Riverside Alive Project Clears Another Hurdle As Council Certifies Environmental Impact Report

Despite opposition from several residents, hotel union representatives and environmental attorneys, Riverside officials Tuesday cleared a path for developers to propose, and eventually begin building, an all-in-one residential, commercial and entertainment project the city hopes will transform the downtown economy. 

By unanimous vote, the Riverside City Council certified the environmental impact report (EIR) for a massive proposed development, Riverside Alive. The report analyzed the effects the proposed project’s construction and long-term use could have on the city as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Councilmember Clarissa Cervantes was absent.

“I respect labor and the role unions play, but I’ve also seen CEQA used as a pressure tactic rather than an environmental review process,” Councilmember Steven Robillard said at the January 6 meeting. “When that happens, results aren’t better projects; it’s empty lots, stalled investment and missed opportunities.” 

Riverside Alive is a city-proposed downtown redevelopment project that looks to expand the Riverside Convention Center by 189,000 square feet. The convention center’s parking lot, according to the report, could also be replaced by up to five underground parking levels, 168 residential units, 376 hotel rooms and approximately 282,000 square feet of commercial space.

While there are currently no finalized development plans for the project, which the city believes would improve the downtown economy by increasing sales tax revenue and creating more jobs, the report instead looked at the proposed use to see how it could impact the environment.

“A maximum development envelope project description will then cover any less intense version of the same or similar uses,” Paige Montojo, the city’s senior planner, told the council at the meeting. “This approach provides predictability and allows future project applicants to proceed under this EIR without the delays and uncertainty that may come with the EIR process.”

Montojo added that the city does have an agreement with a developer to negotiate exclusively on the project but said that official plans had not yet been submitted. The exclusive agreement is set to expire this year, Montojo said at an August 28 Planning Commission meeting, but did not give a specific date. The Riverside Record reached out to the city for further clarification, but did not immediately hear back. 

According to the report, the project would have “significant and unavoidable impacts” on the area’s air quality including the release of greenhouse gases above the state’s threshold. The construction itself, according to the draft environmental report, would not exceed the state’s threshold, but the increase in traffic expected after the renovated space opens would. The report outlined nine air quality-based mitigation measures that could be implemented once a proposal is submitted.

The report also offered three alternatives and analyzed their environmental impacts relative to the full project proposal: abandoning the project idea, reducing its size by 30% or focusing on the convention center’s expansion with only the hotel and apartments. 

Although the third idea was considered the most environmentally friendly option, it also wouldn’t have the same potential to generate sales tax or new jobs. Because of this, the council rejected the alternatives, pushing instead for the full project.

Jamie Hall, a land use and environmental attorney, who spoke on behalf of UNITE HERE! Local 11, said he believed the report violated several California laws, including CEQA. He also argued that the report omitted transit data, failed to consider worst-case scenarios and failed to consider reports from third-party specialists hired by the union. He also argued that approving a conceptual idea, rather than an actual project, could open the city up to litigation.

“I want to take a bigger picture for a second and remind you that this is odd,” Hall said at the meeting. “You’re being asked to certify an EIR for a project that’s not even really before you. You don’t know precisely what’s going to be built. You are analyzing conceptual plans and maximum build out scenarios.”

Other residents and union members expressed concerns that approving the report would lead to a project that would negatively impact resident’s air quality, not take sustainability measures seriously, price out community members from the area and increase traffic.

However, some of the councilmembers pushed back against those concerns. 

Councilmember Jim Perry asked a city attorney to offer rebuttals to Hall’s arguments. Perry, along with Councilmember Philip Falcone, also called both Hall’s and another environmental attorney’s actions disingenuous, adding that the city received hundreds of pages of third-party specialist reports the day before the meeting.

Falcone and Councilmember Sean Mill also responded to concerns surrounding gentrification and affordable housing. Falcone stated the project would not force residents out of downtown as it would be built on a parking lot, while Mill said the public speakers were conflating two separate issues. 

“Any decision we are making here tonight has no impact on affordable housing in this community,” Mill said. “It’s just an appeal as to whether or not the EIR complies with CEQA.”