Planning Commission Advances Riverside Alive Project Despite Air Quality Concerns

The Planning Commission unanimously approved an environmental impact report Wednesday for the Riverside Alive project, a proposed mixed-use development that would transform a 10.2-acre Downtown site currently home to the convention center and Lot 33 surface parking.

The project, analyzed at maximum development capacity, envisions 168 residential units, 376 hotel rooms, 220,000 square feet of office space, 62,000 square feet of retail space, up to five levels of subterranean parking, and a 189,000-square-foot expansion of the existing convention center. The site is bounded by Market, 3rd, Orange and 5th streets.

Senior Planner Paige Montoho told commissioners the environmental review covers the maximum development envelope to provide predictability for future proposals while creating a dynamic mixed-use district to strengthen Downtown's status as the region's premier urban center.

"It is important to note that there is no development application for a discrete project or any plans under consideration at this time," Montoho said. "Rather, the item for consideration today is an environmental analysis of potential development using maximum land use, square footages, residential units, and hotel rooms."

The City selected a developer proposal in May 2019 and entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement following a request for proposals issued in September 2018. That agreement remains in effect until sometime next year.

The environmental review found significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from mobile sources. The analysis identified nine mitigation measures, including notifying occupants about alternative transportation, providing designated carpool and electric vehicle parking, and installing energy-efficient appliances.

"While these measures may help reduce impacts, it is reasonable to assume that the implementation of these measures would not reduce the project's criteria pollutant and GHG emissions below the thresholds of significance," Montoho said.

Environmental consultant Eliza Laws of Albert A. Webb Associates explained that while construction impacts would not be significant, daily operations of the implemented project would create significant impacts.

The review studied three alternatives to the proposed project. A 30% reduction in density and intensity would still result in significant air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. A project limited to convention center expansion, hotel uses, and residential units would reduce air quality emissions below the threshold but still create significant greenhouse gas impacts.

During public comment, attorney Jamie Hall, representing Unite Here Local 11 union, criticized the proposal as too conceptual and lacking specific details for meaningful environmental analysis. The union submitted a 35-page comment letter at 9 p.m. Tuesday.

"My client believes that this is a once in a generation project and a significant opportunity for the City," Hall said. "However, it raises concerns about the current proposal and specifically this is too conceptual and lacks specific details to allow for meaningful analysis of the environmental impacts of this project."

The union recommended three changes: establishing a development agreement requirement, including an affordable housing component, and implementing more robust mitigation measures for greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled.

Union representative Munoz criticized the proposed mitigation measures as inadequate, noting that commute trip reduction programs only require sharing information rather than actually reducing trips, and the electric vehicle charging plan meets only bare minimum requirements.

"Riverside has the opportunity to lead in sustainability," Munoz said. "This project, in our view, should commit to stronger measures such as on-site solar generation, storage, LEED or CalGreen Tier 2 certification, expanded EV charging infrastructure and real transportation demand management with measurable enforceable outcomes."

City Attorney Anthony Beaumont responded that the City has mitigated impacts to the extent required by law and that additional mitigation requests represent "a baseless wish list of things that somebody thinks could make it better, but it's not required by law."

"The City mitigated the information it has to the extent required by law," Beaumont said. "This is a maximum build out scenario. We don't know exactly what the project is going to look like. Why would we mitigate now for something which doesn't happen in the future?"

The environmental review received four comment letters during the 45-day public review period from May 23 to July 7. The Riverside Transit Agency recommended incorporating pedestrian walkways, while Caltrans requested traffic analysis and pedestrian connectivity improvements.

Commissioner Wilder questioned apparent inconsistencies in the environmental document regarding greenhouse gas significance, which Laws clarified by explaining that different sections address different types of impacts.

Commissioner Mooney asked about parking arrangements, with staff confirming that subterranean parking would serve all project uses. Commissioner Baird requested responses to public speakers' concerns about additional mitigation measures.

The project aims to improve the city's ability to attract larger conferences, increase sales tax revenue and job creation, and provide quality housing near the Downtown Metrolink station and existing employment centers to encourage pedestrian connectivity.

Any future development proposal must obtain necessary entitlements and permits specific to the proposal. Projects falling within the analyzed parameters must demonstrate consistency with the environmental review, while those exceeding the parameters may require additional environmental analysis.

The Planning Commission's recommendation advances the environmental review to the City Council for final certification. The approval does not authorize any development or issue permits for construction.

A 10-day appeal period follows the commission's decision, with appeal information available through the Planning Division.