Attach 1 - Marysville_Alts Engagement Memo_Draft_8-09-2022 — Marysville City Council, August 16, 2022

1 To:

Kathy Pease, Planning Consultant, AICP
City of Marysville
526 C Street
Marysville, CA 95901
AECOM
2020 L Street
Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95811
Date:

August 2022
Memo
Subject: General Plan Alternatives: General Plan Advisory Committee and Public Engagement Summary
Introduction
The purpose of this memo is to summarize the General Plan Alternatives input from the General Plan Advisory Committee and from the public engagement survey (Task 1.1) for the City of Marysville (City) Specific Plan and General Plan Update (Project). This summary is provided for information purposes to the City to share survey responses to date.

Project Background
The City has received funding under the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant Program. The REAP Grant funding is intended to facilitate housing production, promote infill, encourage transit, bicycling, and walking, enhance community assets, and provide inclusive engagement. The purpose and focus for the General Plan Update include securing economic and fiscal sustainability, expanding options for transportation, expanding housing opportunities, ensuring State law compliance, streamlining future development, and developing the 2040 planning horizon for a successful Marysville. These separate but related efforts are working towards the City reaching its full potential in 2040 and beyond.

General Plan Advisory Committee
The City hosted a meeting of the General Plan Advisory Committee on June 29, 2022, to obtain input on three draft Alternatives for the General Plan update. Those draft Alternatives are summarized below:

General Plan Alternatives: General Plan Advisory Committee and Public Engagement Summary 2 Alternative 1: Accelerated Infill Development Focused Downtown Investment and Incentives Focused on Downtown Area. Under this Alternative, policies are drawn to facilitate and expedite investment and development Downtown and in portions of the Medical Arts District near Downtown, involving higher-density, mixed-use development with housing and nonresidential uses, including restaurant, retail, entertainment, lodging, and related uses. Under this Alternative, the City would intend to take advantage of catalytic effects of development in a focused area where the development of properties helps to encourage the development of other surrounding vacant and underutilized properties. The General Plan update would include policies for Downtown and the eastern Medical Arts District that would create incentives for property owners, developers, and builders for compact, mixed-use development and would create disincentives for keeping prominent, developable properties vacant or underutilized for extended periods of time.

Targeted Bicycle, Pedestrian, Parks, Open Space, and Infrastructure Improvements. This Alternative would emphasize safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian connections to and from Downtown and the eastern portion of the Medical District, to and from Riverfront Park, and to and from East Marysville. This Alternative includes improvements to parks and open space, including additional programming, improvements to Ellis Lake, additional facilities and improvements in Riverfront Park, and other parks in and around the Downtown area. This Alternative would include assertive actions by the City and partners to make improvements to infrastructure Downtown and the eastern Medical District, including necessary improvements to water, sewer, drainage, streetscape, and transportation facilities intended to directly facilitate private investment.

Alternative 2: Reinvestment throughout West Marysville
Infill Development throughout West Marysville. This Alternative would involve investment and development, with housing, trails, park improvements, infrastructure improvements, and employment throughout the entire West Marysville area, including Downtown, the entire Medical Arts District, and the Ellis Lake District, including redevelopment of the Washington Square Park for higher-density, mixed-use development. This Alternative envisions compact, mixed-use development throughout West Marysville, with the understanding that there are opportunities for reinvestment outside the Downtown core that could benefit the community. As with Alternative 1, the City would encourage compact housing in infill settings and complementary non-residential development. With the broader geographic focus for infill development, there may not be the same degree of development focused in the Downtown area that would support new restaurant, retail, and entertainment uses as rapidly as under Alternative 1.

Prioritizing Bicycle, Pedestrian, Parks, Open Space, and Infrastructure Improvements. This Alternative would emphasize safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian connections throughout West Marysville, to and from Riverfront Park, and to and from East Marysville. With the broader geographic focus for infill development under this Alternative, the City will need to prioritize and phase investments a bit more, and rely somewhat more on private funding for improvements. This Alternative includes improvements to parks and open space, including additional programming, improvements to Ellis Lake, additional facilities and improvements in Riverfront Park, and other parks throughout West Marysville.

As with Alternative 1, this Alternative would involve City investments in improvements to water, sewer, drainage, streetscape, and transportation facilities to encourage private investment, but with the broader geographic focus, the City will also need to rely on private funding for frontage and infrastructure improvements in the context of proposed new infill development projects. While infill General Plan Alternatives: General Plan Advisory Committee and Public Engagement Summary 3 investment would occur under this Alternative, with the broader focus, infill overall may happen at a reduced pace compared to Alternative 1. Incentives and investments may not be up front to facilitate infill development and may instead need to be in tandem with infill development. Because the City would not be as focused on development in the Downtown and the Medical Arts District, infill development may take somewhat longer than under Alternative 2, where resources are relatively more focused, but would be more widespread.

Alternative 3: Moderate Infill Development Downtown + Annexation Somewhat Less Dense Infill Development. This Alternative would involve somewhat less dense infill development compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. Under this Alternative, the City’s focus for infill development, like under Alternative 1, would be Downtown and in portions of the Medical Arts District near Downtown. With a somewhat reduced amount of focused housing development in the Downtown area, there would be somewhat reduced support for new restaurant, retail, and entertainment uses.

Like Alternative 1, this Alternative would include investment in infrastructure, trails, park improvements, and amenities, but somewhat less of a focus on near-term investment intended to directly facilitate compact, mixed-use development, relying more on private development to initiate development activity.

Annexation. Under this Alternative, the City would contemplate annexation to the south, involving the northern parts of Linda and West Linda to approximately Erle Road, where there would also be some infill, mixed-use development. This Alternative involves negotiation of a retail sales tax sharing agreement with Yuba County to allow Marysville access to a portion of retail sales tax from large-scale retailers in the Linda area.

Broad Area for Bicycle, Pedestrian, Parks, Open Space, and Infrastructure Improvements. This Alternative would identify bicycle and pedestrian improvements needed to provide safe and convenient options for reaching daily destinations throughout the expanded Marysville Planning Area. With the broader geographic focus for this Alternative, the City will need to prioritize investments and rely more on contributions from private development. This Alternative includes improvements to parks and open space, including additional programming, improvements to Ellis Lake, additional facilities and improvements in Riverfront Park, and other parks throughout the expanded Marysville Planning Area.

General Plan Advisory Committee Input
The Advisory Committee came to consensus in support of Alternative 1: Accelerated Infill Development Focused Downtown, though there was one Committee member also that expressed strong support for the City considering annexation, as contemplated under Alternative 3, at least in the longer term. The Committee also suggested that the Alternatives have additional treatment of East Marysville. This has been added now to the draft Alternatives for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.

General Plan Alternatives: General Plan Advisory Committee and Public Engagement Summary 4 The Committee generally agrees that there is good guidance in the Bounce Back Plan that should be incorporated into the General Plan, including encouraging private investment that increases the level of activity in the Downtown and Medical Arts District, improves walkability, and that encourages additional higher-density housing, restaurants, retail establishments, public events, cultural opportunities, and other developments in the Downtown area. The Committee agrees that the City should encourage higher-density, mixed-use, infill development, while also preserving historic structures that are important to Marysville’s character. The Committee generally agrees that the City should focus on investment in the Downtown area and then shift focus to infill development and improvements in other parts of the city.

The Committee suggested that the consensus Alternative should include improvements to make East Marysville more attractive, to improve the quality of life, to make pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and to encourage investment, including investment in existing homes, while maintaining a focus on infill development in the Downtown area.

Public Engagement Survey
Electronic Survey
A community survey was also circulated to encourage input on the draft Alternatives. The survey was provided in English and disseminated via the City’s website and through community email contacts beginning on June 29, 2022, and remained active through July 20, 2022. There were a total of 29 survey responses.

The survey questions posed to the public are listed below and include the summaries of responses. The survey included the option for respondents to provide open-ended responses for several of the questions. These collective responses are summarized below and can be found separately in Attachment A.

Question 1: Please indicate your support for Alternative 1.

Most respondents were highly supportive (56.00%), while a few were neutral (20.00%), and several were not in support (24.00%).

Question 2: Please identify elements of Alternative 1 that you do support, even if you do not support the entire Alternative 1.

The respondents appreciate the Downtown investment incentives and higher densities, increasing infrastructure for walkability and bike paths, repurposing old/abandoned buildings that are unappealing to visitors, using existing bars to increase nightlife, and improving Ellis Lake and Beckwourth Riverfront Park.

Question 3: Please identify elements of Alternative 1 that you do not support.

The biggest opposition from respondents includes elements such as lack of focus on homelessness, not including current property owners in process, mixed views on more housing and higher-density development, promotion of equivalent growth, not addressing floodplain restrictions, the potential to worsen traffic, connectivity issues, and need for bike paths.

General Plan Alternatives: General Plan Advisory Committee and Public Engagement Summary 5 Question 4: Please indicate your support for Alternative 2.

A mix of respondents were highly supportive (44.00%), neutral (48.00%), and not in support (8.00%).

Question 5: Please identify elements of Alternative 2 that you do support, even if you do not support the entire Alternative 2.

Respondents indicated their support for improvements to Downtown and Ellis Lake, improvements to Beckwourth Riverfront Park, increasing walkable infrastructure and active transportation improvements, including opportunities for improvements to West Marysville, providing more bike paths, and the overall emphasis on areas outside of just Downtown.

Question 6: Please identify elements of Alternative 2 that you do not support.

The respondents identified the lack of private funding for improvements, a need for more rapid change instead of a slower pace, fear of promoting low-income housing, not addressing homelessness, and vagueness present in plans for improving the lakes.

Question 7: Please indicate your support for Alternative 3.

Most respondents did not support (59.26%), while a mix of the remaining respondents were either neutral (18.52%) or highly supportive (22.22%).

Question 8: Please identify elements of Alternative 3 that you do support, even if you do not support the entire Alternative 3.

The respondents agree with infill Downtown, developments to the hospital area, improvements to Beckwourth Riverfront Park, increase in bike paths and pedestrian ways, greater retail and restaurants, consideration of City boundaries, growing Marysville, and a few in support of annexation to make Marysville an entitlement city.

Question 9: Please identify elements of Alternative 3 that you do not support.

Many respondents strongly disagree with annexation and feel that it is a cash grab as Marysville is not friendly to business, should not benefit from funds from other areas of the county and especially should stay out of Linda, and would require additional public safety services to support this. Other elements include lack of business, taxes from the County cannot be relied on, funding for bicycle/pedestrian areas should be spent within the city, and a general view of focusing on developing Marysville.

Attachment: A – Survey Responses
Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 1 / 15
Q1 Alternative 1: Accelerated Infill Development Focused DowntownInvestment and Incentives Focused on Downtown AreaUnder this Alternative, policies are drawn to facilitate and expedite investment and development Downtown and in portions of the Medical Arts District near Downtown, involving higher-density, mixed-use development with housing and non-residential uses, including restaurant, retail, entertainment, lodging, and related uses. Under this Alternative, the City would intend to take advantage of catalytic effects of development in a focused area where the development of properties helps to encourage the development of other surrounding vacant and underutilized properties. The General Plan update would include policies for Downtown and the eastern Medical Arts District that would create incentives for property owners, developers, and builders for compact, mixed-use development and would create disincentives for keeping prominent, developable properties vacant or underutilized for extended periods of time. Targeted Bicycle, Pedestrian, Parks, Open Space, and Infrastructure ImprovementsThis Alternative would emphasize safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian connections to and from Downtown and the eastern portion of the Medical District, to and from Riverfront Park, and to and from East Marysville. This Alternative includes improvements to parks and open space, including additional programming, improvements to Ellis Lake, additional facilities and improvements in Riverfront Park, and other parks in and around the Downtown area. This Alternative would include assertive actions by the City and partners to make improvements to infrastructure Downtown and the eastern Medical District, including necessary improvements to water, sewer, drainage, streetscape, and transportation facilities intended to directly facilitate private investment. Higher-Density Development of a Portion of Yuba ParkAlternative 1 would include the redevelopment of a portion of Yuba Park for higher-density, mixed-use development. The development program would be designed to indirectly generate revenue through additional households with discretionary revenue to spend locally and also to directly generate revenue through some non-residential development on the property. This redevelopment would serve as a catalyst for reinvestment in Downtown Marysville.Please indicate your support for Alterative 1.

Answered: 25 Skipped: 4
Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 2 / 15

56.00% 14

20.00% 5

24.00% 6
TOTAL 25
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Highly
supportive
Neutral
Do not support

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Highly supportive
Neutral
Do not support
Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 3 / 15
Q2 Please identify elements of Alternative 1 that you do support, even if you do not support the entire of Alternative 1.

Answered: 15 Skipped: 14
# RESPONSES DATE
1 I support high density development of Yuba Park. 7/18/2022 10:39 PM 2 Additional develepoment & improvements of "BECKWORTH" River front Park. 7/8/2022 1:25 PM 3 Ideally Marysville can become the higher density urban core of the Yuba Sutter metropolitan area. Streets that are more walkable and bicycle friendly would be a good way to bring money into the downtown economy. The existing network of bars are underutilized and could help bring night life into Marysville. Some sort of blight tax on buildings such as the state theatre or Marysville Hotel could incentivize owners to either sell or develop their properties. The abandoned buildings on E Street makes Marysville very unappealing to visitors passing through. More dense development could increase tax revenue in an area with limited space. 7/6/2022 11:11 PM
4 Investment incentives for downtown 7/2/2022 2:19 PM
5 I like the idea of walking, biking around the city. Jobs close by to living areas. Incentives for property owners would help them to improve their properties. 7/1/2022 9:52 AM
6 Building up is Msvls only choice 6/30/2022 11:30 AM
7 It's time to repurpose old and abandoned downtown facilities. Make Marysville Great Again. 6/30/2022 11:17 AM 8 I would like Marysville to be more bike friendly for commuters. 6/30/2022 10:39 AM 9 Biking and walking infrastructure improvements 6/30/2022 1:13 AM 10 Ellis lake improvements 6/29/2022 11:17 PM
11 Incentive investment downtown also the infatuated update 6/29/2022 7:37 PM 12 I support the incentivizing of investment in downtown. 6/29/2022 6:43 PM 13 Incentives downtown. We need more than fast food and gas stations 6/29/2022 5:54 PM 14 Development of yuba park 6/29/2022 3:15 PM
15 Development of Yuba Park would be catalyst for further private investments tied to active transportation improvements I like the faster pace than option 2 6/29/2022 3:13 PM
Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 4 / 15
Q3 Please identify elements of Alternative 1 that you do not support.

Answered: 15 Skipped: 14
# RESPONSES DATE
1 The City is has done very little to promote growth in the area between north of 7th, east of B Street, west of Ramirez and south of 14th Street. This area is not only an eyesore, but also ineffective use of valuable space. The City also suffers from connectivity issues. Majority of the residents live in Northwest portion of the City. Yet this alternative does nothing to improve access to areas of commerce and industry. Access would have to improve along 12th St, B St., 9th St. and CA-70.
7/18/2022 10:39 PM
2 What portion of the Green Zone would the Specific Plan support infill and revitalization? Job predication is in question because of the inbility to locate job creation industries without annexing to the North and/or South and designate thru zoning of any annexion as manufacturing ect. Flood Plain restrictions, green area is inside the levy. 7/8/2022 1:25 PM
3 This looks like a good idea. Please see my note about ideas not analyzed below. 7/6/2022 11:11 PM 4 Yuba Park 7/2/2022 2:19 PM
5 Packing people into dense housing isn't something I'm interested in, but Marysville is a surrounded city.
7/1/2022 9:52 AM
6 Not including current property owners in this process will not secure buy in for what Msvl CAN do in the short and mid term
6/30/2022 11:30 AM
7 None. Fully on-board with this idea. 6/30/2022 11:17 AM 8 More housing 6/29/2022 11:17 PM
9 Unless there is a highway 70/20 bypass, this plan could increase an already horrific traffic situation. Also, there is little policing in east Marysville. I'm afraid this plan would further reduce police presence in east Marysville.
6/29/2022 9:00 PM
10 Until you deal with the homeless/meth users who have privatized public land and trashed it, who steal from homes, yards, and cars, and who let their large-breed dogs run leash-less to attack other dogs and people, it is pointless to develop Marysville. It will only be trashed. I’ve lived in Marysville over 30 years and have seen it ruined because of a complete lack of resolve in dealing with the homeless, who seem to be the only ones in this community with rights.
6/29/2022 8:07 PM
11 High density devopment 6/29/2022 7:37 PM
12 I would think the security of these parks should be a priority given the sheer number of homeless in the current green areas near downtown.
6/29/2022 6:43 PM
13 Bicycle and pedestrian spending 6/29/2022 5:54 PM
14 Bike path bs 6/29/2022 3:15 PM
15 Add - broadband to infrastructure improvements 6/29/2022 3:13 PM Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 5 / 15
Q4 Alternative 2: Reinvestment throughout West MarysvilleInfill Development throughout West Marysville This Alternative would involve investment and development, with housing, trails, park improvements, infrastructure improvements, and employment throughout the entire West Marysville area, including Downtown, the entire Medical Arts District, and the Ellis Lake District, including redevelopment of the Washington Square Park for higher-density, mixed-use development. This Alternative envisions compact, mixed-use development throughout West Marysville, with the understanding that there are opportunities for reinvestment outside the Downtown core that could benefit the community. As with Alternative 1, the City would encourage compact housing in infill settings and complementary non-residential development. With the broader geographic focus for infill development, there may not be the same degree of development focused in the Downtown area that would support new restaurant, retail, and entertainment uses as rapidly as under Alternative 1. Prioritizing Bicycle, Pedestrian, Parks, Open Space, and Infrastructure Improvements This Alternative would emphasize safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian connections throughout West Marysville, to and from Riverfront Park, and to and from East Marysville. With the broader geographic focus for infill development under this Alternative, the City will need to prioritize and phase investments a bit more, and rely somewhat more on private funding for improvements. This Alternative includes improvements to parks and open space, including additional programming, improvements to Ellis Lake, additional facilities and improvements in Riverfront Park, and other parks throughout West Marysville. As with Alternative 1, this Alternative would involve City investments in improvements to water, sewer, drainage, streetscape, and transportation facilities to encourage private investment, but with the broader geographic focus, the City will also need to rely on private funding for frontage and infrastructure improvements in the context of proposed new infill development projects. While infill investment would occur under this Alternative, with the broader focus, infill overall may happen at a reduced pace compared to Alternative 1. Incentives and investments may not be up front to facilitate infill development and may instead need to be in tandem with infill development. Because the City would not be as focused on development in the Downtown and the Medical Arts District, infill development may take somewhat longer than under Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 6 / 15

44.00% 11

48.00% 12

8.00% 2
Alternative 2, where resources are relatively more focused, but would be more widespread. Please indicated your support for Alternative 2.

Answered: 25 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 25
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Highly
supportive
Neutral
Do not support

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Highly supportive
Neutral
Do not support
Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 7 / 15
Q5 Please identify elements of Alternative 2 that you do support, even if you do not support the entire of Alternative 2.

Answered: 16 Skipped: 13
# RESPONSES DATE
1 None 7/18/2022 10:39 PM
2 Open spaces and the Beckworth River front park facilities development & Infrastructures, East/West Marysville development.
7/8/2022 1:25 PM
3 Many aspects sound good just like alternative 1. 7/6/2022 11:11 PM 4 Both 7/2/2022 2:19 PM
5 Development of areas outside of downtown gives others a chance to improve. Still using walking/ biking more easily in the city is good for residences. 7/1/2022 9:52 AM
6 West Msvl has many more economic, mixed use, walkable opportunities to adhere to the charming identity of Msvl
6/30/2022 11:30 AM
7 Lots of opportunity for interior growth and redevelopment. Make Marysville Great Again. 6/30/2022 11:17 AM 8 More bike routes/paths. 6/30/2022 10:39 AM
9 Downtown, medical, and Ellis Lake are should be prioritized to encourage outside interest in this area.
6/30/2022 6:49 AM
10 Improvements to downtown and ellis lake 6/29/2022 11:17 PM 11 Updating any parks in east marysville. They are completely unsafe and outdated! There is so much space at all of the parks locations it would be nice to have better play spaces for our younger children. There’s absolutely nothing to do in marysville for our young generation. 6/29/2022 10:31 PM
12 Like the idea of bike trails. The current "bike lanes" in east Marysville are a total safety hazard due to the street conditions. I also like the idea of updating parks. 6/29/2022 9:00 PM
13 It covers more of Marysville 6/29/2022 7:37 PM
14 I support the improvement of Ellis lake! 6/29/2022 6:43 PM 15 Improvement to Ellis lake 6/29/2022 6:28 PM
16 Yuba park development and focus on active transportation investments and infrastructure improvements
6/29/2022 3:13 PM
Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 8 / 15
Q6 Please identify elements of Alternative 2 that you do not support.

Answered: 11 Skipped: 18
# RESPONSES DATE
1 The City is has done very little to promote growth in the area between north of 7th, east of B Street, west of Ramirez and south of 14th Street. This area is not only an eyesore, but also ineffective use of valuable space. The City also suffers from connectivity issues. Majority of the residents live in Northwest portion of the City. Yet this alternative does nothing to improve access to areas of commerce and industry. Access would have to improve along 12th St, B St., 9th St. and CA-70.
7/18/2022 10:39 PM
2 Private funding for improvements. 7/8/2022 1:25 PM
3 A more rapid change would be ideal. The city hasn’t changed much in twenty years. The Bounce Back program seems to have fizzled out.
7/6/2022 11:11 PM
4 None 7/2/2022 2:19 PM
5 Taking longer to improve isn't a good thing, as you know, things change. 7/1/2022 9:52 AM 6 None. Best idea yet. 6/30/2022 11:17 AM
7 I worry more housing may mean "low income" housing. Also, there is not enough police presence in east Marysville to support this plan.
6/29/2022 9:00 PM
8 See my notes above. Any improvements will be destroyed by the homeless. Because of their encampments and many close calls with their unleashed dogs, I have given up on walking around the levee or biking or even walking in my neighborhood. It’s proven way too dangerous.

I can’t wait to sell my home and move out of California. 6/29/2022 8:07 PM
9 I wonder about the vague plan for improving the lake though. 6/29/2022 6:43 PM 10 That it will take longer 6/29/2022 6:28 PM
11 Slower pace and broader scope in comparison to option 1 6/29/2022 3:13 PM Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 9 / 15
Q7 Alternative 3: Moderate Infill Development Downtown + Annexation Somewhat Less Dense Infill DevelopmentThis Alternative would involve somewhat less dense infill development compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. Under this Alternative, the City’s focus for infill development, like under Alternative 1, would be Downtown and in portions of the Medical Arts District near Downtown. With a somewhat reduced amount of focused housing development in the Downtown area, there would be somewhat reduced support for new restaurant, retail, and entertainment uses. Like Alternative 1, this Alternative would include investment in infrastructure, trails, park improvements, and amenities, but somewhat less of a focus on near-term investment intended to directly facilitate compact, mixed-use development, relying more on private development to initiate development activity. AnnexationUnder this Alternative, the City would contemplate annexation to the south, involving the northern parts of Linda and West Linda to approximately Erle Road, where there would also be some infill, mixed-use development. This Alternative involves negotiation of a retail sales tax sharing agreement with Yuba County to allow Marysville access to a portion of retail sales tax from retailers in the Linda area. Broad Area for Bicycle, Pedestrian, Parks, Open Space, and Infrastructure Improvements This Alternative would identify bicycle and pedestrian improvements needed to provide safe and convenient options for reaching daily destinations throughout the expanded Marysville Planning Area. With the broader geographic focus for this Alternative, the City will need to prioritize investments and rely more on contributions from private development. This Alternative includes improvements to parks and open space, including additional programming, improvements to Ellis Lake, additional facilities and improvements in Riverfront Park, and other parks throughout the expanded Marysville Planning Area. As with Alternative 1, this Alternative would involve City investments in improvements to water, sewer, drainage, streetscape, and transportation facilities to encourage private investment, but with the broader geographic focus, the City will need to carefully prioritize and phase improvement and also need to rely on private funding for frontage and infrastructure improvements. Incentives and investments may not be up front to facilitate infill development and may instead need to be in tandem with infill development. City resources would need to be devoted to Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 10 / 15

22.22% 6

18.52% 5

59.26% 16
annexation areas, as well as infill areas.Please indicate your support for Alternative 3.

Answered: 27 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 27
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Highly
supportive
Neutral
Do not support

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Highly supportive
Neutral
Do not support
Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 11 / 15
Q8 Please identify elements of Alternative 3 that you do support, even if you do not support the entire of Alternative 3.

Answered: 12 Skipped: 17
# RESPONSES DATE
1 None 7/18/2022 10:39 PM
2 Perhaps we should not only consider South Marysville boundries but also the N/NE Marysville boundry into Yuba County.It appears to support most of the manditory elements. 7/8/2022 1:25 PM
3 Annexation. Although I don’t see this happening in the near future. 7/2/2022 2:19 PM 4 Growing Marysville has been talked about since I've been here. Annexing parts of Linda, which still hasn't happened. I lived in Linda in the late 70's, early 80's. It's improved some since then, but maybe it would be a good thing to annex parts of Linda. More for Linda, less for Marysville? Money only goes so far.
7/1/2022 9:52 AM
5 At 50,000 incorporated, Msvl becomes an entitlement city and has many more CDBG access points to make quality improvements. It would also create value as the place to develop a metropolitan experience. To achieve the goals of alternative 1, the economic sphere has to be bigger. Hard Rock Casino Olivehurst... isn't justified. Hard Rock Casino Sacramento is World Class. We need a bigger foot print to bring in a bigger vision that is currently proposed. 6/30/2022 11:30 AM
6 Infill of downtown Marysville is a great idea. Keep Marysville city limits just the way it is. 6/30/2022 11:17 AM 7 This seems best for bicycle commuting. 6/30/2022 10:39 AM 8 More bicycle paths, pedestrian walkways, and beautification projects. 6/30/2022 6:49 AM 9 More retail,restaurants 6/29/2022 11:17 PM
10 The bikes and paths 6/29/2022 7:37 PM
11 The only part I support is the improvement of riverfront park. 6/29/2022 6:43 PM 12 Downtown and hospital area development 6/29/2022 3:13 PM Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 12 / 15
Q9 Please identify elements of Alternative 3 that you do not support.

56.52% 13

26.09% 6

17.39% 4
Q10 Please identify your most Preferred Alternative.

Answered: 23 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 23
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Alternative 1:

Accelerated...

Alternative 2:

Reinvestment...

Alternative 3:

Moderate Inf...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Alternative 1: Accelerated Infill Development Focused Downtown Alternative 2: Reinvestment throughout West Marysville
Alternative 3: Moderate Infill Development Downtown + Annexation Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 14 / 15
Q11 What other characteristics should we feature that were not included in the draft Alternatives?
Answered: 12 Skipped: 17
# RESPONSES DATE
1 As previously stated, the general plan needs to address more growth between the area north of 7th, east of B Street, west of Ramirez and south of 14th Street. This area is not only an eyesore, but also ineffective use of valuable space. The City also suffers from connectivity issues. Majority of the residents live in Northwest portion of the City. Yet this alternative does nothing to improve access to areas of commerce and industry. Access would have to improve along 12th St, B St., 9th St. and CA-70.
7/18/2022 10:39 PM
2 Specifely adderess by title the following State mandates. Housing, Open Space, Conservation,Circulation, Noise, and Safety.
7/8/2022 1:25 PM
3 The general plan update should consider highway bypass options. Higher density housing is a great idea, but it should be associated with alternative transportation such a bicycle paths, bicycle parking, and a more robust bus system. The traffic from two state highways makes moving through Marysville difficult. The town is old and was not originally designed for cars.

The constant traffic ruins walkability and makes pedestrians feel unwelcome in an environment that favors cars. Maybe other historic towns with thriving commercial districts such as Nevada City, Auburn, Grass Valley, Lincoln, and Chico do not have highways going through the center.

Nevada City recently blocked off an entire street to cars. Martinez, Folsom, and Grass Valley regularly block off car access on some nights to make the area more pedestrian friendly. No one wants to walk by a highway so all the business along the highway suffers financially. A pedestrian on a walk may stop for dinner at a local restaurant, but it is unlikely that any of the commercial trucks funneled through the town are stopping to contribute to the local economy, especially when there is limited parking. Any bicycle path or pedestrian path would be harder to use when there are dozens of commercial trucks adversely impacting the local circulation. Air quality and noise issues created by the traffic lowers residential quality of life. There should be more lighting in the south eastern corner of Marysville so people could walk between the bars and restaurants safely. There should be some sign ordinance to require design review on commercial signs. The city has almost no landscaping. This should be added in a few select highly visible areas, possibly in near the city gateways. 7/6/2022 11:11 PM
4 Roads!!! 7/2/2022 2:19 PM
5 What about the theater and hotel? Those are the biggest eyesore of Marysville! I came to Beale/Marysville over 44 years ago, used to go to the theater with my kids. The hotel was never up and running that I remember since I've been here. What an improvement it would be to the city if these two giant blocks of useless buildings were either demolished or rehabilitated. How can two "owners" keep the city in this state of disrepair for DECADES? I haven't heard of any movement on these monoliths in years!! 7/1/2022 9:52 AM
6 I would describe as Accelerated Infill Development Focused on Downtown while creating a tax share agreement with Yuba Co. to help all boats rise on the valley floor 6/30/2022 11:30 AM
7 Expand North along the 70 corridor. 6/30/2022 11:17 AM 8 Public safety - outsourcing police to YCSO. Disincorporation efforts. 6/29/2022 9:00 PM 9 Fix the homeless problem or no one can use any of this 6/29/2022 7:42 PM 10 Add more bus routes with later running routs, maybe sit dome so it doesn't take 45 minutes to go from Walmart to Packard avenue.
6/29/2022 7:37 PM
11 I would like to see some sort of plan for redirecting traffic around marysville similar to what lincoln did.
6/29/2022 6:43 PM
12 Fire department current house may not have enough space to provide needed expanded services.
6/29/2022 3:13 PM
Marysville General Plan Update and Specific Plan Alternatives SurveyMonkey 15 / 15
Q12 Would you support combining features of two or three of the Alternatives, and if so, which features should be combined to create your Preferred Alternative?
Answered: 9 Skipped: 20
# RESPONSES DATE
1 The only item that I liked from the proposed alternatives were high density development at Yuba Park. Other than that, we are not doing enough to promote equivalent growth in the City.

We are neglecting the area between northwest of the City and Downtown. And this needs to be addressed.
7/18/2022 10:39 PM
2 Yes, I support combining the three Alternatives. Perhaps this this could be a topic for the committe to discuss.There is information in the 3 alternatives that appears to be some what redundant.
7/8/2022 1:25 PM
3 N\A 7/6/2022 11:11 PM
4 1 & 2. Help downtown and other parts of Marysville 7/1/2022 9:52 AM 5 The market place will decide where the blend of the 3 alternatives will happen. 6/30/2022 11:30 AM 6 Any and all elements of Alternatives 1 and 2. Focus all efforts on Marysville. 6/30/2022 11:17 AM 7 No 6/29/2022 7:37 PM
8 I would support the mixing of 1 and 2. But I want to stress that #3 is unacceptable. 6/29/2022 6:43 PM 9 No 6/29/2022 5:54 PM

Marysville City CouncilAugust 16, 2022

Marysville City Council
August 16, 2022