CC Min 1985-02-26 Jnt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Discussion followed regarding the haphazard development along E1 Camino Real; comparisons of the appearance of E1 Camino Real in Redwood City with other cities along its route; and a suggestion that development should include housing units over retail stores. Mayor Britschgi referred to the E1 Camino Real Development Study and Proposed E1 Camino Real Corridor Specific Area Plan of April 1980, and read the goals listed on page 3 of the study as follows: A. Discourage further strip commercial development. B. Encourage clustering of commercial enterprises at the intersection of E1 Camino Real with major arterials, and around off - street parking cores. C. Introduce clusters of moderately high- density residential between clusters of commercial enterprises. D. Relocate automobile sales, parts, and services in other locations in Redwood City whenever feasible, but where relocation is infeasible, concentrate such uses for public convenience. E. Encourage development of public and private open space on E1 Camino Real or visible to its users. F. Institute urban design guidelines to promote and maintain visual excellance. G. Provide a physical, regulatory and economic climate that will attract and hold quality development on E1 Camino Real. H. Develop compatible physical and use relationships between El Camino Real frontage properties and properties to the side or rear of them. I. Provide for a strong system of mass transit on and in the area of E1 Camino Real, including a transportation center, rail rapid transit, feeder bus lines and mainline intercity bus serice on E1 Camino Real, together with necessary support facilities. It was generally agreed that the goals were sufficiently general in nature as to be applicable to any plan. Continued discussion related to the lengthy studies made by the Planning Commission a few years ago of the E1 Camino Real Corridor; their unanimous agreement on the plan, and the subsequent rejection by the City Council. It was noted that during the hearings by the Council, certain property owners were reluctant to accept the proposal because of fear that their properties would be condemned; that much property would be taken for public use, and they could not be persuaded that the plan was for some time in the future. Among the concerns of the Commissioners was that the Plan had not been referred back to them by the Council with specific reasons for not accepting the Plan as approved by the Commission; also, whether the existing proposed Plan should be reviewed and reworked by the Commission and Council, or whether it should be done by outside consultants. Joint Mtg. 2/26/85 Page 2 MINUTE BOOK NO. 45 Page No. 286