PC 010902 - Laserfiche WebLink

commercial, and expressing concern for residential. Mr. 1serson reported that staff feels "Office" r is the best use for this site for several reasons which were identified in the staff report. Mr. Iserson commented on the Park and Recreation Commission recommendations regarding the Specific Plan, noting that staff believes the way to resolve these issues is to keep the language in the Specific Plan where it relates to Park issues fairly broad, and that the details can be resolved in the near future when the Master Plan for the Downtown Parks and Trails System goes to the City Council for review. With regard to the issue of the Niles Canyon Railroad, Mr. Iserson reported that there is no new information to add at this point regarding the train. He reiterated that the Specific Plan recommendation is to not bring the Niles Canyon Railroad into the Downtown Specific Plan area and, instead, to implement the Downtown Parks and Trails System Master Plan in the Alameda County Transportation corridor within the Downtown. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Roberts, Mr. Rasmussen clarified the process that would occur if modifications are made to the Specific Plan that require changes to the Overriding Considerations. ,-- Commissioner Sullivan questioned whether the commercial zoning designation would allow a mix use of residential and commercial. Mr. Iserson advised that Downtown commercial relates to the Central-Commercial zoning which allows a mix use of residential and commercial. He further advised that staff is recommending that the property at 325 Ray Street be zoned "Office," and that this could allow for mixed use by putting residential on the second floor if the definition of "Office" is modified as discussed in the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding the General Plan and Specific Plan zoning designations. Commissioner Sullivan asked for clarification regarding the traffic model information provided in the staff report related to the Rose A venue Extension. Mr. Grubstick reported that this is the information from the 2001 Traffic Model that has not yet been distributed. Commissioner Sullivan asked if any analysis of cut-through traffic during peak hours was factored into the 2001 model. Mr. Iserson indicated that it is his understanding that the latest models are trying to factor in cut-through traffic, but he does not know if that is correct in this specific case. In response to an inquiry from Chairperson Maas regarding the extension of Railroad Avenue, Mr. Iserson confirmed that if the City Council determines to complete the Railroad Avenue extension, it would direct staff to complete the CEQA review and a public review process for the specific alignment. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Ingrid Marble-Knox, 4614 Second Street, stated that she represents several of her friends who live at Ridgeview Commons. She noted that she realizes that many of their concerns about the proposed excursion train have already been addressed in the Final EIR. She expressed concern about the parking at the Senior Center being used by those who ride the train and the impacts on the weekend events held at the Senior Center. She asked what kind of facilities would be made r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9, 2002 Page 4