CC Min 2009-07-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

prior comments, is not seeking the "WOW" factor, but he agrees there is too much about Cargill. He opined that safety in regards to traffic needs to be incorporated. Another Council Member likes the direction of the Draft General Plan and he wants staff to stay on target with regards to schedule and timing. Various Planning Commissioners made the following remarks: appreciated the opportunity to get a fresh perspective from the Council; agreed that Cargill could be lightly touched upon and one Commissioner suggested deleting it from the introduction; celebrate the fact that this document is something noteworthy and this Commissioner could not sense the excitement from the introduction. Other Planning Commissioners shared that the guiding principles relate to the various sections and found the document cohesive as a whole. One Commissioner asked for more visuals and less story because the pictures tell the story. It was mentioned that the Council's Strategic Plan needs to be referenced in this General Plan, possibly under governance and or the introduction. One Council Member had concerns with the vignettes because these can be taken out of context and they don't necessarily mean the same thing to everybody. The issue of certain areas of the city ("pockets") that are not being covered in the Draft General Plan was also discussed. One Planning Commissioner would like a statement to the fact: "We Heard You Redwood City Community". One Council Member would like to see the introduction be a finro to three page document with the possibility of being used as a marketing tool. Council and Commissioners then specifically reviewed the various elements and made comments as outlined below: Built Environment • Some found this section too limiting and not realistic in certain areas • Include strategies to promote higher development as well as preservation of historical character • Utilize pictures and include names on the big streets • Reference the Bay Conservation and Development Commission in this section and acknowledge its role in possibly opposing some of these plans • Refer to car share or scooter storage • Possibly missing is the connection between the Port and the Downtown • On the issue of density bonuses be aware of what the state requires • Strengthen the historical preservation piece Comments were also made about traffic calming and grade separations. Other issues brought up included trolleys, ferries or buses and there was consensus that these were acceptable concepts. There was a general interest in not being too restrictive and enhance/include the economic development piece. Housing Some Council Members disagreed with "inclusionary housing" being included, and one Council Member considered this mention premature. One Planning Commissioner thought including this was merely a sign of wanting to be all- JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 2009 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 7 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No. 428