Anticipating a large turnout, the City of Riverbank moved its regular Tuesday, Feb. 27, meeting to the Community Center because of public interest on the River Walk Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR, that was to be made.

The project is expected to include 1,522 acres bounded by McHenry Avenue on the west, Patterson Road/Highway 108 on the south and the Stanislaus River to the north. It wraps around the MID Solar Farm on the corner of Patterson and McHenry.

It is west of the Riverbank city limits and not in the city’s current sphere of influence, about two miles from downtown.

By design, Coffee Road would continue north, across Patterson through the heart of the project.

As project planning has progressed over the last few months, a number of neighboring residents have appeared at council meetings, imploring them to deny the project's development. For the most part, they have cited the loss of prime agricultural land and urban sprawl as major concerns.

The recent meeting was the first time the issue has formally come before the council but was only a presentation of the draft EIR and the specific plan for the development.

In its 1,522 acres, the project is expected to include 18 village groupings, comprising 2,432 lots for building. The projects will include mostly low- to medium-density units, with one high-density designation of 180 lots.

According to the presentation, the project includes seven goals. They include developing a mix of residential housing to meet the needs of the market, prioritizing the “age-restricted development of a vibrant community with diverse housing types and densities, allowing residents to age-in-place.”

They’ll also develop “a community core area that serves as central community gathering place for social interaction, recreation, retail, services and living space.”

Another goal is to “promote health and wellness through extensive pedestrian and bicycle trails, outdoor recreation areas and opportunities for social interaction.”

Opponents of the project have organized a petition signed by city residents opposing the project, hoping to get the measure placed on the November ballot. However, when turned in by the deadline, a number of signatures were disqualified, so the matter won’t be on the ballot.

Speakers at the council meeting asserted that at least one of the petition’s circulators forged signatures, leading to the disqualification of the petition.

The presentation of the EIR was made by Miguel Galvez, Contract City Planner for De Novo Planning Group which is serving the city until a new Building/Planning Director is hired.

Galvez stressed that no action was needed as his presentation was informational only. Since the proposed project is within the city’s General Plan Planning Area, but outside the city limits and sphere of influence, it must go before LAFCO for approval.

The Local Agency Formation Commission is an independent regulatory agency created by the California Legislature to control the boundaries of cities and most special districts.

On the move?

At the same Feb. 27 meeting, a separate, yet equally high-interest topic was that of the possible moving of city offices.

The item was the proposal to authorize City Manager Marisela Garcia to negotiate to lease or purchase the former MCI Telecommunications Center at 6436 Oakdale Road, behind the Rocket Gas Station/Convenience Store and the Flavors dispensary.

The presentation began with the review of past work towards revamping the city’s offices. And, ultimately, the evening ended with no final decision made but set the stage for a possible move in the future.

The accompanying report noted that “in June 2018, the City Council established a Strategic Plan Objective to ‘conduct a spatial analysis of all city facilities...’ Over the past several years it has been evident that the City has outgrown its current facilities.”

With the population growth that is anticipated to occur in the near future, the report continued, “the City Council thought it would be prudent to develop long-term plans to accommodate the growth in City staff that would be needed to serve our growing community.

“In preparation for the study, all departments prepared short- and long-term staffing needs. These projections were used by the consulting team to determine the spatial needs for city offices.”

Ultimately, the study concluded that the current homes, City Hall North and City Hall South don’t have adequate space for existing needs, much less if any expansion is to come in the near future.

Staff said consultants presented a report in February 2020 that contained possible interim solutions “that would help to alleviate the spatial constraints within the two existing City Hall buildings.”

Unfortunately, it was additionally noted, the COVID-19 pandemic reached California the following month and the interim solutions were not explored.

Post-pandemic, the reported indicated, the City has continued to grow and these interim solutions are no longer viable options; prompting exploration of other possible long-term solutions.

They included options to move some offices out of City Hall North or South, and the interior redesign of both buildings.

Due to the pandemic, many companies moved towards having their employees work remotely, including a telemarketing firm that was at that time located at the 6436 Oakdale Road facility.

“To this day, the employees of this company have continued to work remotely and therefore the majority of the site has been vacant for quite some time. The property owner has rented out smaller sections of the site to individual organizations but has never fully rented out the entire space.”

With roughly 42,000 square feet available, 6436 Oakdale Road was identified as a suitable space for relocating City Hall.

The building has sufficient space, officials said, “to accommodate all departments currently located in City Hall North and City Hall South including Planning, Building, Finance, Development Services Administration, Recreation, Housing, and Administration.”

Also, it would provide sufficient space for a new Council Chambers “that would allow for an expanded capacity than that which is currently available.”

A number of audience members commented against the move away from downtown, citing the impact on businesses located there, and on the number of seniors who live downtown, within walking distance of the city offices.

Council member motions to both authorize a lease, or a purchase, failed on split votes, leaving the matter to still be resolved.