Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Riverwalk topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverbank residents urge delay of Riverwalk project; some allege conflict-of-interest over developer donations
Summary
Dozens of residents and groups spoke during public comment asking the council to delay the Riverwalk development, citing loss of prime farmland, floodplain concerns and calls for a public vote; one speaker urged two council members to recuse themselves after a donation to the Sister Cities Committee from Riverwalk developers.
Several dozen residents and local groups used the Riverbank City Council public-comment period to press the council on the proposed Riverwalk development, urging delay, a public vote and stricter scrutiny of developer ties to city-affiliated committees.
Colleen O’Brien Preston read a written statement on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Stanislaus County, saying the league has a long history of study and advocacy on land-use issues and urging the council to delay action on Riverwalk until voters have weighed in on an anticipated ballot initiative concerning agricultural and open-space land to the west of the city. The league’s statement argued that prime farmland is irreplaceable and that development could diminish the land’s function for aquifer recharge and other environmental purposes.
Multiple other speakers voiced opposition on environmental and infrastructure grounds. Residents cited the area’s location in a floodplain, the loss of valuable farmland and traffic and public-safety concerns. Some speakers who said they support growth nonetheless urged that the community be allowed to vote on the project in a general election. A list of commenters who raised opposition or asked for a voter decision included Eddie Cuellar, Fred Walton, Barney Eggers, and Karen Conrado (who called in from Hoag Road).
One public commenter, Sammy Martinez, who identified as a leader of the nonprofit Love River Bank, focused on potential conflicts of interest connected to recent donations: he said Riverwalk developers had donated to the Riverbank Sister Cities Committee, a civic organization that, he noted, included two sitting council members who would vote on the project. Martinez asked the council to have the two members recuse themselves from Riverwalk deliberations and requested that the city manager and city attorney draft conflict-of-interest policies for city‑affiliated committees that accept monetary donations. He specifically named Councilman Scribe and Councilman Pimentel in his request for recusal.
Other commenters who spoke in favor of moving forward with development urged the council to consider long-term economic benefits and cited examples of nearby cities that have expanded and later seen economic gains. Eddie Cuellar, who said he lives near Hogue Road, told the council he had driven through the proposed area and believed development could increase property values and economic opportunity in Riverbank.
Council members did not vote on Riverwalk at this meeting; several council members and staff noted they had recently held a workshop on the Riverwalk proposal and were continuing to review the project's draft environmental impact report and other technical materials. Staff and council members repeatedly indicated those policy-level and environmental issues would return to the council for formal consideration in a future agenda item.
Ending: Public comments on Riverwalk were extensive and mixed. The council did not act but heard a call from the League of Women Voters and several residents to delay action until voters have an opportunity to decide, and received a public request that two council members recuse themselves from any Riverwalk discussion where the Sister Cities Committee donation could present an appearance-of-bias issue.
