Riverbank residents urge council to reconsider proposed tiny‑home site near Oakdale and Morrell

Dozens of Riverbank residents used the city council public comment period on March 25, 2025, to urge elected officials to reconsider a proposed tiny‑home transitional and permanent housing project at the corner of Oakdale and Morrell Road, saying the site is too close to family neighborhoods, a sports complex and schools.

Speakers attributed to the public comment record said the project, proposed by an organization identified in comments as CVCR, could house dozens of people and has not been adequately planned or vetted. “I disapprove so much of this project,” said Manuel Rivera, who identified himself as a Crossroads West resident and military veteran. “This could be problems for our community.”

A city clerk read three written comments into the record. One letter, from a resident identified as Mr. Sandhu, asked the council to consider redirecting funds to Sierra House, which the writer said has exhausted its resources and already serves the local population. Another written comment, from Katrina Kosheri, said more than 200 residents of Crossroads West oppose the proposed site and argued the location is “inappropriate” for transitional or permanent housing because of nearby newly built single‑family homes and recreational facilities. A third letter, from Sahir Marcos, said hundreds of petition signers oppose the location and raised similar safety and property‑value concerns.

Several speakers cited project details and funding in their remarks. Roselyn Chandra told the council the proposal would create a 67‑unit community that she said could accommodate “approximately 134 to 268 individuals,” and warned this population could include people with mental‑health and substance‑use issues. Mary Chris (spelled variously in comments) said the applicant is reportedly applying for a $20,000,000 Homekey Plus grant (linked in comments to Proposition 1) and that the grant program would allow the project to serve a broader population than some residents were told. Multiple commenters also said they were alarmed that the applicant sought fee waivers before submitting full planning materials.

Speakers raised a range of specific requests and questions: move the project to a less residential area, redirect funds to existing local programs such as Sierra House, require clearer vetting and ongoing oversight, and avoid locating high‑density supportive housing next to a sports complex frequently used by children. Comments included anecdotal concerns about crime and drug activity in other jurisdictions that speakers said they wanted to avoid locally.

City staff did not take formal action on the project during the meeting. Members of council did not vote or direct staff to take immediate action on the site at Oakdale and Morrell during the public comment period; under state law, matters raised in public comment cannot be discussed or acted upon at that time. The council agenda at this meeting included other items that were acted on by vote.

Community members planning follow‑up actions said they will continue to press the council and the applicant for more information on site selection, vetting processes and funding before any formal entitlement or agreement is approved.