Public commenters urge Riverbank commissioners to oppose Riverwalk project, citing prime farmland and floodplain concerns

During public comment at the Riverbank Planning Commission meeting on Aug. 19, multiple residents urged commissioners to oppose the proposed Riverwalk project, describing the site as prime farmland, an important floodplain and wildlife corridor, and a recharge area for local groundwater.

Fred Walton of Modesto, who said he lives above the area near the Riverwalk project, told commissioners that "river bottoms are meant to help us with floods" and argued the lower flatlands should be retained for greenbelt uses such as parks, athletic fields or agriculture rather than subdivisions. Walton suggested higher ground near Park Ridge would be a more appropriate site for housing.

Karen Conrado, also of Modesto, told the commission she opposed the Riverwalk project "for seemingly endless reasons," citing productive agricultural soils, the site's designation as floodplain, and potential impacts to riparian habitat and groundwater recharge. Conrado asked commissioners to review the draft environmental impact report and "the valid and specific personal and agency criticisms" lodged against the project, and requested commissioners "please listen to the people you represent" who had asked to vote on an urban limits initiative before the City Council takes action on Riverwalk.

Milt Treeweiler, a lifelong Stanislaus County resident, characterized the land in the Riverwalk specific-plan area as prime farmland and riparian habitat that cannot be replaced; he said the area is mostly floodplain and that preserving it would protect downstream areas during large storms. Treeweiler told commissioners the Riverwalk "sphere of influence is 2.4 square miles in size" and asked them to "vote no and completely stop this proposed Riverwalk project." He also noted the land is irrigated by private wells and by the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) via a canal that runs through the property.

Dave Romano, speaking on behalf of Crossroads West, responded that Crossroads West and its circulation plan were approved previously by the planning commission and city council and asked commissioners to support the Westgate vacation that was on the agenda that night, saying the road realignment and tentative map were designed to allow future connectivity and, if needed, to accommodate a school parcel.

Commissioners did not take action on Riverwalk at the Aug. 19 meeting; the public comments were made during the public comment period and were not discussed substantively by the commission in a policy-setting decision during that meeting. Staff did, however, note a separate update that the city's revised housing element had been submitted to the state Department of Housing and Community Development, with comments expected that week.

Speakers urged commissioners to consider flood-control, farmland preservation and groundwater recharge when evaluating Riverwalk in future hearings. Members of the public and commenters asked that the draft EIR and agency comments be closely reviewed as the project moves forward through the city's land-use process.