Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After hours of testimony, Riverside council denies appeals and certifies the Riverside Alive final EIR
Summary
Following testimony from labor and environmental groups that the final EIR for the Riverside Alive project omitted parcels, lacked VMT analysis, understudied noise and air hazards and deferred critical studies, the council denied appeals and voted unanimously to certify the final EIR and continue with the environmental process under the maximum development envelope approach.
The Riverside City Council on Jan. 6 voted unanimously to deny appeals and certify the final environmental impact report (EIR) for the Riverside Alive development concept, after hearing extensive public testimony and legal arguments from unions, environmental groups and the project’s supporters.
Planning staff summarized the EIR as analyzing a "maximum development envelope" that would allow up to 168 residential units, 376 hotel rooms, about 220,000 square feet of office and roughly 62,000 square feet of retail, plus multi‑level subterranean parking and a convention center expansion. The draft analysis found significant and unavoidable impacts for operational air quality and greenhouse gas emissions — largely attributable to mobile sources — and recommends mitigation measures alongside a statement of overriding considerations if adopted later with an implementing project.
Appellants argued the final EIR was legally insufficient. Jamie Hall (Channel Law Group), representing Unite Here Local 11, said the EIR omitted roughly 30% of acreage relied on in earlier documents and improperly declined a project‑level Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis by treating the site as a transit priority area. Hall also raised concerns about construction noise, vibration from deep excavation for subterranean parking, proximity to a hexavalent chromium Superfund site, and deferral of geotechnical and hazardous‑materials testing.
Brian Flynn (Lozano Drury) speaking for SAFER similarly argued that the EIR failed to require all feasible mitigations for significant impacts (noting, for example, that the EIR requires wiring for future solar rather than on‑site solar installations) and highlighted expert reports suggesting construction‑period air quality and health risks that merit further study.
Staff and the City Attorney responded in detail that certifying an EIR using a maximum development envelope is a defensible approach in cases where the city is the landowner and no final development application has been submitted. City counsel said future implementing projects that exceed the analyzed envelope would return to the council for additional review and that the EIR contains enforceable mitigation measures and a path for further CEQA review as needed.
Council debate reflected differing perspectives about CEQA practice and project timing, but members ultimately concluded that certifying the EIR under the envelope approach was the proper procedural step to ensure worst‑case impacts are evaluated up front. Council Member Robillard moved to deny the appeals and certify the EIR; the motion passed unanimously.
Next steps: certifying the EIR allows implementing proposals consistent with the analyzed envelope to proceed with subsequent discretionary approvals and consistency analyses; any future project exceeding the envelope would require supplemental environmental review.
