Residents urge high-quality gateway project that draws visitors off Highway 70; wide-ranging public input recorded

Dozens of residents, local businesspeople and community groups spoke during a public-input session on the city’s Gateway Project, urging the council to pursue a high-quality development that draws travelers from Highway 70 into Oroville and connects the riverfront to the historic downtown.

At the start of the in-person public comment period, Natalie Sheard, speaking as a resident, said, “The residents want a stellar gateway project that travelers off the 70, celebrates the waterfront, and connects the river to our historic downtown.” She urged the city to insist that any development spend money on architectural details, open spaces and public art appropriate for a gateway rather than treating the parcels as ordinary commercial lots.

Other speakers echoed that view and offered specific ideas. John Zilic urged a 21st‑century design that would make drivers pull off the freeway and continue downtown. Sarah Nolan, speaking for younger entrepreneurs and residents, said decisions made now will shape the next generation’s opportunities. Brian Wong and others argued a strong gateway could attract tourism, new businesses and tax revenue.

Several speakers asked that the city avoid low-end retail or low-income housing on the gateway parcel; Marsha Henderson explicitly opposed uses such as discount chain stores and urged hotels, restaurants and shops that would link to Montgomery Street and historic downtown.

Multiple residents recommended amenities for youth — including a sports complex, gyms, swimming facilities and youth centers — and several young speakers described travel burdens for tournaments and the need for local facilities. Remarks also raised the idea of riverfront recreation or a water-focused facility that would connect Riverbend Park, Bedrock and other waterfront attractions.

Some commenters raised questions about the site’s current owner, referencing a claim in public comment that the parcels were previously conveyed for $1 to a private developer (named in comments as Mark Mendez) and asking for accountability and clarity about obligations; a citizen speaker said a contract requires a developer to attend quarterly meetings but asserted that had not occurred.

The council announced that one written comment received after the printed 2 p.m. deadline would be uploaded to the public record and that staff would accept emailed comments to include in the packet. The Gateway Project Vision Group — a team of local investors and planners that identified itself in a letter to the city — asked for a formal review and selection process and said it had already conducted feasibility and financing analyses.

Councilmembers thanked speakers and encouraged continued engagement. Vice Mayor Smith and Councilman Weber urged staff and council to pull together previously produced planning documents (including studies prepared with SPF funds) and to pursue a comprehensive, “shovel‑ready” plan so the site can attract developers. No formal council action or vote was taken at the hearing; council directed staff to collect comments and return to the council with public‑record materials and next steps.

Ending: Staff confirmed the city will post late written comments to the public record, compile input and follow up with a report to council on how to proceed with a formal review and selection process.