Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victoria Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverside council continues Victoria Avenue development item after heated public comments
Summary
Councilmembers voted unanimously to continue consideration of the Victoria Avenue development (agenda item 26) to an unspecified future date after a large number of residents voiced objections about notice, density and process.
The Riverside City Council voted unanimously to continue consideration of agenda item 26 — a proposed development on Victoria Avenue — to a date certain yet to be set, after an extended public comment period that included multiple residents and neighborhood groups urging the council to hear the project now or to represent constituents more fully.
The motion to continue was made during the council meeting on Tuesday and carried without recorded opposition. The item had been removed from detailed discussion after the developer requested it be pulled from the published agenda; council staff said the agenda remained published but the developer later asked the item be deferred.
Residents who spoke at the council meeting said they came prepared to comment about the development and expressed frustration over the late change. A number of speakers raised concerns about process and transparency, including whether the council had followed open-meeting rules and whether sufficient community outreach had occurred. One speaker, citing the agenda posting, said: “Hay tenemos personas durante las 2 semanas que hicieron planes para venir aquí… Y hace unos días teníamos al señor Mills, la página de Facebook, que decía que esto iba a ser eliminado de la agenda.”
Others focused on substance: potential increases in density, impacts on traffic and wildfire risk, preservation of historic trees on Victoria Avenue, and trust in local decision-making. Multiple speakers said the developer had had prior opportunities to engage the community and that the Planning Commission had found the project inappropriate. One resident urged the council to “empezar a representar sus constituyentes y déjalos hablar.”
Councilmembers acknowledged the community’s frustration in their responses. Councilmember Meo explained that the developer had the right to request removal from the agenda and that the request had been made; he said pulling the item was intended to allow the developer to meet with the community and address concerns. Councilmember Mill stressed a desire for open communication and invited residents to contact her office to receive notice of future meetings.
The council’s action was procedural: continuation preserves the item for future consideration rather than approving or denying the project. Several speakers said they opposed a continuance paid for by the developer, arguing it allowed the developer extra time and expense to delay public review. Supporters of the continuance said it provides more opportunity for dialogue and for the developer to return with revisions.
The council did not set a new hearing date at the meeting. Officials encouraged residents who want to be notified of future proceedings to provide contact information to council offices.
Votes at a glance: the motion to continue agenda item 26 carried unanimously (motion made from the dais by Councilmember Meo; second not specified; recorded as unanimous).
