Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues waterfront plan revision after public debate over heights, flooding and retail
Summary
City planning consultant outlined changes to the Waterfront Specific Plan to protect ground‑floor retail and set height limits; residents and council members raised floodplain concerns, the plan’s effect on housing capacity, and developer-friendliness. Council did not adopt the ordinance and sent it back for further work.
The Rio Vista City Council on Aug. 6 heard a detailed presentation from planning consultant Rick Smeaton on proposed amendments to the Waterfront Specific Plan intended to preserve ground‑floor retail and refine height and use rules for the downtown waterfront.
Smeaton summarized the recommended changes, including allowing ground‑floor commercial by right along Front Street, limiting by‑right building heights to two stories between Crescent Drive and a mapped dashed line with a third story allowed only by conditional use permit in certain areas, and allowing hotels in the gateway area up to five stories by right (Rick Smeaton). He told the council that InterWest’s modeling found the promenade extension would reduce about nine potential future housing units but concluded that the specific‑plan area’s underlying general‑plan density could offset that loss.
The matter prompted sustained public comment and council questioning. Resident Edward Epplem disputed the SB 330 calculations and argued the changes were “not developer friendly,” saying the plan's step‑down from four to two floors on some parcels would make projects economically infeasible (Edward Epplem). Other residents warned against high‑rise development that could block waterfront views and urged the city to protect existing view corridors and the promenade character (John Lompa; Lisa Duke).
Council members pressed staff on floodplain standards and developer impacts. Several council members asked whether the plan used the 100‑year base flood elevation (BFE) and whether the 200‑year standard or a flood wall feasibility study should be considered; Smeaton said the BFE (10 feet) and AE flood regulations inform allowable first‑floor uses and elevation requirements and noted the city may separately pursue a flood‑wall solution (Rick Smeaton). Concerns were raised that raising finished grade to meet a higher BFE could effectively reduce allowable stories from the ground level unless measured from the BFE.
Rather than adopt the ordinance on first reading, the council agreed to continue the item for further work: confirm SB 330 compliance, show how a 200‑year flood standard would change the analysis, provide a visual exhibit or design study of the proposed flood‑wall option, and consider extending the hotel zoning further along Front Street so developers have flexible options. The council also directed staff to return with clearer maps and a colored regulating map that aligns with the attachment shown to the planning commission (motion: continue for additional studies). The hearing remains open; no ordinance was adopted.
The next step is for staff and the planning commission to refine maps and flood analyses and bring a revised draft back to council for further readings and public hearings.
