Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, it is 6pm on September 15 2026. Welcome to the city of Riverbank Planning Commission meeting. Can I get roll call please?

Chair Michael Alterman.

Here.

Vice Chair John Dynan.

Here.

Commissioner Tidy Zamora.

Here.

Commissioner Joan Stewart. Commissioner Natasa Basso.

Here.

And then in the audience, we have our alternate Armando Jr. Rodriguez and alternate Alex Rodriguez.

All right. If there are any planning commission members or staff who have a direct conflict of interest on any of the scheduled agenda items to be considered, we're to declare that conflict at this time. And seeing none, we will move on to the public comments section. At this time, members of the public may comment on any item that is not appearing on the agenda tonight and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission Board. Individual comments limited to a maximum of three minutes and time cannot be yielded to another person. Understate law matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon. For record purposes, please state your name and city of residence. And please make your comments directly to the Planning Commission members. Do we have any public comments? None on Zoom, none present. Okay, we will close the public comments. Moving on to the consent calendar. All items on consent calendar to be acted upon by a single action of the Planning Commission Board unless requested by an individual member or member of the public for special consideration. The items are item 5.1 posting of the agenda for September 15 2026 was posted community center bolts and board city hall north and south post office city website and email to the library item 5.2 the approval of the September 15 agenda. And item 5.3 approval of the July 21 2026 planning commission meeting minutes and approval of the August 4 2026 special planning commission meeting minutes. having been read by the individual commissioners and stands approved as submitted. Thanks for consideration.

I move we accept the consent calendar as presented.

Second.

I have a motion to second. We get a roll call, please, or a vote.

Chair Alterman?

Yes.

Vice Chair Dinan? Yes. Commissioner Zamora? Yes. Commissioner Stewart? And Commissioner Bosso? Yes. That's approved 50.

All right. Moving on to our public hearing. Item 6.1, an architecture and site plan review, number 11-2025, 3201 Sierra Street.

And are here to present architecture and site plan review application number 11 2025 for 3201 Sierra street. The project is an architecture and site plan review request for the design of a duplex at 3201 Sierra street. The 6,250 square foot project site is located at 3201 Sierra Street between 2nd and 3rd Street. The project site is currently vacant and unimproved and has access to Sierra Street, 2nd Street, and a 20-foot wide alley located between Sierra and Stanislaus Streets. The site is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. Here is the proposed site plan. The front door for both units faces 2nd Street. The garage for Unit 1 is proposed to be accessed from the alley and the garage for Unit 2 is proposed to be accessed from 2nd Street. Here are the proposed elevations. Architectural elements including varying front roof lines, identifiable residential entries, and base treatments have been added to ensure compliance with the downtown specific plan architectural standards and guidelines. No specific issues have been identified as part of the review of the project and standard conditions of approval have been applied. The project site is designated as mixed use in the City of Riverbank general plan, which allows for higher density residential development in a vertical or horizontal setting. The project site is located within the general plan's designated infill opportunity area, which is an already developed portion of the city, and many of the properties within this area are vacant or are Otherwise underutilized. The general plan supports reinvestment, redevelopment, and revitalization efforts within this area. Specifically, goal land to policy land 2.4 of the land use element is to encourage reuse of vacant or underutilized parcels. in the infill opportunity area accordingly staff eyes staff finds the proposed duplex is consistent with the general plan because it supports residential infill development on vacant and underutilized land within the infill opportunity area The site is located within the downtown specific plan area and is zoned a mixed use neighborhood. While a duplex is a permitted use, the downtown specific plan requires architecture and site plan review for the construction and reconstruction of buildings. In order to approve an architecture and site plan review, the Planning Commission shall make the findings listed in section 153.217 of the Riverbank Municipal Code, which are also listed in the staff report and the resolution. Staff have reviewed the proposed plans and elevations and find the project is consistent with the downtown specific plan and the Riverbank Municipal Code and that the required findings can be met. The project is considered exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15332 Class 32 infill development projects. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation, general plan policies, zoning designation, and zoning regulations. The Planning Commission hearing notice was published in the Riverbank News, posted at City Hall North and South, and mailed to landowners within 300 feet of the project site on September 2nd. A notice of development permit application was posted at the project site also on September 2nd. To conclude, staff recommend the Planning Commission approve the project, make the required findings, and adopt Resolution 2026014, the approving architecture and site plan review application number 112025. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Questions up here? All right, this is public hearing. We will open this item for public comment. Is there any comments from the public or online? All right, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing portion of it and bring it back for consideration.

I'll make a motion to approve and adopt resolution number 2026-014 to approve the architecture and site plan review application number 11-2025. All right, we have a motion and a second.

Okay, Chair Alterman? Yes. Vice Chair Dynan? Yes. Commissioner Zamora? Yes. Commissioner Stewart? And Commissioner Basso? Yes. It's approved 5-0.

All right, before we move on, I actually want to step back, I forgot to mention this during the public hearing comment, the Planning Commission was presented an email from Annabelle Gammon, making some comments on previous thing. And I just want to state for the record that that will be added to the minutes for receiving a copy was provided to all of us and we have read that. Okay, moving on to item 7.1, staff comments and informational updates.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. I kind of wanted to go through probably both those items. We did receive some referrals this week, so I kind of wanted to hit on both of those. If you don't mind, I'll just kind of combine my comments. First thing I wanted to mention is we received a Modesto referral this week for a new subdivision. It's to be located on Milne's and Claus, generally, just kind of south of Sylvan Claus intersection, I would call it. that's for 127 lots on 19 acres the reason this is of interest to riverbank is it impacts our regional truck routes leaving from the ammo plant south and so just just a little interest on the planning department side we will be kind of crafting a letter speaking with our city engineer and just kind of figuring out what's in best interest of riverbank um The other one I wanted to mention, we did receive a Stanislaus County referral also, I think about a week, week and a half ago. This is related to an action disciplinary trucking facility, which is located at 1933 Patterson Road, just kind of on the west end of our city as you're leaving town or entering town. And that's a longstanding trucking business. I think they have a tow yard. My understanding is they ran into some code enforcement issues with Stanislaus County. And in order to gain compliance, they're having to do a rezone and general plan amendment for their property. Part of that action requires the county to contact Riverbank and ask the question if the project is consistent with the general plan. Our general plan designation in that area is mixed use. So generally speaking, a trucking tow yard is not consistent or compatible with a mixed use designation. So our letter back to the county included, well, we acknowledge that it's basically a legal non-conforming use. So it's been a longstanding use out there. And so what we ask the county is maybe look at it as a transitional or interim use, meaning that upon annexation, maybe there's a time limit, maybe it's a five-year term. or 10 years until that use kind of sunsets. Mainly, this is looking at future development in the area, compatibility issues. And so that's kind of the lens that we reviewed this referral at. I think the other two items I wanted to mention, just kind of upcoming projects. So our October, I believe it's October 20th Planning Commission meeting, I believe we'll have a couple of projects. One of them is an update to our ADU ordinance. This past summer, state HCD had reached out to us with the written letter stating that our ADU ordinance is not in compliance with state law. I guess since we adopted it, I believe it was in 21 or 22, there's been subsequent changes at the state level related to ADUs. So this ordinance is kind of a cleanup. We're just bringing it back to the commission, ultimately to the council, and it's just to be in compliance with state law and some of the recent changes that have happened. The other project we'll be looking at is a legal non-conforming use. It's a house on calendar. It's within the downtown specific plan area. And the downtown specific plan doesn't necessarily allow a single family residence. So that's the legal non-conforming status. Unfortunately, the owner's doing a significant remodel and believe it or not, it triggers a conditional use permit to be obtained from the planning commission. So we will have that project as well. There may be one additional project. I just don't know at this time if it will make it, but it should be kind of a full agenda on the 20th of October. Other than that, just wanted to mention, as you're probably aware, Riverwalk will go to city council next Tuesday, and it'll be a public hearing at the community center, similar to the event we had in August, same setup. That concludes my comments. Thank you.

Josh, I actually did have one quick question on the disciplinary trucking out there in the West. That's not directly abutting our city limits right now, correct? It's, I think, one parcel removed.

So, Sid, it's a little bit tricky. I almost need to pull up an aerial to kind of show you because the property itself, I believe it's made up of, you know, a couple of APNs. It's not just a single property. I mean, on the ground, it all kind of looks like it's one piece of property, but there's some legal boundaries that kind of cross, you know, parking lot areas.

Because it's directly west of the existing mobile home park that's over there.

That's correct.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. is that mobile home park? How does that conform with the general plan going that way?

So I believe when they adopted, when they did the general plan in 2009, they, they, you know, accounted for that existing use. So I, I, I believe that there's no compatibility issues there, but it's more so the mixed use starts creeping in around Morris nursery. Right. Um, And some of this property also is included in the Riverwalk. When you look at the different annexation boundaries, it could potentially be part of that annexation. It's just hard to say.

Yeah, that's why I was just curious about how that's it. All right. Are there any other items? Well, if not, we will go ahead and adjourn this meeting. Thank you.