a berm. So I wonder what the plan is for flooding there. It will flood again. The third thing, and this is something that I'd like you guys to think about. I attended the last public meeting several months ago. I am sure that I heard one of the developers say that There is a potential of not 2,400 houses or dwellings, but actually 4,800 dwellings. I would really like you to address this and see if this is accurate or not. I appreciate your time and appreciate that you're having this public hearing. I do ask that you would delay your decision tonight. Thanks very much.

If I can have the next three speakers, Mr. Kent Mitchell, Irvin Moya, and Mr. Richard O'Brien.

Well, my name is Kent Mitchell. I am a Riverbank resident. And I've been opposing development on this site since 2008, when Fritz Agruppi tried to buy his way in. And now here we are almost 20 years later. And I've made comments. against the Riverwalk proposal in front of you commissioners before and in front of the City Council. And I won't do that too much here tonight. People are doing a good job of that already. Suffice to say this is the wrong space for development. But when I was going door to door collecting signatures for what has turned out to be Measure M, I was surprised to see how unpopular this proposal is with the people in my community, which is River Heights District 3. Not everyone, of course, and a lot of people didn't know about the project at the time, but the ones who did, the vast majority were not in favor of this proposal. You can drive through my neighborhood and see dozens of no on Riverwalk signs. So my message is listen to your constituents. I prefer that you just reject this proposal outright. But if you feel that is the right decision in your opinion to go ahead, I suggest you not do an end run around the public and the voters and try to approve this proposal prior to the election. Instead, wait until the voters of Riverbank have an opportunity to vote on Measure M, which if passed, will allow the citizens of Riverbank a say on developments such as Riverwalk. Thank you.

Good evening, Council. My name's Ervin Moya. I'm a resident of Riverbank since all my life. Sorry, let me lift this up. This is my first time attending a public meeting, which I should be better about doing my civic duty, right? And attending and being more involved. But I have been seeing a lot of comments, a lot of information circling around this project. And I felt as a RESIDENT OF RIVERBANK I SHOULD AS WELL SPEAK UP AND ADDRESS MY CONCERNS REGARDING THIS PROJECT WHICH I FEEL I SHARE THOSE CONCERNS WITH MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS WHICH IS THE IMPACT ON OUR CITY SERVICES TRAFFIC YOU KNOW JUST THINGS THAT would affect our day-to-day lives. So yeah, I oppose this project, I oppose this measure. I wanted to come and voice my concerns as well, and thank you for your time.

Good evening, I'm Richard O'Brien. Thank you for having me speak today. This is a quality development and I am in favor of it. It was planned in 2003 during the general plan, as it went going through 2007, when it was approved by the city council. This isn't a new, um, just off the wall. This is a project that's been around, uh, for longer than I've lived in river bank. Yes, there are issues. The issues will be addressed as development development as it is going. Isn't going to happen overnight. going to happen over a 20-year period before the first 225 homes are built there will be either a resolution or the project will stop but the project itself is in is a high quality and is something that should be in demand it is unfortunate that we're competing against a time scrunch for the the election for a measure M but the measure M is from what I saw from the signature gathering to what the proposal for Measure M is, is not exactly correct. It's all land west of the city instead of north of Patterson Road. So that should be a little bit of concern for the city council and for your legal team. So let's take a look at prime ag land. Our prime ag land is growing almonds. Almonds can grow anywhere. Last year we exported 1.1 billion pounds of almonds. 1.1 billion pounds. That's equivalent to one and a half million acre feet of water if you have one gallon per almond and 450 almonds per pound. That's what it comes to. So that's exported, that's out. We will not recoup that from the 970,000 acres that we have in Stanislaus County. If we have an acre foot of water, we're still at a difference. Now, I'm not saying we can't grow almonds in the prime ag land. It's just a point that it's not prime ag land that is a definitive in how you grow. It is your Mediterranean climate and water. That grows everything. You can grow it up the state and down the state, and there are certain areas that are a little bit hotter where the pistachios grow a lot better than they are up here, but they can be grown up here. So it's not the prime ag land. We have 500,000 acres of agriculture that is not in production. Twenty percent of your grapes are going to be dropped because there's no market. There's a lot of places where there's no markets, but we do have subsidies.

If I can have the next three speakers, Aaliyah Brown, Bill Berryhill, and Mike Bennett. Aaliyah Brown, Bill Berryhill, and Mike Bennett.

I'm Mike Bennett. I've lived here for about 10 years. I came from Manteca and anybody that says that a flood plain won't flood, I was there in 97 and it flooded. So my concern is there was an article in the Modesto Bee that we as a city are concerned with the encroachment of Modesto at our south end. We're doing the same, we're proposing the same thing at our north end. I'm just confused as to why we are concerned at one end and not the other. This is, in my opinion, you guys are jumping the gun. You've waited this long. I think you should wait until after the vote to find out the majority of this city does not want this development. I wasn't gonna speak tonight, but the more I hear, everybody's talking pretty eloquently, a lot of statistics. That should bring questions in your mind. other than the proposals that is pie in the sky. That's all I have to say, thank you.

Good, I probably won't get a lot of applause. My name's Bill Berryhill. I am one of the owners of the proposed Riverwalk project. I appreciate you guys hearing us out tonight. It's been a long journey getting to this point. When we started, my hair was brown. So I want to start by doing a process that I often do with tough decisions. You have a piece of paper. I'm not sure we're going to have enough time to do this, but I'm going to try to get through it. If you draw a line down the middle of that paper and write the positives on one side and the negatives on the other, Sure, there's concerns. Flooding, I'd have to see some proof in a newspaper article or something. I've been down there when the water was, I mean, in some of our biggest storms in the last 15 years, and it doesn't even come close. I mean, it's 100, 150 feet away from the base of the levee. So I don't see that as a problem. But let's talk about the positives. It will. in fact, help, well, it actually will get Riverbank to the state mandated housing goals. It will pay for a new fire department, improving public safety, improve response times. Pay attention to walking and biking trails. One gentleman talked about not having enough parks. These will be available for the community to use. While an active community, adult community itself, may be gated, the trails and the parks are designed as a shared community asset. Quality of life will be fantastic. Write down, this is a plan that uh and this was important to not impact our schools hence the thinking of 55 and older but they'll be paying their fees and taxes that go to the school so it's a net positive for the school system good paying construction jobs what are the negatives okay we've heard people believe that it's going to flood i would strongly disagree with that people talk about we're going to tear up the natural habitat. That's one of the amenities of this thing is the habitat. We're not going to touch that. So I think if you look on both sides of your card at the end of the day, this is a good project and it's good for your community. I love the passion of your community. It's a great community, but I just ask that you guys go ahead and move this on over to the council. Thank you.

okay hello everybody my name is Aaliyah Brown and I just like to start can I get a show of hands of people that want the Riverwalk project hold on can we keep this one

Let's let this young lady speak, please.

I came here today to represent the youth in this community that do not want the Riverwalk project. I'll start out by saying me and my family moved here about five years ago from Modesto. And one of the first things we noticed was it's not Modesto. It's small, it's simple, and everybody knows each other in the community. If you would listen to the citizens, you would all notice that over the years, we do not want this project. I think we all need to learn that sometimes less is more and not all that glitters is gold. Old Riverbank has a voice too and we need to make sure that Old Riverbank is being served before we introduce a new Riverbank. Recently I did work on some pipes at my house and I noticed that the corrosion was awful and well the water isn't very good. Saying it simply our sewer system will not be able to support more houses. The sewer cost is already very high. I have many people in my family and we all shower many times a day, use the bathroom many times a day, and I'm not sure that the sewer system would be able to support many more houses. I'll leave this off by saying a quote from Socrates. He said, the secret of happiness is not found in seeking more. but in developing the capacity to enjoy less. Let Modesto be Modesto, and let them develop, and let Riverbank be Riverbank, and enjoy the simplicity. Thank you.

Thank you. I think that the discussion was had with the staff here. We're actually going to take like a 10-minute break here, so we can stretch our legs, use the restroom, and we will resume public comments at 8 p.m.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. How are you doing? um yeah yeah Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Turn your mic down now.

If everybody could start making their way back to the seats. We're going to get underway here in another couple minutes. Thanks.

Okay.

All right, I think we're ready to get underway again here. We'll call it back to order. And if we could have the city clerk, please call the next speakers up.

I think I'm going to butcher this last name. Richard Merciatus. Thank you. And then Mr. Miltry Wyler and David Provost.

Go ahead. Come on up.

Hello. My name is Richard Mercier. Thanks for having me. And I'm a 30-year resident of Riverbank. I was born and raised on a ranch right outside of River Empire, so I know farmland. And I had several acres here in Riverbank which was not productive farmland. It was pasture. But this area in Riverwalk is real productive farmland. That's some of the best farmland I've seen. Also, we have a rifle club out there. It's called the Modesto Rifle Club. It's actually Riverbank. And there's only two rifle clubs in Stanislaus County, one in Oakdale and one in Riverbank. Riverbank is the finest. And it's over 500 members. And we teach young kids safety and how to use rifles very carefully. And it's a productive club. If we developed out there, the club would be done. There would be no more Rifle Club. There's no way that happened to Manteca Sportsman's Club. They built behind them. They had to shut it down. The same thing would happen after 1947, this club was built. And that would be the end. So I hope we take that into consideration. Thank you.

Good evening, chair, planning commissioners and staff. Milt Treeweiler. I'm a lifetime Stanislaus County resident. As elected of public officials and adults at the City of Riverbank, what is the most important duty and responsibility you have? As elected of public officials and adults of Riverbank, the most important duty and responsibility is to plan for the future of children and descendants. This is because our children and descendants are too young or haven't been born yet. and can't plan for their own future. There is no better farmland in the world than the farmland in the proposed Riverwalk project area. It's not possible to mitigate the loss of this farmland because there's no other farmland as good as this anywhere on the earth. The soils in this area are deep, young soils, ideal for growing fruit and nut crops. This area with the Modesto Irrigation District has the water to irrigate this land for hundreds of years, and it also has the ideal climate for these crops. The constituents will tell you that there's plenty of farmland to grow food on. This is false. Recently, many farmers in the valley have started to take their farmland out of production because of a lack of water. The consultants have not researched how little prime farmland is left on the earth. Dave and the Building Industry Association are not concerned about the future of our children and descendants. The worst part of this is that those people will do corrupt things to make money. They will bribe you with money, with services for your home, or provide you with trips or other pleasures to get your vote. In some cases, they'll even try to blackmail or intimidate you. just to get their way. This area also has riparian habitat to help recharge the Riverbank Aquifer. There are many good reasons for not allowing the proposed Riverwalk project. The owners of this property can sell this farmland to other farmers in the area, so it can be farmed to provide food for our children and our descendants. It is your responsibility to the residents of Riverbank and to the children of our descendants to reject this project, please vote no. This is one of the most important decisions you'll make in your life. Please reject this project. I want to thank you for voting no. I also want to make two comments to Dave's comments. Dave told us that increase in farms increased The reason it increased is because they started putting almonds in on the east side of Stanislaus County. That area has no water. They're going to have to fallow that area, take it out of production, because it has no water to go. The second is that he talked about the irrigation. Using water, it could be irrigated by MID, and that would be a good thing.

If I can have Mr. Dave Provost come up.

Thank you.

David Provost. Okay, then I will move on to Dora Lope. I'm sorry if I'm saying that incorrectly. Dora Lope. Anna Salinas. Rosa Medrano. The Nora Gerber. And Michael Christie.

Good afternoon. I spoke here last time when you had the meeting. I was against it. I'm still against it. I wish you'd put it on the ballot so the people of Riverbank can vote on it. And then you can find out your answer, which would be, you know, they wouldn't want it. We don't want it. Now, you said that you were going to drill two wells for water, and then you're going to have a big tank. How far down do you have to go down to get water, and when will you deplete it? And then what are you going to do after? There'll be a desert, and the soil would have shrunk, what, five feet? 10 feet? Where would these old people go that you have planned for their future, which hopefully you want them just to live there 10 years, five years? What's left of their life? No, we have to plan for our kids. I've been here 80 years. 80 years i lived across the street that was land of the indians before they bought our land made the school bigger and just recently they just re uh repaired it because it was so old some of those buildings over there are more older than i am and we can't build a school for our kids, but yet we can build a community for other people that are gonna come here and buy the property? No. When do we say no? Can you guys say no? I learned to say no. when I was growing up. They told me I couldn't be a nurse because I was too little. That was their excuse. But it wasn't, it was because I was a Mexican. I had to learn how to speak English because I couldn't speak Spanish in school. So that's why. And people ask me, you're Mexican and you speak like you do? Yes. And when they hear me speak Spanish, I speak better than a lot of people from Mexico. I speak the language, both languages. I became a nurse. Yes, they told me I couldn't. I've had many jobs. And when I was in high school, Mr. Abbott, he was our civic teacher, we had this conversation. And we had a debate in our class, in our senior class civics. And this came up. They were going to make a community with people.

Ms. Medrano, your time is up. I know.

It always is. It always is for me. But for people that have paid to get this program on the ballot, they have plenty of time.

If I can have the next speaker come up, please. Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Lenora Gerber. I had not planned on speaking tonight, but I'm a little fired up. I've lived in Riverbank for 30 years and I heard earlier tonight that new people, that young people can not afford to buy a new house. Huh, I bought my house brand new 30 years ago. Why? Because Riverbank planned for affordable housing. As I sit here tonight, I keep hearing fee after fee after fee. And I asked myself, could I afford a house today in Riverbank? And the answer is no. Who are you serving? Are you serving the members of your community who are looking to move up? Or are we serving the people like are being served in Lathrop and in Patterson? Those people that leave at 5 in the morning and come home at 8 at night. Is that the community we want? Or do we want our small riverbank community? Do we want to help ourselves first? I keep hearing, oh, the river doesn't flood. Really? I lived right across the river. I lived in Escalon and River Road. I remember. driving across the viaduct to go to Savemore, if you ever knew what that store was long ago, and Jacob Myers Park was flooded, and the rocket, you couldn't get up the stairs because it was so flooded. Not that long ago, I remember the walnuts on McHenry Avenue completely flooded. Dams break, and if you don't believe me, look at Oroville. I don't want a Lathrop. I don't want a Manteca. I want Riverbank. You know, we should not be rushing this. I know you're on a timeline. What's a couple months? You control the timeline. The citizens of this community should be respected and allowed to determine the future of their city. Thank you.

evening i'm michael christie and i should have listened to my wife and stayed in hawaii longer for the record um okay so i'm just here i'm just hoping we can find you know common ground with the developers the city and all the residents whether they're forwarded against it i just wish there was a way to find common ground to move forward um i know the majority i've heard it i've heard everybody tonight i know they don't want it um i feel for me um as i am I'M TIRED OF TAKING A PAIR OF MY 3,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. MY BOYS ARE IN THEIR 20s. THEY DON'T WANT TO BE THERE WITH US. AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AN ACTIVE ADULT COMMUNITY IN RIVERBANK WITHOUT HAVING TO MOVE TO OAKDALE, WHERE I THINK THERE'S THREE OF THEM RIGHT NOW. BUT IF THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT THING, I THINK THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, MODESTO, I'VE SEEN PEOPLE FROM MODESTO HERE TONIGHT WHO ARE REALLY INTERESTED, AND I THINK MODESTO WILL TAKE THIS IN A HEARTBEAT AND RUN WITH IT. I'm sorry, I've talked to too many people in Modesto who have done developments and who knew my family who did developments, and I think Modesto can't wait to have a chance to hear it. The other thing is I think the Measure M is unconstitutional. I think it'll get overturned in the courts if it passes, but again, So if the majority of everybody, I respect them, most everybody wants to know on this. My hope is that the commission and the city council, if it's a no vote, you're listening to the residents, if it's a no vote, let it happen sooner so the developers can put all this money they've had and let them go explore Modesto or somewhere else. They got a lot of money tied up. Let them provide for their families and let them go elsewhere. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT RIVER WALK IS TOO BIG TO FAIL, AND IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE WANT IT OR NOT. SO, AGAIN, I JUST LISTENED TO ALL THE NEGATIVITY TONIGHT AND ALL THE BASHING, AND I'VE BEEN BASHED, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY ON SOCIAL MEDIA FOR SUPPORTING GROWTH, BUT I WISH, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMON GROUND? WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MIDDLE IN TRYING TO WORK SOMETHING OUT? YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOMEBODY ONLY develops 1,000 homes. I just think this Measure M is unconstitutional, and I think it's going to be tied up in courts forever. Thank you very much for your time, and you guys have a great night.

Thank you. If I can have the next three public speakers, Roosevelt Brown, Danielle Higbee, and Cindy Higbee. Danielle Higbee and Cindy Higbee.

Oh, hello council members. Uh, thank you for letting me express my opinion this evening. Uh, you know, I, whether you're for it or against it, I'm not sure. I just think that people have a right to vote on the measure. And for the council members, whichever department of city, planning, whatever commissions, I think you should, a referendum like this, you should put before the people so they have a choice. And like the gentleman just said before me, maybe we can compromise. But if you don't get the community involved, you know, the community just feels like, man, we're going to do it no matter what you say. And so when you come here tonight or this evening, you just feel like you're going through the motions. And as you make the voter feel like frustrated, So I think if you're doing any of these type of projects, I've been here 27 years, I think that people have to be involved. You can see the way the politics are these days. Nobody wants to compromise. Everybody's angry. It's your side or this side. Well, man, you know, that's the last place I wanted to be as of the city council meeting. But if I don't get involved in my community and talk to my neighbors, man, we're just gonna battle and stay in our houses and not work together. You might not like what I believe. I might not like what you believe. But we are neighbors. We live in the same community. And so, you know, forget all the talking points. Because to me, there's no financial benefit for me as a resident. The developers make the money. And for them, it's all about the money. They didn't come here to this town because they love us. I can tell you that right now. They came here to make money. And what the benefit is for us? Who knows? No disrespect, the backdoor deals they're getting, the tax credits they're getting.

I'm paying for that.

But I won't find out till the project's done. So you know, how about some transparency? You know, and if you really care about us, you would go, okay, let us consider that. Man, if you're the developer, whoever you are, if you take the time to do that, at least we know that you care. At least we know you considered that. But just to come in and give me all these fancy words and, you know, just legal mumbo jumbo, forget all that. Because we don't understand that. But we understand if you're listening to us. We understand that we're going to take the time as a flexible. The referendum, it might not pass. But when you come at us like this, it's kind of tough to stand behind you.

Good evening, Riverbank Planning Commission and community members. My name is Danielle Higby Lebeff, and I respectfully urge you to reject the Riverwalk project. For me, this isn't just another development proposal. This project would take my family's farm, a place that represents decades of hard work, history, and commitment to this community. Once farmland is gone, it is gone forever. Despite what is stated in portions of the Riverwalk documentation, our land is far from fallow. It is worked every single day as a labor of love. Our sandy loam soil produces almonds for Blue Diamond growers, and every year we grow a large family garden that feeds us through the summer and fills hundreds of jars of canned food for the winter. This isn't just about my family's loss. It's about the direction that our city is heading. Traffic is already a serious problem. And our infrastructure, as you've already heard, is struggling to keep up with the growth that we've already experienced. Growth should follow infrastructure, not the other way around. I'm also concerned about the environmental impacts. There is no disputing this. Replacing productive farmland and wildlife habitat with urban development increases runoff, reduces habitat, and permanently changes the landscape. Once those impacts occur, these cannot be undone. I grew up in this small town with one flashing light, where neighbors knew one another and agriculture wasn't just an industry, it was part of our identity. Every new subdivision may seem like just one more project, but together they permanently change the character of this community. This city's first responsibility should be to the people who already live here. Riverwalk proposes approximately 2,500 homes. Even using conservative estimates, that's roughly 7,500 new residents and about 5,000 additional cars on roads that are already congested. I experienced that myself less than a week ago, sitting at a complete standstill in Riverbank, Before approving a project of this size, I ask you to consider whether our infrastructure is truly ready. We already know it's not. I understand there are people who support this project and I can respect a difference of opinion, but I ask you to consider what we're giving up and whether it can ever be replaced because in my family's case, it never can be. There is no amount of money that can ever buy the memories that are embedded in every single inch of our family's farm. On Father's Day this year, several of my dad's friends called to ask how he was celebrating. I overheard him say with my wife and kids, we're working together on the ranch today. Does it get any better than this? That is what this project would take away. I respectfully ask you to vote no on Riverwalk, protect our farmland, our homes, and the character of our community. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission and citizens of Riverbank and the surrounding area, my name is Cindy Higby and I live on the north side of Patterson Road between Oakdale and McHenry. We farm the most fertile farmland in the state, if not the entire country. We have farmed this land for 49 years. We moved here to raise our family in an agrarian setting. We are opposed to the River Rock project for the following reasons. Our family farm, where we have been engaged in growing food, would be paved over. Traffic congestion, including Patterson, McHenry, Coffey, and Oakdale roads, which is already routinely congested, and the addition of River Rock, the River Rock project, would be overwhelming. Water and sewer expansion would incur increased fees for both current and future residents. Public safety costs would increase exponentially. When we moved to Riverbank in 1976, the population was approximately 2,000, and it is currently listed at 24,980. So say 25,000. In 2016, LAFCO approved 1,479 acres and was told by city officials that it would suffice for the next 20 plus years. In 2019, Riverbank asked LAFCO again to annex an additional 400 acres for Crossroads West. That has not been built out. The Riverwalk project would add an additional 1,500 acres to an area that has been designated or should be as an agricultural buffer to the west of the Riverbank city limits. Ladies and gentlemen, when is enough enough? Gobbling up farmland for what purpose and at whose expense? Having been a finance director for the majority of my adult life, I am very familiar with ratios of taxable income versus costs. For city services, for adding to the wastewater treatment plans, for applying to grants with the state, to finance the addition to the sewer facilities so that we could add but that was done prior to, not after. Farmland produces food, creates jobs, and feeds a hungry population. In irrigating our land, we also replenish the aquifer. If this area were paved over and recharging the water table ceased, the ability to meet the demands of adequate water would be in question. Again, I ask you to vote no.

If I can have the next three speakers come up. Roger Higby, Rich Homer, and Craig Stalinas. I apologize if I'm saying that wrong. Craig Stalinas. Rich Homer and Roger Higby.

Good evening members of the river bank planning commission and citizens of river bank. My name is Roger Higbee and I've been, I've been a resident of river bank area for over 50 years. I've completed over five decades of as both a municipal and a federal law enforcement officer, including chief of police in river bank. I also served in the military for over 45 years. both active and reserve, and retired as a colonel commanding state guard air units. I grew up in Santa Clara County when it was known as the Valley of Heart's Delight. I spent summers picking apricots and plums. There were guided tours on Blossom Hill Road from Los Gatos to San Jose when the fruit trees were in bloom. When I queried Google yesterday, It stated there are no longer any blossom tours in the area because it's all been replaced with structures. It continued to state that if you want to see blossoms currently, go to the Modesto area to see the almond blossoms. When I first met my wife, she was an accountant working for the Sun Garden Packing Company, one of the largest canneries in the San Jose area. That cannery is now a shopping center. With the loss of small-town atmosphere and the rapid expansion of what is now called Silicon Valley, we moved to Riverbank in 1976 after we both completed our college education. At that time, one of the largest employers in Riverbank was Contadina Cannery. The odor of tomatoes being processed during the harvest season permeated the entire area. Our farm is impacted by the proposed Riverwalk project. Our family has been growing peaches, walnuts, and almonds for almost 50 years. We survived the loss of Calcan and Tri-Valley canneries and are currently proud growers for Blue Diamond almonds. The Central Valley is the breadbasket of America, and each acre that is paved over is an acre that will never be reclaimed. Even on our small farm, we're able to produce an abundance of almonds, which are shipped all over the world. I have personally experienced the loss of the Valley of Hearts to Light. Family farms constitute approximately 1% of all American agriculture. Two of the biggest causes of their loss is either corporate farming or urban crawl. Either of these two cancers takes a bite out of what is left of the American dream. The philosopher George Santayana stated in 1905 that, quote, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, end quote. Please avoid repeating the history lesson of others and maintain the agricultural zoning of the west side of Riverbank. Thank you.

Before our next speaker does come up, I want to address the public that is watching us on Zoom. We will hear Zoom comments after all the in-person comments are heard. So for those on Zoom, all Zoom comments will be heard after in-person comments. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Rich Homer. Good to see the Planning Commission. Last time I spoke to a Planning Commission, I think Joan was the only one that was on that. I was city manager from 1995 to 2011. In 1995, Riverbank was really close to bankruptcy. There were a number of reasons, but one of the major ones was we weren't collecting any sales tax. Riverbank had the lowest sales tax per capita in Stanislaus County. seven cities, we were the lowest. By 2006, however, mainly because of the Crossroads Shopping Center, we were the highest sales tax per capita. These monies provided 30% of the city's general fund. And the city's general fund pays for things like police services, recreation services, and administrative services. Meanwhile, Riverbank receives a very small local allocation of residential property. And that's what we're talking about here. They're going to build houses. And what the general fund normally gets from that is about 11%. Houses don't make money for the city. They cost the city money. the wastewater treatment plant they're talking about, the three lift stations going underneath, I mean, it's something that after they leave, we'll be repairing. Now we're considering annexing unincorporated land and building over 2,500 homes to the west of the city's current boundaries. The developer may throw in a couple of strip malls some type of shopping there, but not much. But the number of new residents in the 2,500 dwellings will not pay their fair share for the services required. In well-planned communities, it is desirable to have buffers, green belts, and distinctive separations between incorporated cities. Unless you look at LA County, and all you see is concrete there. Why are proponents of this project rushing this through? Who benefits by this? Not the city, not the residents, just the developers. And when they are finished, they will be long gone, leaving the residents on the hook for services and maintenance of projects they had no say in. Let the voices of our bank residents be heard. BY POSTPONING ANY FINAL DECISION ON THIS PROJECT UNTIL AFTER NOVEMBER.

MR. HOLLMAN, YOUR TIME IS UP. OKAY. I WILL CALL CRAIG STALIANIS. I BELIEVE HE LEFT. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS KARISSA COMMONS. LAST NAME, BRIAN ELLIOTT. AND THEN GAVIN BRUCE.

Good evening. My name is Carissa Commons. I am here on behalf of my family and my children today. Mr. Berryhill selling us on the quality of life that this development is going to provide for people that are not in Riverbank yet. I chose to raise my family here for the last 10 years. Fell in love with this city when my grandparents moved here over 30 years ago because it's a beautiful city. The community, the camaraderie, I mean all the neighbors that showed up tonight, thank you guys for being here. We're risking destroying our quality of life so these developers here can profit and improve their quality of life. Meanwhile, the residents are on the hook for millions of dollars for the waterways treatment expansion. Now, the argument is that Modesto will come in and develop. Well then, is Modesto going to pay for this water treatment expansion? I don't see it. Let's find out. Just a minute. So my other concern is schools. Two of my four children go to school in Modesto because that's where they're assigned to go to school. That's quality time taken from our family. Our commute has increased by 10 to 15 minutes each way daily by all the changes and growth the city has experienced. They're selling us that it's mainly a walkable community for the elderly, but where's the promise in that? And I haven't seen that we can trust a lot of what they're saying. Where's the guarantee that we're not going to have a few hundred children in? At my children's elementary school, I get there 15 minutes early to pick them up and I'm still walking three blocks because the school has grown significantly since Crossroads West has been built. Where are the children going to go to school from this new community? I want you guys to consider the families of Riverbank. We live here for a reason. Our quality of life as a community is in your guys' hands. And I just ask that you follow your heart and do what is right for this community. Thank you.

I'm Brian Elliott. I was a planning commissioner through the early 2000s. and oversaw actually the the consideration of this particular area back in 2006 when I think about the comments made by the by the citizens here I think about your position if I was sitting where you're sitting and so what would I do and I know that you have a very specific mandate and it's highly technical and so you're looking at code city code did the developer did the consultant fulfill the requirements that you asked of them did they fulfill the staff's requirements that's that's what you want to know and so when i when i look at this i i'm thinking about it from that that lens okay and and i i know that that's a challenge to do that So a couple things to consider when I think about it from your perspective. The project that was proposed back in 2006, I was on the commission for that project during that time. I live adjacent to this project. I've lived there for 50 years. I'm in Wendt's home, his original home, the Wendt Ranch home. So I'm very familiar with what that property looks like. I really appreciate the aesthetics of it, without a doubt. So the project back in 2006, is not the same as this project. Several people have said that. It's the same. It's not the same. It's the same general area, but it's not the same project. So that's incorrect. The other element of this is that it actually didn't require PUMPING THE SEWAGE ACROSS UNDERNEATH THE RIVER A MILE AND A HALF UP TO THE CURRENT PONDS. THE SEWAGE WAS CONTAINED ON SITE. SO THAT ORIGINAL PROJECT HAD ON SITE CONTAINMENT. IT ALSO HAD SIGNIFICANTLY MORE GREEN BELTS THAN THIS PROJECT DOES. SO I KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS SAID THAT THIS HAS A LOT OF PARK LAND. ACTUALLY THAT PROJECT HAD SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PARK LAND, MORE GREEN BELT BUFFERS. THERE WAS ACTUALLY A GREEN BELT BUFFER BEHIND MY where I live, my home. And so as that project progressed, it was never approved, by the way. So there's an implication that project was approved then. That's incorrect as well. It was never approved. So as that project moved forward, the list of things that the developer was mandated to provide was significant. the city was doing its due diligence to make sure that the developer was responsible for the full cost of the project and when that was tallied up and and put against the cost and the particular revenue of the homes the developer walked away that's what happened yes you were there your time is up mr elliot yeah all right thank you

Good evening. My name is Gavin Bruce. I wanted to address some concerns that have come up around the idea that if Riverbank does not expand into the Riverwalk proposed area, that the city of Modesto would take it. And I live in the city of Modesto. I've been pushing back against the outward growth plans of Modesto, and I know the vast majority of people that I know in Modesto, people on the street, people that you see in the store, nobody wants to grow out, nobody wants to take prime agricultural farmland. That's not to say that our city council does it and that there aren't some city officials that would like to, but I'm telling you that the people of Modesto, the vast majority, do not want to grow outward like that, not from what I've seen. And this, I think, goes to something bigger. We see Modesto is approving a general plan to take more land. Riverbank you're proposing possibly developing almost a thousand acres. Everybody in this meeting pretty much has been opposed to this. The vast majority of people issuing public comments in Modesto have been opposed to the city of Modesto growing outward. I've seen comments on on Facebook posts and stuff from Patterson and people are saying that they don't want to see more more warehouses. What's happening is it feels like it's being crammed down our throats. despite pushback from people. The way that this has proceeded in terms of this meeting being held tonight, it's national night out right now. I don't know if that was a coincidence or an intentional plan, but it does not lend itself to transparency and fairness to getting actual feedback from people of Riverbank. Also holding this before there would be a vote on the urban limit line in November. I do want to push back on, so the developer in his presentation did not refute the fact that that is floodplain out there. He did not refute that. There's actually a FEMA map that shows it as 100-year floodplain. He also did not refute the fact that it is prime farmland and prime land for groundwater recharge. Now with climate change, we're going to be seeing warmer winters. This winter we're going to be getting a very, very wet winter. And so as we get warmer winters less there's going to be less snowpack and it's going to fall as rain. That new Maloney's dam that was built in the 70s that he was talking about that has protected the Riverside communities that is not going to be sufficient for future wet years. And so you really need to take that into consideration. The other thing I want to say is that in terms of building homes for seniors to age in place the best way to do that is by building infill development apartments and mixed use development so that people can actually age in our communities rather than in an isolated gated community and isolating seniors out there on floodplain. That is not safe and it's not a good way to build a coherent city and community. Thank you.

If I can have the next three speakers, Laura Plasencia, Eleazar Lopez, and Deborah Bassey. Laura Palacencia, Eleazar Lopez, and Deborah Bassey.

Hi, good evening. My name is Laura Placencia. I work with Value Improvement Projects, which is a social and environmental justice nonprofit working here in Stanislaus County. And I'm also a lifelong resident of Stanislaus County. And I am here today with concern of equitable development. I would like to oppose this project, and I ask for a delay on decision making until residents can make a vote for this measure. This development is using taxpayer dollars. We're making Riverbank residents support the financing of this development while not receiving the majority of the benefits the majority of our bank residents will have to pay into the financial cost of expansion of city services like sewer system along with having to pay the cost of more traffic and more polluted air quality and water quality Overall, expanding development out impacts overall quality and can impact overall cost. Putting that cost onto the majority of residents is unjust. I also want to add that Climate change will continue to worsen year after year and it causes changes into natural weather patterns including ocean atmospheric cycles like El Nino that can bring supercharged water and rainfall causing expanded floods. Creating development and floodplains an area that have been historically been floodplains and considering the potential of the future as climate continues changing is not a good approach. They are flood plains for a reason and should be left on their own with no development and integrate natural base solutions to work with the land and then not work against it and then make taxpayers then have to pay back for the cost of the environmental damage. Overall, preparing for climate change goes beyond building electric vehicle charging stations, and it goes into looking at the most appropriate ways for development, and including floodplains is not a good approach. In addition, destroying prime farmland is going against preparing for climate change. Climate change will impact our food systems and we, as being one of the key areas for agricultural production, need to further prioritize our farmland and our groundwater as we are heavily reliant. OVERALL, WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE THE NEEDS FOR MOST OVER THE TIME AND OVER THE ONES OF A FEW. AND ENSURE THAT MEETINGS ARE HELD WHEN MOST PEOPLE ARE AVAILABLE. THANK YOU.

IF I CAN HAVE THE NEXT SPEAKER COME UP. ELIASAR LOPEZ AND DEBRA BASSE. If not, Mr. Jose, I can't read the last name. Borrell? Borrell, yes. Jose Borrell, Gilberto Duran, and Edgar Garibay.

Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you guys so much for your time and dedication to this. I want to start off with defining the word hoodwict. To be tricked, deceived, or conned by somebody using false information, a clever disguise, or manipulative lies, We've actually heard that from the developers themselves. We spoke about water. We spoke on the Riverwalk or allow the citizens and the residents of the city really make that decision for themselves. Let's be honest. These projects don't have the existing community in mind. We are developing a Del Rio or a higher income higher income neighborhoods where the general public isn't socially accepted, they're shunned. We call this age restriction. We also pair it with amenities like golf carts, gated neighborhoods. Do you really think the everyday community member is gonna be able to access these walking trails, these parks? Who's gonna pay for these parks? It's gonna come from the taxpayer, the taxpayer base. Developing this project strips the natural resources from the community. Just highlighting community and the people own the water. Just in the city of Half Moon Bay, something similar like this took place in the communities. It separated and took natural land from the community. What ended up happening is the developer out there had to pay a $3 million penalty across three different agencies to really make sure that community actually had access to these different amenities. We spoke about EVs, we spoke about charging stations, but I fear that the developers are using these items to coin or to bamboozle into not paying their fair share. In the state of California, there's something called vehicle miles traveled. So the lower those are, the better it is, the more ideal. This development is happening away from the community. You're using EVs and electric charging stations really to scapegoat and ensure that the developers aren't having to pay their fair share. So really if, there's a technical term called local traffic impact fees. These folks are tricking us. With that being said, we spoke about comments surrounding really developers wanting to develop housing. Yes, let's develop housing. No one is against you. We'll support you on developing housing. But really, prime, riverfront communities, these ain't for the people. These is for the developers at the end of the day. So with that, thank you.

Can I get your name for the record?

Jose.

Hi, my name is Gilberto Duran, and I am a California Avenue alumni. So, I'm here because, well, for the same reason as most of our concerned citizens, however, after hearing the Representative Romano, he had a nice presentation, and he had a lot of numbers in that presentation. I love numbers. He had numbers on THE CROP VALUES THAT THE PROPERTY YIELDS. HE HAD NUMBERS ON THE HIGH DENSITY, LOW DENSITY, MEDIUM DENSITY UNITS. HE HAD NUMBERS ON HOW MANY PARKS THERE WAS GOING TO BE. AND, YOU KNOW, THE PRIME NUMBER, THE NUMBER THAT THEY DEVELOPED EVEN BEFORE HE CAME UP WITH ALL THOSE NUMBERS IS A VERY CRUCIAL NUMBER. AND THAT NUMBER IS WHAT IT COSTS TO LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY. and that's very important for the Burbank residents. And what's the reason why he left that number out? I mean, if it's the first number they come up with, because he has to report to his stakeholders, or the project has to produce a number for the stakeholders. And the number is because this community is not for us. It's not gonna be built for us, and... and that's something that's, you know, it's, it's, uh, I plead with you to, to take all of our considerations in your vote. And, um, also, um, you know, it's obvious, you know, Mr. Romano is here, uh, firmly looking out for his stakeholders. And I ask of you, and I plead with you to please look out for your stakeholders and, um, and please allow the vote in November. Thank you.

Good evening my name is Edgar Garibay and I also work with Valley Improvement Projects and I've been working in the environmental space nonprofit for the last 12 to 15 years in Stanislaus County and I've lived in Stanislaus County a majority of my life. I would like to say that I had I've had the opportunity and privilege to work with different members of different communities specifically more Modesto and across the county AND HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO WORK WITH A LOT OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS TO ENGAGE THEM IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT JUST LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE HERE TONIGHT. AND A LOT OF THESE COMMUNITIES ARE COUNTY POCKETS AND LACK A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SO SIMILAR TO LIKE IN MODESTO TO LOOK FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, IT TOOK A LOT OF MONEY TO GIVE TO CONSULTANTS TO FIND OUT THAT THAT SOCCER STADIUM WAS NOT FEASIBLE. So the community was already at the forefront in a lot of these meetings to reject that project to begin with. So I would say that to take that as an example of ways that sometimes consultants and developers will look at that. And I go beyond that because it's not just community or civic engagement that we're involved in, but we actually work with the community to develop plans to look at ways in how we can look at or reduce air quality. in our community. And so we've worked with a lot of community members, approximately 30 to 40 active promotores here in Riverbank and across the county, hundreds of people, to look at ways how we can reduce that. And we have a plan called the Stanislaus County Emissions Reduction Plan. And so I invite you as well, planning commissioners and others, to not only learn more about that, but to work in unison so that we're not losing funding at the state level. I've also had the privilege to serve with Mr. Dinan at the Valley Vision Steering Committee as the Environmental Justice Representative at STANCOG. So I would urge us to look at that as a way to look at some of these housing strategies and look for ways so that we can work together to form or to coalesce around people to develop a nonprofit developer. as ways to do that. The city of Modesto and others are looking at some of these other strategies so that we can look at innovative ways to look at different types of housing. Because I've had the opportunity to look at some of these RHNA numbers, and I'm not gonna remember these off the top of my head because we meet every quarter, but I can tell you this, that there are very intelligent people here in the room, residents, that have innovative ideas and we should start to look at how we can work in already established neighborhoods, build those out before we look at projects and move across. Statistics have shown that similar to the way consultants tell you about soccer stadiums, it's the same thing with a lot of these different developers and projects that promise you this and at the end of the day, we know that over time, all of these services are gonna be higher for taxpayers, thank you.

If I can have the next three speakers come up. Armando Nunez, Chris Schalk, and Giselle Nunez.

Good evening.

I'm here today as not just a resident of Riverbank but as a family man. I'm accompanied by my family starting with my children who are next to me. I'm also accompanied by my father who's in the back friends and family members who we grew up together childhood friends and we love our community. This community has been really good to us. We've been here since the early 80s and I am in district leadership here in our community as well. Schools can't keep up. We know that. And we are growing too fast. The city of Irving is growing too fast. Now, I also want to speak about the jobs that will potentially be lost through farm workers. If this was a different sector, we'd be talking about job losses. I come from an immigrant family, and we depend on the farm for work, just like the canneries rely on that for work. We grew up through canneries and right now as you see my children we are educating them to become farm owners. We want to preserve the land. They are very proud 4-H'ers and FFA members. I urge you to really consider postponing a decision tonight and let the public vote on that decision so that you can make the best decision in representation of not just us But the same way I do in district leadership is making what's right for the next generation. Every decision that I make is for them. It's not for us. It's not for anybody here in the room. It's for them. Please do not make a decision tonight. Thank you.

good evening my name is Chris shock I came here tonight I wasn't planning on speaking but I was here 13 months ago and listened to all the same projections and everything that was coming up and what I've heard consistently have been to my way of thinking a some very good I'm not gonna go over all the mega the comments that are against the project I thought there's some very good things you know infrastructure the just the farmland. I mean, I didn't grow up in this area. So I appreciate what everybody's saying about this prime farmland. I try to grow something in my backyard. I'm a failure at it. So I can appreciate what these people are doing. But what I didn't hear, and as he kind of alluded to it a couple of speakers ago, is that the developers haven't said anything about, what is this project? What's it going to cost to live in there? what's it going to cost to buy a house in there and to live in there? And I just did, and I know, and I know river banks got a housing problem. They need housing. We've got people that need housing and we need affordable housing. And what I see is the planning is going out to develop this really nice high end retirement community. Uh, but yet the housing that's needed, it's not, there's no work. I don't see anything happening to developing project in this town. And my, my opinion of what the city council, the planning commission should be doing you should be looking at what this community needs and how do we best supply the housing the needs of the people that are here the person just ahead of us he's he's he's a perfect example we need housing for all the people that are in the town now i just did a quick google search uh this evening before i got here i was just curious i have uh i looked it up and it said that the median income in in Riverbank in 2024 was something like $87,000 household income, $87,000. That's not a lot of money. And I also Googled and I said, well, what's it cost to buy a $600,000 house? And it said, well, it takes a medium income of a household of 125 to $155,000 to buy it, depending on the interest rates and how much down payments you get and all that stuff. And so I'm looking at this project and I'm thinking, well, this project is not aimed at serving the community here, the residents here. It's not trying to help the problems that are here and existing. What it's really doing is stroking some egos of a few people. And I feel, and I just urge the commission to either outright deny this or at least wait for the people to speak in November. Thank you very much.

Good evening chair and members of the board. My name is Chiselle Nunez and I am honored to stand before you as a member of both 4-H and FFA. These organizations have taught me that agriculture is more than an industry. It is a way of life. It teaches responsibility, hard work, dedication, and respect for the land that feeds us all. Today I ask you to think beyond the next project and consider the next generation. Every time the farmland is replaced with development, we lose something that can never be replaced. We lose soil, local food, wildlife, and opportunities for young people like me to continue the traditions that build the community. You can build houses, roads, community centers in many places, but you cannot create new farmland once it has been covered with concrete. Stanislaus County has long been known for its rich agriculture heritage. It is a place where families have farm generations, where young people dream of raising livestock, growing crops, and carrying those traditions into a future. As 4-H and FFA members, we are preparing to become tomorrow's farmers, ranchers, and agriculture leaders. But what future are we preparing for if the land we hope for keeps disappearing? Thank you for your time. Good night.

If I can have the last two speakers, Jay Medrano and Mr. Edward Jones.

Hi, I wasn't expected to speak tonight, but after hearing everybody here, all of our neighbors here, my family of the Madronas has been here for 80 years. That's my Tia in the back that just spoke. I love that our city is growing. It's awesome, but it's growing way too fast. We talked about infrastructure, everybody were beating their dead horse, saying the same things over and over. But growing up here in the 90s, which he knows, his family knows, Armando, growing up on Stanislaus Street in the 90s when crime was really high, gangs were really high, when we called Riverbank Police Department, they never came. They came after the fact. This growth of our city, yeah, everybody loves a Costco, everybody loves what we're getting, right? But what else is that gonna bring? It's gonna bring crime. Also, living over there in that area, I know everybody smells it here from Riverbank, you can smell the sewer. I work with wastewater. Before we rebuilt our wastewater in Frito-Lay, When you knew there was something wrong is when you could smell, okay? Our infrastructure is not gonna hold what we got over here. Thank you for your time, but I vote no on this Riverwalk, and please let the people speak on this vote in November. Thank you.

Mr. Jones? YES, PLEASE COME UP. MR. JONES, MR. JONES, I DO NEED YOU TO SPEAK ON THE MIC SO THE PEOPLE AT HOME CAN HEAR YOU. AT HOME. MR. JONES, MR. JONES, FOR THE PEOPLE AT HOME, THANK YOU.

YES, DEAR. THANK YOU. You're welcome. You get my age, you get in trouble real easy. Good evening, board members. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. My name is Edward Jones. Everybody in town calls me Fast Eddie. Not because I'm fast. That's beside the point. I lived in Riverbank in 1969. I moved into Riverbank. It's a terrific town. It's quiet and very, very friendly. I've been here since 69, and I bought myself a mobile home in 1991. and i live in this mobile home a park sierra which is on patterson road patterson road is a terrific road it's traffic that's natural but it's an agriculture road uh i don't think it's necessary to push the city of riverbank because i think My opinion is I think you're pushing us, and that's not the proper thing to do. The reason why I'm saying this is because I've got a little experience behind my belt. I got drafted in 50, went to Korea 51, 52. I spent France, Germany, Newfoundland, I've been all over. I know what I'm talking about. I've worked on guided missiles, so I'm not stupid. But I want to tell you guys something.

This is wrong. This is wrong.

And Colonel, I'm going to give you a highball. That gentleman, I worked with officers of his rank And no generals, just colonels. But I want to tell you, fellas, I've got nothing else to say except that's my opinion, and I told you a little bit about me. And I'm 96, and I've still got some spark. So we'll see you guys. I hope you're up.

I will, that is the last of the comment cards. I will call the people that I called earlier that did not come up, if you came back. Eliazar Lopez, Deborah Bassey, Craig Stallionis, Charles Shoup, Dora Lope, Anna Salinas, and David Provost. So if you came back or anybody, That hasn't come up, that was called. If not chair, that is all I have for public comment in the community center.

All right. If no other speaker cards, we can move on to zoom comments. Do we have colors on zoom?

Uh, we do. Uh, we're going to go to zoom comments. Um, Ms. Preston, if you can hear me, please unmute.

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes. Um, I will start the timer when you begin.

Okay, great.

Oh, what happened to my, can I, people see me or not? It cannot see you. We can hear you. Okay, great. Well, very good. Great. So, um, Good evening the commissioners and really the residents of my name is Colleen Preston and I am really happy to hear from a lot of your citizens are spot on the word civic is derived from the Latin word civic. meaning relating to a citizen and their rights and duties. By addressing you tonight, I am participating in this process and fulfilling my civic duty. Actually, my dad, Francis O'Brien, taught civics at in Oakdale for many years, as well as Riverbank for many years. So I am here tonight due to my conviction regarding the importance of civic responsibility and my belief that managed growth is a core element to the quality of life, not only in Riverbank, but across the entire county. I want to recognize all of you on the Planning Commission for your service in local governance. I myself am a commissioner on a committee for the City of Modesto. So I understand the commitment, accountability, transparency, and duty required to represent the interests of fellow citizens. It is a core duty of commissioners to represent the community's interests. Measure M is on the ballot this November because your citizens desire to participate and want the voices heard on growth. Measure M stands for managed growth. Measure M stands for making Riverbank better. Measure M stands for my city. My vote, Measure M matters to your citizens and they deserve to vote and participate in the process. As commissioners, you have a civic duty to respect these concerns and ensure that the voices of the citizens are heard. The upcoming vote in November provides the necessary feedback for Riverbank governance to represent its constituents. Demonstrate transparency, uphold democracy, and maintain trust. I have confidence that you will uphold your civic duty to the residents of Riverbank and vote to await Measure M. Thank you so much, and it's been a long night for all of you.

Thank you, Ms. Preston. I don't see anyone else on Zoom wishing to speak. I will allow, I have a couple more coming up. Okay, everybody's popping up. The name Lori, can you please unmute? Hi, good evening. Please go ahead. Your timer will begin when you start speaking.

Okay. My name is Lori Wolf. I live in Wood Colony in Stanislaus County. Our community is very concerned about our agricultural land being preserved as well as agricultural land in your city. I just want to point out that in 1997, the official count of long-term planning anticipated a population growth of 49,000 834 residents by 2025. In 2023, the current population is 25,000 people, half of what was predicted. This is consistent with every planning concept that has happened. You can consult the regional housing needs assessments on your own to determine that, but you don't need this land. It's prime agricultural farmland. It's prime water recharge. I urge the citizens of Riverbank to continue their fight to not let this project happen. It's ridiculous. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Gammon, if you can please unmute.

Can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead. Yes, good evening. My name is Annabel Gammon. Can you turn that off? Yes, your timer has started. Okay. My name is Annabel Gammon, and I would like to address the environmental record for the Riverwalk specific plan. The project proposes to annex roughly 997 acres into the city limits within a massive 1,522 acre sphere of influence. This is the largest single expansion of the city's footprint in decades. The EIR admits the cost of our natural resources are severe and unavoidable. There are three critical unmitigated data points from the EIR directly into public record. Loss of farmland, water and groundwater discharge, traffic and air quality. All of this has already been mentioned with the other speakers before me. I would like to do the traffic and air quality, forecast vehicle trips toward McHenry and Patterson, Road. EIR concedes significant and unavoidable increase in traffic congestion. Regional greenhouse gas emissions degrading our local air quality at the time when the valley already fails state standards. The proximity and Stanislaus River concerns. Furthermore, we are pressing intense urban footprint directly against a sensitive Stanislaus River ecosystem. The river is our flood buffer, our wildlife movement corridor and a natural asset, intensifying runoff, urban noise, and human activity right at the edge without foolproof ironclad guarantees. Relying instead on, quote, significant and unavoidable findings violates our long-term duty to protect this natural resource. We need to protect endangered animals and plants, and Riverwalk will threaten their existence. The impacts of our air, water, traffic, and farmland are stamped unavoidable. Let us allow the citizens of Riverbank to have their say in City Growth Boundary Measure M in November. Planning Commissioners, I'm addressing this to you. In terms of legacy, you have a vote tonight and the citizens whose only vote is through you We must care for the legacy we leave our children and our children's children and generations after them. We owe to them the chance to decide how to plan and build their futures. We are fortunate to live in a rich agricultural part of this planet Earth. Our county has nature's gift of fertile soil, water and sun. Let's preserve it with all of our might. Please vote for the resolution that reads, a resolution of the planning commission recommends that the city council deny the Riverwalk project. Thank you, bye bye.

I see no one else on Zoom wishing to speak.

Okay, so seeing no other comments, we got one more opportunity for anyone who's not yet spoken and wishes to address the commission. All right. We have one. Sir, please state your name.

Hi, everybody. My name is Jordan Davidson. I've been a lifelong resident here in Riverbank. I'll make this quick because I know it's been a long night for everybody, but really the main thing that I want to take note of today is just the utility costs that we already have here in Riverbend. And if you compare us to a city like Ripon, we're already 3.5 times more expensive than what they're paying on a utility bill before this whole entire project. I appreciate what we're trying to do, bring more housing. But again, this housing is not something that's going to be accessible to our existing residents. These are going to be for people that are coming in from the bay area and other surrounding communities and not supporting really the people that truly need homes right now, which is the younger generation. Um, I believe a gentleman had said earlier that it's about $600,000 for a home. Our income right now is about 87,000. That doesn't make sense for the younger community. And then also just the existing jobs that we have around here right now. If you go and you destroy our farmland, All of our big companies that we have here right now are around agriculture. Gallo, Blue Diamond, all of the canneries. If we destroy that, all of our young people are going to have to go work in the Bay Area, commute, and really live their lives in cars, which isn't right. I just hope that we can get the same opportunities that the generation before us had and just really be able to enjoy this town for what it was. That's all I have. Thank you.

All righty. Do we have any more?

Anyone else in person? I do see one on Zoom.

Okay.

Ms. Lopez, can you please unmute?

Gracias. Hoy esta noche vine a escuchar y aprender un poquito más sobre el desarrollo de este proyecto con esperanzas de que la presentación fuera presentada en un modo equitativo. Desafortunadamente, la presentación hoy solamente estuvo en el idioma de inglés. Y entonces eso nos da a entender de que aún ustedes traducieron el EIR en español. Esas múltiples páginas de este proyecto aún no van a ser leídos porque es muy extensivo y ahora la comunidad latina que sí se presentó y para venir a aprender aún no pudo recibir la información equitativamente porque la presentación solamente está en inglés. Eso me da a entender que cierta comunidad no es importante y somos tomados en cuenta ya mucho más después. Y eso también nos da a entender que este proyecto tampoco es para nuestra comunidad. No sé si mi mensaje se va a traducir o cómo se vaya a traducir, pero esta parte de que no hay traducción o interpretación para los que están en el sitio, en el local, en persona, que no sepan que estoy diciendo tampoco es... algo que me hace sentir bien. Pero sí estamos preocupados nosotros por la calidad de aire. Hemos tenido un proyecto de la reducción de emisiones en nuestra comunidad a través del condado. Este plan no indica que están al favor de reducir la exposición a contaminantes producidos por el tráfico que se crea por proyectos como estos. Tampoco se ve que Las casas que se van a construir no son o no parecen ser tampoco para nosotros de bajos recursos y simplemente este plan avanza el uso de propiedad para poder avanzar a los que ya tienen dinero, a los que tienen la oportunidad y el privilegio de escoger vivir en esta área. que se está proponiendo hoy. Otra vez, desafortunadamente, no se relata muy bien a través de esta presentación lo que la ciudad de Riverbank está proponiendo para el futuro cuando estamos hablando sobre la resiliencia al cambio de clima. Y si de veras ocupamos y necesitamos cumplir con las leyes de la construcción de casas para bajos recursos y de diferentes niveles, entonces deberíamos de estar promoviendo proyectos que avanzan ese propósito, no ayudar a los que ya tienen dinero, a los que tienen privilegio para poder construir.

Thank you very much. Chair, I can address her comment regarding the presentation being available in Spanish and the meeting. The presentation tonight was available in Spanish. You could hear it in Spanish, Bianca. If you were referring to the last page of the agenda, there was a live translation code under Wordly on the last page of the agenda. The presentation and the entire meeting could be heard Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone else on Zoom?

Chair, that is all I have on Zoom.

All righty. And with no one else in person.

I will address written public comments that were submitted for the record.

Oh yes, we had some public comments brought in by letter which are going to be added to that.

Yes, so I will not read the written comments that were submitted, but I will name the residents that did submit those written comments via email. They will be included for the record if anyone wishes to review them or see them. We did receive a letter from Ms. Annabel Gammon. We received a letter from Mr. Marcos Rojas. We received a letter from Ms. Colleen Preston. We received a letter from Consuelo Herrera. We received another letter from Rocio Rojas. And lastly, we received a letter from the attorneys on behalf of Mr. Alan Gammon and Annabelle Gammon. And that is all.

All righty. Thank you. So now that that's all done, we will declare the public hearing closed. And we will now have five minutes for the applicant to make any rebuttal comments to the public comments if they wish to.

Give me a second, Dave, to put your timer up. Perfect. Ready when you are, Dave. There's a timer up for him. Five minute rebuttal. Give me a second.

They're bringing it up. There you go. There you go. Thank you very much. We appreciate all the comments. This is not out of the ordinary. I was in Escalon last evening. We probably had 25 or 30 public comments on a very small project and I understand growth is change and emotional and... Dave, sorry to interrupt.

Can you speak into the mic?

Yes, thank you so much. And it always creates an emotional response. I think it's important to know that since the city of Riverbank was initially incorporated in 1922, there have been over 40 annexations. And in those annexations, we've been able to provide housing for a number and probably a vast majority of the people who have lived here. And every time we do that, it's next to somebody who has an existing home, who lives next to an existing field, And maybe they're happy with where it is. But it's a responsibility of the city. It's responsibility of this commission to analyze that information and to make a determination. And your guiding policy is your general plan. You go through a detailed process that you went through over about three years to determine where you should grow and how you should grow. Once your general plan is adopted, you prepare infrastructure master plans on how we're going to serve that. Most of that was done in the early 2000s. And then you prepare a fee structure on how we're going to collect fees and how we're going to make sure those things happen. So it's not that it's unknown this was going to happen. But here we are. It's close. And I understand that there's some create some pressure. You know, I really liked one of the comments that says we need to create a legacy for our children and our children's children. And that is equally a place to live. This project has between 350 and 700 traditional single family homes in it and it does have homes for age restricted and active adult community. Those are common communities as we age as a society we need to be able to provide places for people to live and as they age in our community keep them and if they're able to stay in our community. They're able to vacate existing homes and create opportunities. And we all understand the concept of supply and demand. The more supply we have the more affordability we have and affordability is very important right now. So we've got to create a way to continue to create some housing, to continue to grow in our community, to implement our general plan and to provide housing for our children. You know, I was at the council meeting when they gave away the five scholarships on the sister cities and those kids got up and they talked about what they wanted to do and they wanted to go be, a nurse and they wanted to be a school teacher right and they're going to leave our community and I and I don't know that we want them to come back and say there's no housing in Riverbank for you feel free to live in Modesto feel free to live in Oakdale but we've lifted up the drawbridge you know we're happy with the size we are this is it for us and there's not going to be a room until somebody passes away or somebody chooses to move. It's a great community. I believe development and the annexations that we've worked on over the years have continued to make this a better community. It's a fantastic community. I grew up in Modesto, I've lived my whole life in this valley, my whole life next to Riverbank, and I understand what this community looked like previously. My three brother-in-laws grew up here, my in-laws grew up here, my wife grew up here, went to California Avenue School. I understand this community and I believe that your city council and your planning commission, through judicious and thoughtful planning, have continued to make this a better community, a better community. And every step of the way, I'm proud to have been part of that. And I do think it's important that you understand that the development will build its own infrastructure. The development has a responsibility to put in the infrastructure that it needs. And we learned a lot from the 1995 to 2011 period to today, where we put these projects in community facilities districts. We make sure that not only are they revenue neutral, but they actually generate revenue. Your police population on a per thousand basis or your firefighting capabilities are not gonna be enhanced if we don't grow anymore. New development will not only pay its fair share but will pay over and above its fair share so you can add police, you can make your community safer, you can build that fire station, you can make your community safer. You'll provide more housing, which will create affordability. And we think this project does it. We're very appreciative of your time. I know it's been a long evening. And I understand both sides of this issue. I hear it every time I stand at this podium. You have a difficult decision to make. but at the end of the day you're the planning commission it's your job to discuss to analyze and to consider the advancement of your community the planning of your community in the long term we think this project does it and it would be one more benefit to the city of Riverbank so we appreciate your time thank you all righty thank you so now I'm going to bring the matter back to the planning commission for questions discussion deliberation

Not necessarily looking for a motion at this point, but if anybody have any questions of staff or anything like that, we can discuss that at this time.

Yeah, I have a couple of questions for staff. I understand that we're not to take measure M into consideration on our decision making?

That's correct. It's outside the purview of this project.

OK.

when it pleases the chair I'm going to make a motion but if you want more discussion first I I have a few things to add but wait for anyone does anyone else have anything they wish to ask or deliberate on I do have a couple of questions um looking at the pro at the paperwork it showed that the project was going to be done in essentially three phases is that correct

Yeah, so initially I believe there is a map that shows how the property is separated in three sections or phases. I believe some of the phasing, and the applicant could address this if they wish, but I believe some of the phasing will be determined once they submit their first map.

Okay, the reason I ask is because if I remember correctly, phase one deals with the villages that are non-age restricted, and I don't recall reading anything in the development agreement that addressed schools.

school districts and how those would apply so i'm curious as to where that fits in yeah so the project itself it's been designed as we've all heard as an active adult and so with that they're they're looking at the impact of schools being very low so there is no school facilities within the project or or anything like that okay

Another question I had, it was brought up that not all the indigenous tribes were reached out to in the initial stages, and I just wanted to be sure if that was correct or incorrect.

So the process involves, as I described with the NOP document being submitted to the state clearinghouse, one of the agencies that receives it at the state level is the Native American Heritage Commission. And what they provide back to us is a list of tribal organizations that the city should send a letter out to. And so that process was fulfilled. We can't guarantee that there's tribes that should have been on the list. That's the Native American Heritage Commission that provides that to us. And we respond to them by providing that to the organization. We can double check. I know that the Chicken Ranch Rancheria was mentioned and whether or not that was one of the tribal organizations that received a request or an offering of consultation with the city. I don't know that off the top of my head. We can go back and look at that. But I can assure you that we did respond to the Native American Heritage Commission's tribal list.

Okay. And should the vote be to move to recommend acceptance

this moves on to the City Council how soon will the City Council be reviewing our decision so the the City Council hearings yet to be scheduled looking kind of at some of the legal requirements to advertise a project like this as a public hearing we're gonna need at least 20 days because this is a project that triggers a 20-day notification So I would assume within 20 to 30 days, we would have to look at the dates, see what the date lines up, then schedule it with the newspaper, the landowner notices. So generally speaking, 30 days or more, I would guess.

OK. And is the decision, are we required to make a decision today whether to move forward or deny the project?

Yes. You are. As an advisory body to the City Council, you're required to make a recommendation tonight.

Okay. I think those are all my questions.

Go ahead. The Planning Commission... doesn't have the ability to override the city council's legislative authority if it if it were to have a continuous delay it would be essentially vetoing the city council's authority on this project so no no it wouldn't it's not an option the question being asked if delaying is not enough if is or is not an option for the Commission tonight to vote can we delay our vote I believe is the nature of the question you you can't delay your vote if you're basing this on measure M that's outside of the purview of this project so I would say that no no you couldn't delay this recommendation tonight so as I understand it we as a commission we need to either

to recommend approval to the City Council vote to deny approval or recommendation the council did not deny the project but if I do not receive a motion and second and we don't have a vote then well then you would can continue the meeting but it could be treated as a neutral recommendation to the City Council okay and still be passed along now if if measure M is is something that's in your minds

You can include it into your recommendation and say that you recommend the city council to consider it or to delay themselves. But you cannot be the obstacle in front of the city council hearing the project.

Should the commission move to deny the project, the applicant can still appeal to the city council and the city council can change that decision, can't they?

You wouldn't be moving to deny the project. You would be recommending denial to the city council. The city council is going to hear it regardless. Thanks.

Okay.

Is there anyone else up here? I have a few things I'd like to add, but I want to give everyone else an opportunity. Okay. One thing I would actually ask, it's related to that, but I think that it's kind of been answered. We, as the commission, have an obligation to act, not just because of we can't delay the city council, but I do believe that under state law, we... We can't, even the council cannot just decide to not act upon this waiting for something else. Is that correct? I believe we have an obligation under state law

to act in a timely fashion to the applicant for this project that's right the applicant has a right to a fair hearing and to timely decisions on his project their project and so under the permit streamlining Act you have statutory obligations to move the project forward whether it's with denial right okay and I bring that up because there were some comments tonight about saying that it was being rushed through some of the

people that I've spoken to in the public have mentioned that it seems like it's trying to be forced through before this could be properly heard and I understand that opinion and I can respect that I just wanted to make it clear that you know we as a commission have an obligation act upon it right now one thing that I wanted to mention is there was a lot of talk tonight about prime AG land versus non prime AG land I other than hearing people say it's prime or it's not prime it's fallow it's this I haven't been given any specific data I took it upon myself to try to look for some information on this I did find that uh the US Department of Agriculture does have a map of all of California basically but in Stanislaus County they have designated certain lands to be prime ag land and certain lands being not prime ag land and all that has to do with is the land is put into the Williamson Act prime AG land can be divided to as small as 10 acre parcels because that's considered sustainable 40 acres is required in non prime areas to be sustainable but that even that website didn't give me any information as far as the suitability of soil for growing things or you know what you know how good it is in comparison other lands around the county so i'm pretty sure this land is considered prime under that usda designation simply meaning it needs 10 acres to be sustainable for farming operations and the other thing i do want to say is that i was told once a statistic that for every person that comes and speaks in public at a position like this represents 10 other people that didn't come down and speak we had uh 49 45 people come and express their opinions. And I appreciate that. I appreciate everybody coming down, expressing their opinion. I listened to all of you. I took notes. I've highlighted things. And I'm glad to see so many people in the community taking the opportunity to engage, because you obviously all care about this community. And I realize that you're representing many people who are not coming here to speak. And that's been taken into consideration in my mind as well. So I think that's all I have to say about that right now. And if we have consideration for a motion.

Chair, I make a motion that we recommend to the city council that they take no further action on the Riverwalk project.

All right. Do we have a second for that?

no second so so just to clarify it's denial of the project and I have a second from yeah so to be clear when we take the roll call

yes vote would be to recommend denial of the project is that correct correct okay I just want to make sure that when somebody says yes or no they are actually saying what they want so the motion is to deny the project go to City Council or with without recommendation from Planning Commission right and for the record alternate Armando Rodriguez and alternate Alex Rodriguez will not be voting all right can we get a roll call then please oh yes

Correct. A yes vote would be to recommend denial of the project, to not approve.

Yes, that is the motion.

So you have a denial resolution? So there's an exhibit that has the denial resolutions outlined. So if you would want to make a motion to deny it as provided by the agenda materials.

Is that exhibit here in one of our packets?

That'd be exhibit K, just for ease of administration.

All right, because I'd love to look at that. And I have a million and one pages right here in front of me. The last one? I think I have them out of order too. Is it in one of these? I'm sorry. Or is it in the packet here?

So for the record, Exhibit K is the resolution to deny the project. Oh, okay. To recommend denial.

Okay. So this is the recommendation. everybody else am I the only one missing this routine all right okay yeah so the the summary of this based on the findings the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council declined to adopt the general plan amendment declined to adopt the riverwalk decline to authorize the sphere of influence amendment municipal services review update annexation applications and deny the Riverwalk project applications so that's what we are moving in second clear we're good all right can we get a roll call please yes yes oh sorry Commissioner Bosso yes Commissioner Stewart yes

Commissioner Zamora yes Commission vice-chair Dinan yes chair halterman no Motion carries for one to deny the project for recommendation to the City Council All right so

On behalf of the Planning Commission, I would like to thank everybody who attended this evening, took the time to participate. Your comments are important. And as I said, we appreciate your participation in this. Being no further business for the Planning Commission, this meeting is now adjourned.

Thank you for the agendized exhibit. That's what we needed.

Can I speak, please? May I speak? Yes. .

Thank you.