Riverbank council denies fee waiver for 67‑unit Riverbank Residential Home Village after months of public comment

The City of Riverbank on April 22 voted 5‑0 to deny a fee‑waiver request and a PLHA (Permanent Local Housing Allocation) plan amendment submitted by Central Valley Community Resources Inc. (CVCR) for a proposed 67‑unit Riverbank Residential Home Village.

City staff summarized the applicant’s requests and the project background before the public hearing. Staff said the city had previously committed roughly $1.5 million in matching funds from a state allocation secured via Senator Eggman to support a transitional and permanent supportive housing project, and that CVCR had applied for $20 million through the state Homekey Plus program (a 1:1 match program). Staff also explained that CVCR sought waiver of building permit fees, system development fees and other plan‑check and utility fees; staff reported the PLHA amendment request to reallocate three years of unspent PLHA funds (estimated by staff at about $417,298) to the CVCR project.

Darlene Barber Martinez, representing Central Valley Community Resources, and Arlene Figueroa Morales (CVCR CFO/board member) presented the Riverbank Residential Home Village as a two‑parcel development (2.88 acres and 1.64 acres) that would deliver 67 furnished units (each about 643 square feet; two bedrooms, one bath; eight ADA accessible units), perimeter security fencing, on‑site supportive services in a second phase and wraparound case management. CVCR said the project would prioritize Riverbank residents via coordinated‑entry (HMIS) and partner with county behavioral health, Golden Valley Health Centers and local school districts for services.

Public comment occupied more than an hour. Dozens of residents and community groups testified, with testimony sharply divided. Speakers opposing the project cited the project size relative to Riverbank’s 2024 point‑in‑time count, concerns about the type of clients who would be served (including people with severe mental illness or substance‑use disorders under Proposition 1 funding), fire and safety risks, the adequacy of CVCR’s fiscal track record and the absence of finalized partnership commitments and an on‑site services center on Day One. Those speakers included Karen Conrado, Maricris Carza, Milt Treweiler, Sierra Ferrer, Roselyn Chandra and others who said they feared community impacts and asked the council to protect parks and school sites.

Supporters urged the council to approve the requested waivers and partner with CVCR. Speakers including representatives of Love River Bank, Linda Legacy, David Tucker and several residents urged compassion and described local needs for affordable housing and transitional supports. CVCR and its supporters pointed to Sierra House, a local transitional program, and to workforce training graduates as evidence of successful outcomes from similar services.

Council members repeatedly asked for more concrete commitments from CVCR on operating partners, day‑one services and financial plans. Multiple council members said the applicant had not yet provided adequate documentation—commitment letters, finalized site plans updated after the April 7 pre‑application meeting, and a clear timeline for when the supportive service center (Phase 2) would be operational. During the hearing CVCR representatives said Phase 2 services could operate in a unit on site while a permanent services building was constructed but did not provide signed service contracts in the staff packet.

After discussion, a councilmember moved to deny the fee waiver request and the associated PLHA amendment; the motion passed on a roll call vote of 5‑0 (Councilmember names recorded as voting yes: Uribe, Pimentel, Call, Vice Mayor Fosse, Mayor Hernandez). The council did not approve the waiver or the requested reallocation of PLHA funds for this proposal.

Clarifying details recorded in the hearing included: the applicant’s requested PLHA reallocation estimate (~$417,298); CVCR’s Homekey Plus application amount of $20 million (1:1 match); the project description (67 units, 10‑ or 2.88 + 1.64 acres, 643 sq ft units, 8 ADA units, perimeter fencing, underground utilities, stormwater capture and a proposed Phase 2 services center); and the city’s prior commitment of $1.5 million in state funds designated for affordable/transitional housing. Public attendees repeatedly cited a $2.1 million figure for the fee waiver request; staff’s presentation referenced a waiver total described in the packet (approximate notation in staff presentation). The council majority declined the waiver amid unresolved questions about operator capacity, Phase 2 timing, financial gaps and community outreach.

Council members asked staff to continue outreach and to consider alternative uses for available housing funds—including suggestions from some council members to direct PLHA funds to other local projects such as Sierra House—if applicants cannot resolve outstanding issues. The denial preserves the city’s ability to consider other proposals for the earmarked funds and leaves the Homekey Plus application status unchanged until applicants and staff determine next steps.