Council holds fee‑waiver and PLHA reallocation request for Riverbank Residential Home Village until pre‑development review

The City Council on March 11 heard a lengthy presentation and public comment on a proposed 67‑unit supportive housing project, the Riverbank Residential Home Village, and on requests from the developer, Central Valley Community Resources (CVCR), for fee waivers and for the city to reallocate Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA/SB2) funds to help match a Homekey Plus grant application.

Project and funding request: City staff said the proposal is for a permanent supportive housing development on the northwest corner of Oakdale Road and Morrell Road targeted at people at risk of homelessness, including young adults, seniors, veterans and families. On January 28 the council authorized reallocation of $1.5 million that had been secured through a state allocation requested by a state senator; CVCR has since sought additional state funds via the Homekey Plus program. CVCR requested waivers of multiple city fees (building permit, system administration, system development/impact fees, water/sewer connection fees, plan check, utility deposits and others) totaling approximately $2,160,000 and asked the city to reallocate roughly $417,298 in PLHA funds (2021–2023 cycles) to their project as local match.

Questions from council and public: Council members pressed for clearer project details and justification for each waiver. City staff explained what each fee covers and which fees the city cannot waive (for example, state and county fees). Councilmembers and residents raised concerns about process and siting, including whether the project is program‑based/transitional or permanent supportive housing, traffic and stormwater impacts on a developing neighborhood, utility impacts and whether adequate outreach had occurred. Several residents from nearby Crossroads West and Parkwoods expressed opposition or worry about neighborhood impacts; others supporting the project said the need for affordable and supportive housing is real and that matching fee waivers can unlock larger state grants.

Key staff and applicant points: City staff noted the Crossroads West Specific Plan designates the corner as high‑density residential and that permits would still require discretionary approvals; staff also said there is not yet a formal application on file. CVCR representatives and grant consultant Thurman Consulting said the project is intended as permanent supportive housing with affordability set at extremely‑low or very‑low AMI levels, and that the Homekey Plus grant process requires demonstration of local match and a ‘shovel‑ready’ status to be competitive. A Thurman Consulting representative said the grant application is due in May and that the application process and design have evolved; CVCR representatives said they are continuing to refine building plans, unit mix (they had revised unit types), and infrastructure designs.

Council action: After public comment and extended council discussion, Councilmembers agreed the item was premature for full fee‑waiver consideration because the project lacks a completed predevelopment package and finalized plans. The council voted (5–0) to place the fee‑waiver/PLHA request on hold and asked the applicant to complete the predevelopment process so the council and public can review final plans and supporting technical reports (stormwater, traffic, water/sewer calculations) before deciding on any waivers or reallocations. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote of 5–0 (Uribe: yes; Pimentel: yes; Call: yes; Vice Mayor Fauci: yes; Mayor Hernandez: yes).

What the council requested before a future decision: a formal pre‑development submission and staff review including definitive engineering for storm drainage, traffic analysis, a water/sewer service plan with connection impacts and calculations, a clear unit mix and affordability schedule, and an explanation of how waived fees would be accounted for and used as local match in the Homekey Plus application. Councilmembers also asked staff to clarify which fees are enterprise (funds that support services such as utilities) and therefore difficult to waive without offsetting revenue.

Public process and next steps: Community Development staff noted that zoning/specific‑plan provisions mean a future planning commission hearing will likely be required; that hearing will include a 300‑foot mailed notice and newspaper advertisement per city practice. The council directed staff and the applicant to return once the predevelopment application is complete; only then will council revisit the fee waiver and PLHA reallocation requests.

Speakers in this item (first reference with role/title): Maricela H. Garcia, Community Development Director (City staff); Deanna Garcia, Central Valley Community Resources representative (applicant); Milan Hughes, Thurman Consulting (grant consultant); Mayor Rachel Hernandez (Mayor); Councilmember Uribe (Councilmember); Councilmember Pimentel (Councilmember); Councilmember Call (Councilmember); Vice Mayor Fauci (Vice Mayor). Ending: Council continued the fee‑waiver and PLHA reallocation request until the predevelopment application and technical reports are complete and available for public review.