Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Update topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews SR‑32 survey results and starts work plan for general plan update
Summary
Commissioners reviewed results of an SR‑32 public survey and agreed to begin a staged review of the city’s general plan definitions and sections, using a shared working document and stakeholder input; a technical-assistance grant and potential planning grant were mentioned as funding paths.
Commissioners reviewed recent public engagement work for SR‑32 and discussed next steps for updating the city’s general plan and related documents.
Staff said the SR‑32 survey recently closed with about 60 responses and that option 2 ranked highest in the public scoring, described as “slightly above average” among three options. Participants noted survey feedback emphasized affordability as a central community value and indicated low public interest in roundabouts and some other street-design elements.
Commissioners and staff discussed the larger general-plan update. Staff reminded the group that the general plan is due for a periodic update (recommended every five to ten years) and suggested the city could seek grant funding later this year to help underwrite the update. One planner (identified by staff as Spencer with MAG) said there may be grant possibilities toward the end of the year to support the work.
To make the review manageable, staff proposed and the commission agreed to use a shared working document (17 pages of definitions were highlighted) and to assign small sections for commissioners to review between meetings. The group decided to start with pages/sections A and B (roughly the first three pages) and return suggested edits, using color-coded comments so everyone can track contributions. Staff emphasized the need for a disciplined schedule to avoid further delays on a process that, participants said, has been stalling for two years.
During the review-planning discussion commissioners raised several code-definition gaps that staff will address, including clarifying what counts as “commercial” in mixed-use overlays and whether to set rules for the number of accessory structures (sheds) allowed on a lot. Staff said the current platform will record who makes comments and suggested commissioners provide targeted sections to review prior to the next meeting.
No formal decisions were made other than assigning initial sections for review and asking staff to assemble the working document with commenting access and to investigate grant opportunities for funding the update.
