Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears lengthy debate over waterfront plan amendments, flood risk and housing tradeoffs
Summary
At a public hearing Aug. 6, Rio Vista planners presented amendments to the waterfront specific plan to preserve ground‑floor commercial uses and change height allowances; residents and some council members raised concerns about floodplain standards, developer feasibility and the plan’s housing math. Council directed staff to return with further analysis and a joint Planning Commission meeting.
City planning consultant Rick Smeaton presented proposed amendments to Rio Vista’s waterfront specific plan during the Aug. 6 City Council meeting, arguing the changes would ‘‘ensure future ground floor retail and commercial uses in a vibrant community setting.’’ The proposal would restrict some areas to two stories by right (allowing a third story only by conditional use permit), preserve Front Street ground‑floor commercial uses, and permit hotels of two to five stories in a designated gateway zone.
Smeaton said the changes were intended to prevent a future scenario in which the ground floor of downtown blocks becomes 100% residential. He also summarized flood‑plain constraints: the plan’s Zone AE has a 10‑foot base‑flood elevation that requires elevated first floors or certified floodproofing for residential uses. InterWest’s preliminary calculations, he said, show extending the promenade to Main Street could reduce future potential housing by about nine units but that the loss could be made up elsewhere within the downtown waterfront designation.
Public commenters and several council members urged more study. Edward Epplem, a member of the original specific‑plan guiding group, told the council the buildings‑per‑acre math and the SB 330 calculations ‘‘are flawed’’ and warned the current draft could make some parcels undevelopable. Other residents said the 500,000‑square‑foot commercial estimate shown in the presentation was unrealistic for Rio Vista and asked the council to consider design examples from comparable small waterfront towns.
Council discussion centered on three recurring issues: whether the city should use the 100‑year flood standard cited in the presentation or the more conservative 200‑year standard raised by members and commenters; whether limiting rear parcels to two stories would render development infeasible once parking and elevation fill are required; and how to retain river views and a ‘‘quaint’’ small‑town scale while allowing some hotel development.
The council did not adopt the ordinance at first reading. Instead members asked staff and the consultant to verify the SB 330 analysis, prepare visual exhibits of the proposed flood‑wall concept discussed in prior studies, analyze the effect of a 200‑year flood elevation on unit counts and heights, and return with options. Staff and council also agreed that a joint workshop with the Planning Commission would be useful to reconcile competing goals before moving the ordinance forward.
Next steps: staff will verify the housing‑capacity calculations, prepare the requested flood‑wall and 200‑year‑flood exhibits, and the council will hold follow‑up workshops with the Planning Commission before any second reading is scheduled.
