Why does Riverside still keep a fee account for a bridge its City Council voted against in 2015?
The bridge would sit at the eastern edge of Alessandro Heights. Overlook Parkway, the curving road that leads into the neighborhood, stops at the Alessandro Arroyo. A short stretch between Alessandro Heights and Canyon Crest was never connected, and the Press-Enterprise described it in 2015 as "a road to nowhere." The gap shapes how traffic reaches the neighborhood. The City describes Alessandro Heights as low-density hillside development with limited access, mainly from Washington Street, framed by three major arroyos.
A buyer touring homes near Via Vista Drive could easily treat that gap as permanent. The City's own documents don't. They hold a unanimous vote to drop the connection, a General Plan objective to build it, and a crossing fee the City created in 1991 that still has its own account. If you're weighing a street near the gap against comparable homes elsewhere, the traffic pattern you see on a showing reflects a decision Riverside has never fully closed.
A crossing fee on the books since 1991
The City still reports a separate account for the crossing. On March 12, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17705, which created a development impact fee for the Overlook Parkway crossing of the Alessandro Arroyo. The Public Works fee schedule sets it at "$635 per dwelling unit located within the limits of the Overlook Parkway Development Fee area."
State law requires the City to report the account every year. The most recent report, a Finance Department memo dated January 6, 2026, shows this for fiscal year 2024/25:
| Overlook Parkway Crossing at Alessandro Arroyo, FY 2024/25 | Amount |
|---|---|
| Beginning balance | $175,233.17 |
| Fees received | None |
| Interest income | $1,966.30 |
| Expenditures | None |
| Ending balance | $177,199.47 |
Nothing came in from fees that year, and nothing was spent. The balance grew only through interest. The memo asked the Council to receive and file the report. It didn't authorize design or construction.
The cost estimates show how small that balance is. In 2012, the City estimated the two missing segments, a bridge west of Via Vista Drive and a short piece east of it, at $5 million to $10 million, according to the Press-Enterprise's report on the study. That figure is more than a decade old and leaves out the intersection work the study said would be needed. The ending balance comes to about 3.5 percent of that old low-end estimate. The memo also cautions that cash balances don't reflect other commitments and aren't necessarily available. The account keeps the crossing on the City's books. It isn't a construction budget.
The 2015 vote and what came after it
The fund's existence is harder to square with what the City Council did nearly 11 years ago. On November 17, 2015, the Council voted unanimously to remove the yellow metal gates on Crystal View Terrace and Green Orchard Place and to take the parkway out of city transportation plans. The gates had been installed in the mid-2000s to stop drivers from using residential streets to get around the parkway's gaps.
The same report explains how the gap came to exist. Overlook was planned decades ago as a major road connecting the city's easternmost neighborhoods to Victoria Avenue and Casa Blanca, and later to the 91. Earlier city leaders, under political pressure, didn't require developers to build the last two short segments. Councilman Chris Mac Arthur argued at the 2015 meeting that a finished road "would force all this traffic into the greenbelt" and that the issue should be "put to bed once and for all." Councilman Paul Davis and some residents raised Prop. R and Measure C, the voter-approved growth-control measures that protect the Arlington Heights greenbelt. Victoria Avenue Forever, the preservation group, had already gone on record against finishing the parkway.
Even that vote came with a delay built in. The paper reported that the parkway would take some time to come officially off the books, because the City first had to study the long-term effects on nearby streets. The City's environmental work had already found that traffic in the area would likely get worse whether the parkway was finished or not.
Four months later, on March 15, 2016, the Council adopted two resolutions. City Clerk records list one as certifying the final environmental impact report for the Crystal View, Green Orchard and Overlook project and the other as amending the circulation element regarding Overlook Parkway. Anyone who needs the exact effect of either resolution should read the full adopted text, not the catalog titles.
What the General Plan says now
The current Circulation and Community Mobility Element, marked as amended in February 2018, still treats the connection as a goal. Objective CCM-4 calls for a connection between Washington Street and SR-91 by extending Overlook Parkway. Four policies under it set the terms:
- CCM-4.1 limits the crossing over the arroyo to a two-lane road within a 110-foot right-of-way.
- CCM-4.2 says the crossing can't be completed until the City adopts a detailed specific plan that studies routes between Washington Street and SR-91, covering at least the area bounded by Mary Street, Adams Street, Dufferin Street and SR-91.
- CCM-4.3 requires Level of Service D or better at Victoria Avenue intersections affected by the extension.
- CCM-4.4 prohibits removing the Crystal View Terrace barrier before Overlook Parkway is connected across the arroyo.
The fourth policy matters most for anyone shopping near the gap. In 2015 the Council voted to remove the Crystal View Terrace gate. The plan text that came later ties that barrier to a crossing that hasn't been built. The City's June 2018 implementation appendix lists the Overlook connection study as "On-going" and refers to an EIR for "the opening of the gates" at Crystal View Terrace and Green Orchard Place. These documents describe policy, and none of them settles what stands on either street today. A buyer looking at one of these streets should go see it.
A rewrite is coming. Riverside began its General Plan 2050 update in Fall 2024 as a three-year process. The City's General Plan page still lists the older circulation element as the one in effect. That update is where Objective CCM-4 will either be carried forward or dropped.
The question is back on the Ward 4 ballot
The issue came up again this year. At an April 2026 Raincross Gazette candidate forum, the paper said the extension "has been proposed, stalled, and revived since at least the 1980s" and asked each Ward 4 candidate whether it should be built.
| Candidate | June 2, 2026 primary | Position at the Gazette forum |
|---|---|---|
| Chuck Conder, incumbent | 45.63% | Said the extension requires two connected bridges, that a predecessor took it out of the General Plan, that he had it put back, and that traffic engineers are working on a study |
| Rich Vandenberg | 28.34% | Supports the extension, which he said would ease traffic on Via Vista; said the bridge needs more research and traffic studies before he can take a position |
| Jessica Qattawi | 26.03% | Supported building it while also looking at effects on Madison and Washington |
No one won a majority in the primary, so Conder and Vandenberg meet in the November 3 runoff, five days after this post is published. Conder's statement that the road was restored to the plan and is under study is his own account from the forum. No adopted study has been published. Riverside Public Works' construction project list, updated October 1, 2026, includes no arroyo crossing among its current or planned projects. The only Overlook Parkway entry is a storm drain repair completed February 20, 2026, at a cost of $48,830.
Put together, the record leaves no funded bridge, no published design, a plan objective still in effect, a planning rewrite under way, and a council seat whose holder will help decide what happens next.
How this affects a purchase near the gap
For a buyer comparing a home on a street near Via Vista Drive, Crystal View Terrace or Green Orchard Place with a similar home elsewhere in south Riverside, the Overlook gap affects how traffic reaches a home. The City's current plan still lists closing that gap as an objective. Before writing an offer on a street near the gap, a few steps help:
- Read Objective CCM-4 and its four policies in the circulation element, and keep checking the General Plan 2050 page for a draft circulation element.
- Look up the March 15, 2016 resolutions in the City Clerk's records and read the full adopted text.
- Visit Crystal View Terrace and Green Orchard Place in person to see how they actually connect today.
- Check the Public Works project list again close to closing. A crossing would need to show up there before any construction started.
- Follow Ward 4 council agendas after November 3 for any traffic study the City publishes.
Fees, plan policies and resolutions can apply differently to different parcels, so treat this post as general information and not legal or financial advice. Confirm how they apply to a specific property with the City and your own advisors.
FAQ
Does the $635 fee apply to every home in Alessandro Heights? The fee schedule applies it to dwelling units "within the limits of the Overlook Parkway Development Fee area." The schedule doesn't publish the boundaries of that area, so whether it applies to a particular parcel is a question for the City.
Did the 2015 vote remove Overlook Parkway from the plan? The Council voted to begin that process and said further traffic study would come first. The circulation element amended in 2018 still includes the connection as Objective CCM-4.
Is any construction scheduled? No. The October 1, 2026 Public Works list includes no crossing project, and the City's most recent fee report shows no spending from the crossing fund in fiscal year 2024/25.
Brad Alewine Group can go through the Overlook Parkway record with you for any Alessandro Heights address you're considering. Contact Us.
