Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Riverwalk Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council to pause Riverwalk investment, citing wastewater capacity and environmental concerns
Summary
Multiple public commenters urged Riverbank to halt spending on the Riverwalk development and to verify wastewater treatment capacity after the draft EIR flagged plant capacity constraints; Sierra Club and other residents warned of environmental impacts and told council to secure funding before advancing the project.
Several residents used public comment to press the City Council for caution on the proposed Riverwalk development, focusing on wastewater treatment capacity, project costs and environmental impacts.
Diego Hernandez asked the council to stop investing further in the wastewater expansion until firm numbers and funding sources are secured. He cited figures discussed previously (referencing a presentation that listed roughly $88 million then a later figure of $136 million, and mentioning a $15 million grant that may not be available this year) and warned that the city has less than half the necessary funds and is already facing large increases in sewer‑enterprise expenditures.
Kent Mitchell, political chair for the Stanislaus County Sierra Club, urged the council to reject Riverwalk on environmental grounds. He said the proposal would pave high‑quality arable soil on a floodplain and harm underlying recharge areas, and urged that the urban‑limit initiative set for the 2026 ballot let voters decide large expansions.
Jamie Eggers, participating by Zoom, cited sections of the draft Environmental Impact Report that state the wastewater treatment plant is near capacity and that a mitigation approach in the EIR would limit construction to units that have secured capacity. Eggers argued that council approvals should be contingent on confirmed sewer capacity to avoid exceeding plant limits.
Councilmembers and staff did not take immediate action to stop work but several noted the concerns and asked staff for further clarification. The comments highlight technical issues (EIR mitigation language, phased capacity allocations) and fiscal concerns (project cost estimates and enterprise fund trends) that councilmembers said will require further staff analysis before the council advances project approvals or budget commitments.
