The City of Riverside has requested a court order against the University of California (UC) Board of Regents regarding UC Riverside’s (UCR) 2021 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) — a document considered to be a roadmap for UCR campus growth over the next 15 years.
Approved by the UC Regents in Nov. 2021, the LRDP aims to guide UCR’s development over the next 15 years. With expected enrollment numbers set to increase, this plan includes expansions to both housing and academic buildings.
The City of Riverside is alleging that “UCR’s plan and its accompanying environmental report ignores or minimizes the campus’ impacts on air pollution, wastewater and stormwater, light pollution and the off-campus housing needs of thousands of more students. Riverside also contends that the university doesn’t plan to pay for additional demands on police, mass transit and city parks.” Before filing the lawsuit, the City of Riverside and UCR engaged in discussions to resolve these issues but failed to reach a resolution.
Arguing that UCR has not sufficiently addressed the environmental and community impacts of the LRDP, the City is claiming that the UCR Environmental Impact Report (EIR), included in the LRDP, does not comply with the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA is a state law that requires public agencies to assess the environmental impacts of proposed projects and take steps to reduce or mitigate these impacts.
The City of Riverside is alleging that the EIR inadequately analyzes the issues caused by the LRDP, such as housing shortages, air quality and strain on public services. The city has requested a court order to nullify the LRDP approval, demanding that UCR address these perceived environmental concerns and comply with CEQA before proceeding with expansions to the university.
Multiple concerns surrounding the LRDP were raised by the City of Riverside in this suit. Primarily, the City is concerned about the environmental and economic burdens to the local Riverside community. According to an article by the Orange County (OC) Register Riverside resident and co-chair of the University Neighborhood Association, Kevin Dawson expressed his concerns about the LRDP, “UCR likes to push the costs of their growth onto other people … They push it off onto the neighborhood. They push it off onto the city.”
Riverside’s August legal filings allege that the EIR failed to consider the LRDP impact in multiple forms. The City claims that the plan disregards Riverside’s 2018 ordinance aimed at reducing light pollution and fails to document the impact of this growth on historical sites and areas of tribal cultural and archaeological significance. They also claim that UCR’s LDRP does not account for greenhouse gas emissions from transportation to and from campus, nor does it address the effects of additional runoff on the city’s storm drainage system — which the campus relies on.
Amid an ongoing housing crisis, the LDRP assumes that 60% of students will live off campus, which the city believes could potentially strain the quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods. The city also alleges that the partially defunded UCR Police Department is underprepared for the anticipated increase in crime and livability issues tied to UCR’s planned growth.
UCR’s LRDP also proposes a new Metrolink station to accommodate increased enrollment but, according to the lawsuit, provides no plans or alternatives should the station not materialize. Finally, the City of Riverside argues that UCR is discharging more wastewater into the city’s system than what is indicated in the EIR.
The City of Riverside is demanding that the UC fully address the environmental impacts of the LRDP for UCR and implement proper mitigation efforts before expansions to the campus can continue. They are seeking a Memoranda of Understanding with UCR to share costs for public services and infrastructure improvements.
Proposing an alternative plan to the LDRP, Alternative 3, the City prefers a plan that would house a greater percentage of students on campus to reduce perceived local impacts, as “This
Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative and would result in fewer impacts related to air quality, fuel consumption, GHG emissions for Scope 3 sources, population and housing, and transportation.”
In response to these allegations, UCR alleges that according to the California constitution, the UC system is exempt from local regulations because it is a “sovereign state entity” not subject to the rule of the city.
