Laserfiche WebLink
th <br />ATTACHMENT 1 – COMMENT MATRIX FROM JULY 27 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Technical Change Proposed <br />GP Direction <br />(Note: Additions to text in bold, deletions strikethrough. Issues <br />Comment Background Information <br />Element Needed which require further direction are highlighted.) <br />rather than creating a hybrid introduction/ <br />marketing piece. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />17. The General Plan needs to be less Yes More direction is needed on this item. <br />status quo, and more about creative <br />solutions. <br />18. On page 7 there is a chart that has Table BE-1 is a summary of Existing Land Uses, i.e. No Revise table title to clarify what the table presents. <br />land use categories, and Urban Reserve what is on the ground today. The area designated <br />is not listed there; it should be. Urban Reserve is listed in this table under “Salt <br />Harvesting” <br />19. Page 41 refers to height limit of 6 The intent is to require development to step down Yes Staff believes that the 6-story limit reflects community directive. <br />stories for mixed use - waterfront towards the waterfront to preserve access and However, should the proposed height limits in the General Plan be <br /> <br />neighborhood. Sometimes taller is views. Public outreach for the General Plan process revisited? Should it include conducting more public outreach, as these <br />Built Environment <br />better for certain reasons, and we indicates the community has a tolerance for this heights were discussed in previous outreach materials and sessions? <br />shouldn't be too limiting. In practical height (6 stories). <br />application, there should be some <br />limits, but in the GP there should be Existing zoning allows buildings of 75 feet in height <br />opportunities. Six stories is shorter than (approximately 5-6 stories) in most areas <br />what we currently allow, correct? designated as Mixed Use-Waterfront. <br />20. OK with height limits on page 41, State law requires the Land Use Chapter to Yes See above <br />but can live with less or not being too designate the proposed general distribution, <br />specific location, and extent of the uses of the land. <br />21. Policy BE1.6: Large scale projects No Reference to historic neighborhoods will be removed; language will <br />should have a block pattern that is of a focus on walkability instead. <br />scale similar to historic RWC <br />neighborhoods. This may be <br />appropriate Downtown, but not <br />elsewhere—the policy is too limiting. <br />August 20, 2009 <br /> <br /> <br />