Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterfront Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rio Vista planning panel pushes for ground‑floor retail, flood safeguards in waterfront plan amendments
Summary
The Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the Rio Vista Waterfront Specific Plan, urging protections for riverfront retail, conditional flexibility for ground‑floor housing where retail is not viable, stronger flood safeguards and clearer public maps; staff will forward recommendations and return with cost estimates for expanded study area.
The Rio Vista Planning Commission on July 10 reviewed proposed amendments to the Waterfront Specific Plan aimed at preserving riverfront retail, clarifying allowed uses and addressing flood risk.
Rick Smeaton, introduced as the city’s new consulting planner, presented a cleaned‑up draft map and a set of changes that would reserve promenade ground‑floor areas for retail and commercial uses, prohibit single‑family detached housing within plan zones, further define multiplex and live‑work units as conditional uses in specified corridors, and limit building massing along the waterfront. "The City Council ... had concerns that the specific plan currently allows for a 100% residential development projects with ground floor residential and no commercial projects," Smeaton said as he explained why the council asked for revisions to protect ground‑floor commercial uses.
Commissioners concentrated on three tradeoffs: protecting view corridors and pedestrian access to the river; ensuring enough economically viable ground‑floor commercial so retail spaces do not sit empty; and limiting building heights near existing homes.
Several commissioners urged a strict, two‑story limit on properties that back up to Crescent Drive, with one commissioner suggesting larger rear setbacks — for example 30 feet — or moving a street to buffer new buildings. Commissioners agreed to allow a conditional‑use pathway to permit three stories in the Crescent Drive‑adjacent area when circumstances justify it. On Front Street’s river side, commissioners generally endorsed encouraging commercial ground‑floor uses while preserving conditional flexibility for ground‑floor residential where retail would not be viable.
Flood risk was a recurring concern. Smeaton said parts of the plan lie within FEMA’s Zone AE, where the base flood elevation is about 10 feet, and described a conceptual 1,900‑foot vertical flood wall and backfill that had been contemplated to mitigate hazards. A commissioner urged the commission to plan for more aggressive flood standards than FEMA’s 100‑year baseline, noting recent higher tides and river behavior. Staff said applicants for development in areas below base‑flood elevation would need to raise first floors or meet certified flood‑proofing standards, and that staff would consult legal counsel on whether the city could require design elevations higher than FEMA minimums.
The commission also discussed statutory constraints. Staff warned that SB 330 (state law limiting down‑zoning of residential capacity since Jan. 1, 2018) constrains the city’s ability to reduce residential capacity in certain zones without finding equal capacity elsewhere. Smeaton said a rough calculation showed only a small net change in potential units under the draft as presented.
On the gateway parcel near the bridge and Abel’s property, commissioners debated minimum and maximum floors for a viable hotel. After discussion they coalesced around a five‑story maximum for the gateway zone with a conditional‑use path to consider taller hotel proposals if justified by a project’s merits and parking/space needs.
Public commenters joining remotely urged clearer mapped legends and colors for the public materials, cautioned about flood assumptions (some urged planning to a 200‑year standard), and recalled earlier hotel proposals that required additional city‑owned land to achieve a 100‑room footprint. One Zoom participant who later identified herself on the record as Roxanne Styles Donnelly suggested design choices that preserve river views for residents.
No final vote on Resolution 2024‑007 was recorded in the transcript. Staff said the City Council had directed staff to submit a cost proposal to amend the waterfront plan further (to include areas north of the bridge and the army base); if the council accepts that cost proposal, staff will return to the commission for further review. Commissioners requested clearer parcel color coding and map legends for public release.
The commission then moved to information items and adjourned.
