Developer pulls Victoria Avenue public hearing; council continues item after heated public comment

A public hearing on a proposed housing project near Victoria Avenue was removed from the April 22 Riverside City Council agenda at the developer’s request and formally continued to a later, unspecified date following a motion by Councilmember Mill.

The developer requested the item be pulled after the agenda was published, Mayor Patricia L. Dawson and council members said, and Councilmember Mill moved to continue the public hearing. The council then voted to continue the matter. The council’s motion to continue was recorded as carrying; the developer’s request was the reason given for the continuance.

Residents who had planned to speak at the scheduled public hearing objected during general public comment, saying the removal denied them the opportunity to address the substance of the proposal. Julie Sullivan, who identified herself as a Ward 5 resident and Victoria Avenue Forever volunteer, described confusion among residents after receiving conflicting information about whether the item would be heard. Bob Buster said the developer’s ability to remove the item—after previously taking it through other review stages—felt “blatantly unfair,” and asked the council to allow public comment. Several callers and in-person speakers insisted public comment should include the project itself because it remains on the posted agenda.

Council members and city staff told the room that state law and the Brown Act limit public comment on items that have been formally withdrawn from today’s hearing. The city attorney explained the Brown Act’s scope and said the presiding officer’s decision to not accept comments on the substance of the item was consistent with the law; the mayor reiterated that speakers could comment on the decision to pull or continue the item but not on the project’s merits at this meeting.

Speakers who addressed the continuance urged stronger public outreach and said the community needs time to review project materials. Several speakers raised concerns about traffic, public safety and impacts to the greenbelt and Victoria Avenue’s historic character; public commenters named the Gage Canal and local wildlife in their remarks. Councilmember Mill said he had spoken with the developer and said the intent was to facilitate additional community engagement so concerns could be addressed before the matter returns to the council.

The council’s action was procedural: the item was continued to a date to be determined at the developer’s request. The council did not take any substantive action on the project itself, and speakers were not permitted to address the project’s merits at this meeting. Several council members encouraged residents to contact their offices so staff and council can coordinate future outreach and meetings on the item.

What happens next: the project will return to a future council meeting when the applicant resubmits or requests a new hearing. The council directed staff and the office of the sponsoring councilmember to coordinate community outreach; no new hearing date was set at the meeting.

Speakers quoted in this article are those who appeared in the public record at the April 22 meeting, including residents who spoke during the public-comment period and Councilmember Mill, who moved to continue the item.