Riverbank hears Riverwalk specific plan presentation; residents urge protecting farmland, water and wildlife

The Riverbank City Council heard a detailed presentation on Feb. 27 about the Riverwalk Specific Plan and its draft environmental impact report, an applicant‑led development that would bring a mix of residential, mixed‑use and open‑space components to land north of Patterson Road.

Miguel Galvez, contract city planner, told the council the item was informational and that no council action was being requested that night, noting the draft EIR is available for written comment and that the consultant will respond to written comments after the public review period ends. “The application is now at a stage where the draft environmental assessment is available for public comment on the adequacy of the analysis that has been prepared,” Galvez said.

Steve McMurtry, the project consultant, walked the council through the specific plan’s chapters — land use and development standards, circulation, infrastructure, parks and an active‑adult component — and summarized the draft EIR process, alternatives and mitigation approach. He described the draft EIR as “an informational document” prepared to help decision‑makers and the public understand potential environmental effects and noted the draft includes 43 mitigation measures across topics such as agricultural resources, air quality, utilities and transportation.

McMurtry said the project boundary includes applicant‑controlled parcels and other nonparticipating property owners, and identified potential entitlements that would be required to implement the plan, including a sphere‑of‑influence amendment, annexation, general plan and zoning changes, a specific plan and a development agreement.

During the 45‑day public review period, staff said the draft EIR was circulated in February; the notice of availability set a March 18 comment deadline for the version distributed, and staff said translated versions and any extension dates were still being determined.

Public comment that followed the presentation was extensive and largely critical. Speakers repeatedly urged the council to preserve prime farmland and to avoid annexing and developing the river bottom and agricultural conservation areas. Laurie Carley of the League of Women Voters of Stanislaus County said prime farmland is “an irreplaceable resource” and urged contiguous infill development instead of sprawl.

Several speakers raised water and flood concerns. Gary Pearson, who identified himself as a long‑time agriculturalist, questioned building in a floodplain and warned of potential drainage, biological and water‑supply impacts. Other residents asked how the project would affect irrigation and groundwater recharge, and whether adjacent farms would lose access to water; McMurtry replied the project is not designed to cut off irrigation to existing properties.

Traffic and public‑services concerns were common. Residents warned that Coffey and Patterson roads would become congested, and asked that traffic impacts beyond the project’s internal circulation be analyzed and mitigated. Ecological concerns also featured prominently: commenters cited riparian vegetation, elderberry plants and local insects as resources they do not want disturbed.

Several speakers questioned whether the plan’s large active‑adult (55+) component would address local affordable‑housing needs. Property owner Jamie Yeagers, who also asked that consent item 9.5 be pulled for discussion, told the council the project “does not help Riverbank’s need for affordable housing” and urged council members to consider a no‑project alternative when the proposal returns for formal hearings.

Developers’ representatives said the team is open to comment and revisions. Dave Romano, representing a landowners group, told the council the project team looks forward to responding to EIR comments and balancing housing needs with ag preservation tools such as farmland trusts.

What happens next: the draft EIR is in public review; written comments may be submitted as specified in the notice of availability. Staff and the consultant will prepare responses and a final EIR; separate planning commission and city council hearings will be scheduled when the project is ready for formal consideration. Staff emphasized that any annexation or sphere‑of‑influence expansion would also require LAFCO approval.