Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Riverwalk Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverbank residents tell council Riverwalk project will harm farmland; EIR flagged for gaps
Summary
Public commenters at the Riverbank City Council meeting urged the council to reject or delay the Riverwalk project, saying it would consume prime farmland and that the project's environmental impact report omits key analyses, including groundwater impacts, levee condition and required fish and wildlife surveys.
Several Riverbank residents used the city’s public comment period on May 28 to press the City Council to oppose or postpone the proposed Riverwalk development, arguing it threatens prime farmland and that the project’s environmental impact report (EIR) contains serious omissions.
"This project will not help you and your neighbors," Milt Treweiler told the council. Treweiler said the Riverwalk project’s sphere of influence covers roughly "2.4 square miles," described the soils as "young fertile soils" and said "85% or more" of residents he has spoken with oppose the plan. He urged council members not to be "intimidated, bribed, or blackmailed" into approving the project and said the development would replace productive cherry, almond and walnut acreage.
Another commenter, Jamie Yeagers, joined by Zoom, criticized the EIR itself. Yeagers said the document is "overly broad" and "glossed over" numerous issues. She cited specific concerns: the EIR purportedly does not demonstrate compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), offers no diagram or condition assessment of a 70-year-old levee central to the project, and lacks a complete fish and wildlife survey for all acreage the state agency requires. Yeagers also noted that a five-acre cherry orchard owned by the project proponent was not surveyed for environmental impacts where Coffee Road would be extended to McHenry.
Those public remarks focused on two related points: the project’s potential to convert actively farmed land and technical gaps in environmental review. Yeagers warned that the gaps she identified could make it "difficult, if not impossible, for a governing agency like yourselves to certify [the EIR] as complete when it comes before you." No staff response or council deliberation on the EIR took place during the public comment period; state law limits council discussion of items raised in public comment at that time.
The council did not vote on the Riverwalk EIR during the May 28 meeting. Speakers asked the council to consider the agricultural, hydrologic and wildlife survey concerns before any certification or further approvals. The record of public comment and the EIR comments raised to the council will appear in the administrative record to be considered in any upcoming agenda item dealing with the Riverwalk project.
Next steps: The council’s formal consideration of environmental certification or project approvals was not on the dais for decision during this meeting. Public commenters asked the council to withhold action until the identified technical issues are addressed.
