Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/11/2001Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 CITY OF PETALUA; CA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 11, 2001 - 7:00 PM CITY COU NCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL, 11 ENGLISH STREET PETALUMA, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 / Fax 707/778 -4498 E -Mail planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us Web Page http: / /www.ci.petaluma.ca.us Commissioners: Barrett, Dargie, Glass *, Monteschio, O'Brien, von Raesfeld, Vouri • Chair Staff: George White, Planning Manager Irene Borba, Senior Planner Jaym Allsep, Project Planner Anne Windsor, Administrative Secretary ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 13, 2001 PUBLIC COMMENT Pamela Torliatt re: Redwood Tech. Reviewed a project on this site. Had known this was coming to PC. Wanted planner to look at old site plans. Make commission aware of work done on site — different concept being proposed — village with retail and theatres. Look at EIR or project first — is frustrating. Watched Baker Ranch PC — recommendations had to do with public access to school. School not in favor. Bike Committee and others look at avenues for access. Encourage PC to explore recommendations. Geoff Cartwight, 56 Rocca Drive: Spoke on flooding in general. Flooding larger than what can be mitigated. Will speak later when appropriate. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT: Last meeting before Christmas, Happy Holidays. 1 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 CORRESPONDENCE: At places APPEAL STATEMENT: Within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of a decision of the Planning Commission, the decision may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or by any other interested party. If no appeal is made within that time, the decision shall be final. An appeal shall be addressed to the Council in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 92- 251- N.C.S. as adopted by the City Council. The appeal shall state specifically the grounds for the appeal and the relief sought by the appellant. LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing are advised to raise all pertinent issues at this state of review so that possible solutions may be implemented or adopted at the earliest opportunity. If you challenge the action taken by the City of Petaluma in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the public review process, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the conclusion of the public review process. NEW BUSINESS; PUBLIC HEARING: I. DOWNTOWN RIVER APARTMENTS (EDEN HOUSING), 3 -39 EAST WASHINGTON STREET (ACROSS FROM THE GOLDEN EAGLE SHOPPING CENTER), APN 007 - 121 -006,' 007 - 121 -007, 007 - 121 -008, 007 -121 -009, 007 - 121 -010, 007 - 121 -011, 007 - 121 -012, 007 - 121 -013, AND 007 - 121 -017, FILE NUMBER REZ01002 /SPC01009 Project Planner: Irene Borba Public Hearing on a proposed 81 affordable rental housing units (including a manager's unit), three stories in height built over a concrete, on -grade parking garage. The proposal includes approximately 5,500 square feet of commercial space for retail and office uses fronting along Washington Street. The proposal includes a 3,000 square foot community facility as well as the amenity of a playground area and sports court/basketball area for the residents. The proposal includes a request to Rezone the subject property from CC- Central Commercial to PUD- Planned Unit District. Irene Borba presented the staff report. Commissioner Glass: What was staff's recommendation to remove lead from the site. Irene Borba: No preference as long as it is removed. VonRaesfeld: Why change to PUD — what was designation for zoning. Irene Borba: Proposal does not meet parking requirements. Wanted the daycare as a permitted use. Planning Commission Minutes— December 13, 2001 Commissioner Vouri: Asked for expansion on keeping parking garage dry. Craig Spauling: Not a good construction practice and for safety of residents. Commissioner Dargie: Re: zoning — Attachment 2 — guidelines for PUD incorporated as Condition of Approval. Bonne Gaebler presented a report on affordable housing. Commissioner Glass: Asked if there was a monitoring on income. Linda Mandolini, Eden Housing: Started working with the City in 1997 — worked very hard for project. Completed 122 units in Petaluma. Jeff Bennett, Eden Housing: Presented specifics of the Downtown River Project. Working very closely with Bonne Gaebler and Irene Borba. Rents range from 416 -915. Own six of eight parcels. Paul Barnhart, Architect: Presented the architecture of the project — working for many years to craft a project that meets the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. Bill Smith, Landscape Architect: Presented the landscape design for the project. Commissioner Glass: Because of fencing — accessible on 3 sides only. Bill Smith showed the area of fencing. Commission Questions: Commissioner Vouri: Asked about crosswalk across Washington Street — why location chosen? Suggested putting where river walk is so it could continue. Steve Weinberger, W Trans: Wanted to make use of existing median and splitting for safety (term is pedestrian corral) — provided room to do everything necessary. Commissioner Vouri: Parallel parking on Washington — could it be angled? Steve Weinberger: Do not recommend on Washington Street. Commissioner Monteschio: Will'it be ADA accessible? Steve Weinberger: Yes. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Has there been an analysis about time to cross — does not look like it is going to be signalized. 3 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 Steve Weinberger: Need elements to make this type of crosswalk. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Asked about trash receptacles. Paul Barnhart: Would provide convenient receptacles for recycling on each floor. Commissioner von Raesfeld: The arcade on the plans — wonder how this will come out — can you adjust elevation. Paul Barnhart: Needed to be raised up to meet flood plain zero net fill. Done so everything is accessible independently. Commissioner Barrett: Asked about two negative issues: storage on balconies that are unsightly. Also asked about the noise from the industrial site next door. Paul Barnhart: Stated the mitigation measures for dealing with both issues. Public hearing opened: Lisa Irwin, Petaluma Bike Advisory Committee: Pleased with the project. Commented on Committee's Condition of Approval not included in the staff report. Want protected bike parking on ground floor. Do not want fencing. Want a class II bike lane on Washington Street — in lieu of that, would like a 10' sidewalk. Have concerns about crosswalk — possibly pavement change to make it safe. Grey Street has curb cuts and pedestrian access. Could parking garage be shared by public? Geoff Cartwright: Not certain project will cause displacement — has not been a major problem in the past. Denman Flats area has been displaced and further development will add . John Records, COTS: Spoke in support of the project — Community needs affordable housing. Jane Hamilton, AFC: Have a manufacturing plant on South McDowell and two other facilities on North McDowell. Overwhelming need for affordable housing. Only 50% of employees live within 10 miles of their employment. Do not want to create an imbalnce in the workforce like Silicon Valley. Impressed with design. Bob Martin, 171 Payran: Not against the project, however, have concern re: elevation is from 1989 firm map and is out of date. Since Corps project things will change — look at post project conditions of the project. John McCue, Becoming Independent: Urged PC to support project. Andra Catalavarti, Eden Housing: Worked independently from manager with the residents. Very few people leave apartments — Eden supports services such as computer 4 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 skils, resume writing, first time home buyers. Present sites Corona Ranch and Washington Creek. Grace Kingsly: Spoke on behalf of Eden Housing — lives at Corona Ranch. Urged PC to support project and see some existing projects. Jorge Gimez: Lives at Corona Ranch apartments — waited 2 years to live there. If project is not possible in this location, would like affordable housing elsewhere. Lucy Rodriques: Lives at Corona Ranch, is a single mother, is a beautiful and safe palce to live. Angie Sanchez, CPS: Urged solar incorporated in the project. Public hearing is closed. Eden Housing: Regarding the comments from Bike Committee. Will be providing secure bike storage in garages. Will be providing pedestrian access. Committee Questions: Commissioner Vouri: Listed four things to get rid of water in the garage at a 100 year event. What specifically is going to be done to the final design? John Fitzgerald, CSW Stuber Stroh: If we have to remove the water — no City standard that water must be removed from a parking garage. Grading (remove more material from the site, cantilever building to allow water under the building, Jeff Bennett: Cantilever or pipes would not affect the bike path or access. Commissioner Glass: Asked about hiring local, neighborhood construction workers. Bonne Gaebler: Referred to Section 3 — hiring local workers. Eden Housing: Volunteered to do this. Commissioner Vouri: Asked about the traffic model being used which includes improvements for 101 and other arterials that have not occurred. Steve Weinberger: Yes— this is the same model. Commissioner Vouri: LOS on Grey would be acceptable if traffic circle would be put in at Copeland — what is LOS until that time. Steve Weinberger: Improvements with the CPSP. 5 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 Commissioner O'Brien: LOS E at Washington and Petaluma Blvd. No. Chelsa did a study with LOS at F. Has initial study been changed to reflect LOS F? Steve Weinberger: Yes Commissioner O'Brien: Greater level of Police and Fire due to density — can cost be mitigated through project? Bonne Gaebler: Can expend housing funds into general fund to buy more services. First question re: more required service because of the density. Have not found the case at Round Walk Village. Commissioner O'Brien: Want to look into fire and parametic calls. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Generic perception about what affordable housing means. Is this diverse. Bonne Gaeber: Questions and myths exist, however, these projects are designed by non- profits and are held to high standards. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Asked if shared parking in garage can happen during the day when residents are not home. Eden Housing: Will work that out, especially for employees of the retail. Commission Discussion: Commissioner von Raesfeld: Everything is there and makes sense. Want the project to be of a standard that works for the site which is in such a prominent site. Need to ratchet design up a notch because of the location. Commissioner Glass: Asked if more funds could be given to improve the design. George White: SPARC very enthusiastic and felt fine tuning could be done through the SPARC process. Commissioner Barrett: Thanked Eden for responding so positively to SPARC's request. Encourage Commissioner von Raesfeld to specify comments. Eden: Open to comments — continuance will hold us up — would like comments. Commissioner Monteschio: Project needs more attention. On steet parking was not allowed for Basin Street and can not allow here. Truck deliveries on East Wshington — need to move to another spot. Podium design — want to make sure it is M Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 Commissioner von Raesfeld: Have to follow the parking rules. Need an urban interface with the sidewalk and retail. Better articulation on front of buildings — would see in more suburban, examples South of Market in San Francisco — this is an urban infill project. Need good architecture because of location. Trash will be an issue — do not want bins taking up parking. Grey and East Washington will be a prominent intersection — need to acknowledge curve. No front to the project — three sides. Commissioner Vouri: Think it's one of the best projects to come to Petaluma. It is true mixed use, interior court yard, the river walk, services offered is very impressive. Prefer four fronts instead of one — open site. Concerns re: traffic — pedestrian walkway an issue for safety. If it must be street level — would like it aligned with the river walk instead of where it is proposed. Four stories would not be out of place — need all the affordable housing we can get — recommend 20 more units. Do not want to dismiss LOS D — applicant needs to be responsible for the impacts that they make. Would like IS and C of Approval to reflect cantilever or conduits to address water in garage. Noise — would like a MOU re: Dairyman's hours — want to specifically tell tenants. Pg. 8 of IS — Geology and Soils — contradictory in language — mark with less than significant with mitigation. Pg. 28 — no mitigation required for lead contamination of soils. Would like an alternative chosen before approval. My preference would be to remove from site. Commissioner Barrett: Can't approve on street parking due to prior ruling for Basin Street and interest of consistency. Like the design. Am concerned about intersection of Grey and Washington, do not want it to be less than C LOS. Irene Borba: Rezoning addresses the parking — cannot compare to Basin Street. Commissioner O'Brien: Like the project. Have a strong desire to support the project but have a reluctance re: traffic — adding 700 trips — need traffic mitigation as responsibility of applicant. Mitigation to prevent falling into river by children. Include MOU for Dairymans and Shamrock. Apply standards across the board. Would like to see how we can include alternative energy plans. Commissioner Dargie: Uncomfortable with crosswalk and lights for crossing — too close to intersection of Petaluma Blvd. Traffic mitigation could be as simple as a right hand turn. Commissioner Monteschio: Traffic light over top of cross walk. Commissioner Glass: Would like 4 stories instead of 3. Parking is not an issue for me — crosswalk is a problem. Hook up with the River walk and River Enhancement Plan. MOU re: noise is extremely important. Having intersection at LOS D is a problem — need to address now. A safe cross walk is difficult — best possible solution for this problem. Lead on site is a concern — would like to see it removed. Paul Barnhart: Additional parking would take away open, public space. Land banking is a possibility. Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 George White: Ratio is less than 1.5. Commissioner O'Brien: Check on parking at other Eden developments. Eden: Lift mechanism to lift and stack cars. Would add cost. Have better opportunity to do retrofit because of higher elevation for retail space. Will have the clearance and ability to add lifts. Commissioner von Raesfeld: 1 to 1 ratio at Corona Reach. Eden: Use hardscape as reserve -that will be used at a later date. Commissioner Vouri: Supports land bank as a Condition of Approval. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Land banking through an assessment district. Commissioner Glass: If the need was there, play ground would temporarily be removed until the Lift can be instituted in the garage, when that is complete, the playground would be restored. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Condition of Approval by proper wording. Work with staff to Condition to meet intent of parking ordinance. George White: Research by review and approval of staff. George White: Should we go through issues? Crosswalk: Match up with the river walk and constructed in the safest possible way. Commissioner Vouri: Am uncomfortable with the crosswalk going in as part of River walk. Would like applicant to put in crosswalk now — with a proposed design that is safer than what is now proposed — possibly light across top. Asked when cross walk for river walk will be put in. John Fitzgerald: Possible it could happen within a year. Have an idea of combining trolley signaling and pedestrian cross walk. Will play into final design. Lead issue: Leave to staff — remove one way or another. John Fitzgerald: We are removing a good deal of material from the site which may take care of the lead problem. It has to be dealt with and it will. Commissioner Glass: Referred to pg. 28 in the initial study 0 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 Commissioner Vouri: Asked for language to accomplish mitigation of finding lead on site. Traffic: Commissioner O'Brien: Have concerns about the mitigation of traffic. We are doing nothing to mitigate 700 more trips. We are already at a Level F and nothing is done to mitigate this. Commissioner Barrett: Thinks the model may have over estimated the impact. Commissioner Glass: Logical partner to mitigate traffic concerns in the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner von Raesfeld: CPSP had an EIR — does that address traffic model. Apply fees to the project. Commissioner Glass: Assign traffic mitigation fees to Eden housing. Bonne .Gaebler: Paul Marangella has already offered to added funds. Can work with the appropriate people to mitigate this and pay fees. Commissioner O'Brien: Need to get traffic off of Washington Street. Commissioner Vouri: Create a condition of approval for applicant to put money in traffic mitigation for CPSP certified under a Redevelopment EIR. Commissioner O'Brien: Thinks it's a double standard. Commissioner Glass: Think there is an overriding need. Do not want to draw the line on this project. Commissioner Barrett: Agreed with Commissioner Glass. Commissioner O'Brien: Think we need to apply one standard. If money is set aside for traffic mitigation I don't have a problem. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Pg. 29 of Initial Study. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Amend page 29 of Initial Study, condition B less than significant with mitigation, developer will pay traffic fees on a pro rata basis. George White: 'Suggested amending #6 on pg. 31. 9 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 Commisioner von Raesfeld: Architecture — community outreach for design to take place before SPARC meeting to deal with sulbties of design regarding the elevation. With suggestions I have made would like to see this go to SPARC with a design charette first. George White: Suggested a design charette — wanted clarification from Commissioner von Raesfeld if that was possible. Issue: Water in garage. Consensus to go with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Monteschio: Is there a way to move truck delivery off of East Washington Street? Paul Barnhart: The retail is so small and is front service only — deliveries will be mostly by vans and not 18- wheelers. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Ask staff to leave to the Police Dept. Eden: Can be written into the lease. A motion was made by Commissioner Vouri and seconded by Commissioner Monteschio to adopt a mitigated negative declaration as amended and the project with additional conditions of approval All in favor: O'Brien: Yes Dargie: Yes Monteschio: Yes Glass: Yes Barrett: Yes Vouri: Yes von Raesfeld: DRAFT FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATI VE DECLARATION Downtown River Apartments (Eden Housing) 3 through 39 East Washington Street (across from the Golden Eagle Shopping Center) APN 007 - 121 -006, 007 - 121 -007, 007 -121 -008, 007 - 121 -009, 007 - 121 -010, 007 -121- 011, 007 - 121 -012, 007 - 121 -013, AND 007 - 121 -017 Project REZ01002 & SPCO1009 10 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1. That based upon the' Initial Study, potential impacts resulting from the project have been identified. Mitigation measures have been proposed and agreed to by the applicant as a condition of project approval that will reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that supports a fair argument that the project, as conditioned and mitigated, would have a significant effect on the environment. 2. That the project does not have the potential to affect wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, and is exempt from Fish and Game filing fees because it is proposed on undeveloped site surrounded by urban development. 3. That the project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code. 4. That the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Study and considered public comments before making a recommendation on the project. 5. That a Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 6. That the record of proceedings of the decision on the project is available for public review at the City of Petaluma Planning Division, City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, California. Mitigation Measures: All mitigation measures, as identified in the Initial Study for the Downtown River Apartments (Eden Housing) proposal, are herein incorporated (see Attachment 4, Initial Study). Commissioner made a motion and Commissioner seconded to introduce an ordinance for adoption to rezone the subject property from Central Commercial to Planned Unit District. All in favor: O'Brien: Yes Dargie: Yes Monteschio: Yes Glass: Yes Barrett: Yes Vouri: Yes 11 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 von Raesfeld: Yes DRAFT FINDINGS FOR REZONING FROM CC- CENTRAL COMMERCIAL TO PUD- PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT Downtown River Apartments (Eden Housing) 3 through 39 East Washington Street (across from the Golden Eagle Shopping Center) APN 007 - 121 -006, 007 - 121 -007, 007 - 121 -008, 007 - 121 -009, 007 - 121 -010, 007 -121- 011, 007 - 121 -012, 007 - 121 -013, AND 007 - 121 -017 Project REZ01002 & SPCO1009 Rezoning to Planned Unit District The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and rezone the subject parcel from CC- Central Commercial to PUD - Planned Unit District will result in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. The proposed uses comply with the Mixed Use General Plan designation, which allows for a combination of residential, commercial or retail uses on one parcel. Additionally, this proposal incorporates the policies and guidelines of the PUD - Planned Unit District of Article 19A of the Zoning Ordinance. The public necessity, convenience and welfare clearly permit and will be furthered by the proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and rezoning the subject property to Planned Unit District. The Planned Unit District Guidelines/Development Standards describe permitted and conditional uses as well as those, which would not otherwise be allowed to be established at this location. This specific list of uses prevents the creation of any nuisance to the existing surrounding uses. 3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of an Initial Study and the drafting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration to avoid or reduce to a level of insignificance, potential impacts generated by the proposed Downtown River Apartments Planned Community District. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from CC- Central Commercial to Planned Unit District. Based upon the Initial Study, a determination was made that no significant environmental effects would result. A 12 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 copy of this notice was published in the Argus Courier and provided to residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site, above the 300 -foot CEQA requirements. DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE PUD- PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Downtown River Apartments (Eden Housing) 3 through 39 East Washington Street (across from the Golden Eagle Shopping Center) APN 007 -121 -006, 007 - 121 -007, 007 - 121 -008, 007 - 121 -009, 007 -121 -010, 007 -121- 011, 007 - 121 -012, 007 - 121 -013, AND 007 - 121 -017 Project REZ01002 & SPC01009 Adoption of PUD Development Standards 1. That the PUD Development Standards allow for the continued operation of the existing uses, and will result in more appropriate and compatible uses in the district. The proposed Planned Unit District would allow for a mixture of uses commercial, office and residential that is compatible with the existing surrounding uses. Design guidelines /development standards have been prepared to ensure that the proposed uses and structures are compatible with the surrounding uses. The proposal results in a more desirable use of the land than would be possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. The PUD would provide a group of commercial, office and residential uses to supply the day -to -day needs of the surrounding area. 2. That the plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties, and that adequate landscaping and/or screening is included to ensure compatibility. Conditions /mitigation measures have been incorporated requiring design and development standards that are compatible with neighboring developments. 3. That the proposed project has complied with the requirements of CEQA through the preparation and adoption of a Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project, which addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with its development, and no further environmental analysis is necessary. In compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared for the rezoning of the site from CC- Central Commercial to PUD - Planned Unit District. Based upon the Initial Study, a determination was made that no significant environmental effects would result. 13 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 4. Adequate available public and private spaces are designated oil the Planned Unit district Plan. Through mitigation measures and project conditions, adequate building setbacks and other project amenities are provided. The Planned Unit district provides for specific design criteria and development standards, which regulate the proposed development of the site. 5. The development of the subject property in the manner proposed by the applicant, and as conditioned, will not e detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, and with the Petaluma General Plan. The project, as conditioned, complies with the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code and the General Plan. Both the Fire Marshal and the Engineering Section have prepared conditions of approval to address fire and safety issues, and design criteria for the construction of the buildings. 6. The Downtown River Apartment (Eden Housing) proposal will help the City to further the Objectives, policies and programs of the Petaluma General Plan. The project as proposed supports a number of Policies of the Petaluma General Plan such as: The project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and implements several housing related policies, including: Sec. 9.8 Objectives, Policies, and Programs: Housing Variety: Objective (a) Provide a range of housing types: (b) preserve and increase the existing supply of rental apartments. Policy 1: The City shall encourage a mix of housing types, including lower- density housing. Housing Opportunity: Objectives (d) Provide housing opportunities for persons of all economic levels; (e) Insure a choice of housing types and locations to all persons regardless of sex, cultural origin, age, marital status, or physical handicaps. Programs cited in the General Plan, which demonstrate that the objectives of the project are consistent with the objectives of the General Plan: Program 13: Continue to give priority processing to very low and low- income developments. Program 20: Contact nonprofit housing developers to assist in identifying appropriate sites and to encourage the developmental of rental housing. 14 Planning Commission Minutes — December 13, 2001 Program 21: Work with developers for below - market rate housing to encourage the construction of housing for households of very low and low income. Community Character, Chapter 3: Policy 16.2: Mixed -use development is encouraged, particularly within the central area of the City. Local Economy, Chapter 8 — Mixed Use: Objective (d) Provide opportunities to create combined "living and working" environments. Policy 10: The City shall strive to make land available for effective residential/workplace (mixed use) developments. II. REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER by Basin Street Properties, corner of Old Redwood Highway and North McDowell Boulevard. AP NOS: 007-411-7,9,11,18 and 19; FILE NOS: GPA00001; REZ00001 Planner: Jayni Allsep Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Redwood Technology Center, an office and research & development campus that would include 262,500 gross square feet of office/R &D space and a 7,500 square foot restaurant pad. The Planning Commission will also consider the project merits fora proposal that includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to re- designate the 14.4 -acre subject property from "Special Commercial' to "Special Industrial /Office Park "; and a rezoning request to replace the existing Highway Commercial (CH) District on Parcel A, and the Light Industrial (ML) District on Parcel B, to Planned Unit Development -PUD. Continued to January 8, 2002. III. LIAISON REPORTS: • City Council: Happy Holidays • SPARC - Questions re: CPSP and the status. Early next year. Asked Commissioner O'Brien is Traffic Model is ready. Will be in January, 2002. • Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: None • Tree Advisory Committee: IV. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. 15