Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends allowing slope easements instead of retaining wall for Meadowview subdivision
Summary
The commission recommended that city council approve a modified condition for the Meadowview tentative subdivision map to permit slope easements (subject to city standards) in lieu of block retaining walls along Lots 18–31; the motion passed 4–0 with the chair recused.
The Riverbank Planning Commission on May 19 recommended that the City Council approve a modification to a condition of approval for the Meadowview subdivision that would allow a slope easement in lieu of a block retaining wall along the rear property lines of Lots 18 through 31.
Planning staff said the change corrects wording in the original condition so it aligns with City of Riverbank standard detail 901, which allows an optional slope transition or slope easement when designed to city standards and approved by the city engineer. "Transition grading may be provided through either a retaining wall, slope transition, slope easement, or combination thereof, provided the design complies with the city standard detail 901," the staff presentation stated.
The staff report said the requested modification does not change the subdivision’s density or footprint and concluded the amendment is exempt from further environmental review under the CEQA exemption cited in the staff report for qualified housing projects. Staff recommended adoption of Resolution 2026-005 to forward the change to council.
The applicant, Carrie Pope, told the commission the option is about cost and flexibility. "The block walls have become extremely expensive," Pope said, and the applicant wants the ability to use either a slope easement or a retaining wall depending on site conditions and cost.
Commissioners questioned the public-safety and engineering implications and were told by planning staff that the revision merely restores the options already allowed by the city standard detail and that any slope easement design must include rights and obligations for construction, access, inspection, maintenance, drainage and slope stability and be approved by the city engineer.
Vice Chair John Dinan presided on the item after Chair Michael Alterman recused himself and the commission approved the recommendation by roll call (4–0). The recommendation will be considered by the City Council as Resolution 2026-005.
The planning director said any approved slope easement would be recorded on the final map or by separate instrument, and design and maintenance obligations would be defined at that time.
