Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/28/2006 - mi City of Petaluma, CA 4 City Council Chambers isr.' ks City,LI3all, 11 English Street !C., Petaluma,CA 94952 ' ' - Telephone 707/778=4301 /Fax,707/778-4498 • E-Mail planning@apetaluma.ca.us Web Page http://www.ci.petaluma.ca,us Planning Commission Minutes November 28,2006- 07:00 . Present: Will Dargie, Terry KoseWic,John Mills;Karen Nau,Kathy Miller,Christopher Arras,Tanya Sullivan APPROVAL OF MINUTES:November 14,2006(07:01 PM) Motion: Approve.Minutes ofNovember l4,2006 Moved by John Mills, secondedby Karen Nau. I • . Vote: Motion carried 7-0. ' Yes: Will Dargie;Terry Kosewic;.John Mills;Karen Nau;Kathy Miller; Arras;Tanya 1 Sullivan PUBLIC COMMENT: OPEN(07:01 PM) Chairman Dargie • Kathy Staller • PUBLIC COMMENT: CLOSED;(07:04 PM) DIRECTOR'S REPORT:NONE(07:04 PM) . COMMISSIONERS' REPORT:NONE.(07:04 PM) CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Petaluma Build It Green-regarding the General Plan dated'November 16,2006.(07:05 PM) Build It Green Letter 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 therapplicant or,by any,other interested party. If no appeal is'made within that time,the decision shall be final.An appeal:shalt be addressed to'the Council in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said appeal shall;beaccompanied by the appeal fee as specified by Resolution 2002-114-N.C.S. as adopted byte City Council. Theappeal shalfstate specifically the grounds for the appeal and,the relief sought by the appellant. (07:05 PM) LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Persons commenting orally or in writing are advised to raise all pertinent issues at this state of reyiewso that possible solutions may tie implemented-or adopted at the earliest.opportdnity: If you challenge:theaction 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. (07:05 PM) • NEW.BUSINESS: (07:05 PM) PUBLIC HEARING: I.`JACK'IN.TIIE'BOX, 837 East Washington Street APN: 007-022-01$,019;andI0541File: '06 CUP-, • 0466-CR Planner: Tiffany Robbe StaffReport Tiffany Robbe gives presentation Ron Dering 'Commisser Kosewic Ron Dering • Commissioner Kosewic Ron Dering Commissioner;Mills Ron.Deting Commissioner Mills Ron Dering Commissioner Mills • • Ron Dering Chairman Darige Dana.Lodico Commissioner Sullivan' Dana Lodico. Commissioner;Sullivan Dana Lodico Commissioner'Sull ivan Dana Lodico Commissioner Sullivan Dana Lodico • 'Commissioner Sullivan Dana Lodico Commissioner Sullivan • Dana Lodico Commissioner Mills Dana Lodico Commissioner Mills Dana Lodico Commissioner Mills Dana Lodico Commissioner Nau Dana Lodico • Commissioner Nau Dana Lodico Commissioner Nau Dana Lodico Commissioner Arras Dana Lodico Chairman Dargie Dana Lodico Chairman Dargie Dana Lodico Public Hearing: Open(07:41 PM) Stuart Curtis Robert Stones Public Hearing: Closed(07:.&4 PM) Ron Dering Chairman Dargie • • Commissioner Mills Commissioner Kosewic Commissioner;Nau Commissioner'Arras Commissioner Sullivan Commissioner Miller Chairman Dargie Motion: move to find the draft modifications'denial findings as in attachment A,in our staff report. Moved by John Mills,seconded by Tanya Sullivan. Vote:.Motion carried 7-0. Yes. Will Dargie;Terry Kosewic; John Mills,Karen Nau Kathy Miller,Christopher Arras;Tanya. Sullivan Commissioner Mills OLD;BUSINESS: (08:08.PM) PUBLIC HEARING: H.DRAFT:GENERAL PLAN 2025-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DE1R) Planner: Scott Duiven Continued Public'Hearing PUBLIC COMMENT—Not regarding Itemson Agenda Bryant Moynihan referred toga letter-he sent in May.2005 to the City Council.. He stated the Land Use designations in the General Plan•were too extreme on both,ends; Mixed'Use,Was overused and vague General.Plan should-state what is commercial and What is residential .Rural:Residential and Very'Low - Residential should potentially be eliminated;'must meet the future,housing need for Petaluma;.supported feathering along UGB;:City infrastructure would not:supportiSigh:density, making,long-term projections, unreasonable;and set policies;not draw lines to indicate designations. I. `West Hills, 1436 Western-Avenue,RSCC,Petaluma,LLC Senior Planner Scott Duiven.explained the land use designation was Rural in the current General Plan,and. proposed GP. He stated the owner is requesting a Very Low Residential designation. He clarified his previous comments regarding his professional opinion find that,the rural landszat the edge of town.were supported by the community and the;Planning Commission and City Council.during this;review:of the Preferred Land Use Plan. Commissioner Kosewic stated that With a .'''A acre designation, after toads: and other;amenities are, developed, there wouldn't be;'/:acteparcels and this would be inconsistent. Scott explained this would,be discussedand:the GP looksas'"Net"'rather than, Gross'''density and thus the development would not result in the upper-end:of the request. He?said an"`Issue Taper":on density would be written to clarify this. • Commissioner Kosewic said this:would be a down zoning and shouldn't be reduced,but Scott said the parcel is currently in the County. Commissioner Sullivan,explained that she had done research that showed her property was beyond the 500' area of influence and she could take.part'in this parcel's.determination: PUBLIC COMMENT • Julie Marth, 8 Cleveland Lane — Stated the proposed development would-create a view of major development and erode the rural character of the area She asked the Planning Commission to preserve the Rural designation. She said she-opposed new development with the:samelot size as her current home. • Commissioner Mills established,that Ms. Marth's property was 1/3 of an acre. • Joseph Dee, 1801 Western and 1825 Western Avenue —=stated he-wanted the area to remain rural and remain in the County. Mindy Toth,.referred to a'letter she had submitted, as well,as a-petition:from-33 of the neighbors. She • wanted to preserve the rural character of the area to protect wildlife,:and prevent further drainage problems. Edward Giordano mentioned drainage,problems caused-by the Rockridge development that has caused saturation on his'propertybecause•ofthe.poor percolation in•the area. He also mentioned that the City has - stated it has a water supply problem and-more homes would exacerbate this. He supported the current designation to keep,the rural character."ofthe area. John Saemann, Principal of,RSCC, Petaluma, LLC:,—• tated'he:wanted to correct an earlier letter that said • more than-30 homes would be built, it should have stated less than 30. He said with the Very Low designation lots would have to be 'A acre or larger after all the roads;;parks etc:'were included. He said he has listened to the neighbors concerns and a 75' Urban Path would be allowed•onthe entire western edge of the parcel, taking approximately,2-1/4 acres of land: He said the Very Low designation would be • appropriate with the suburban housing in the area currently. • Susan Kirks, speaking on behalf of Paula Lane.Action Network (PLAN) entered 12 photographs of the area into the record.''Stated her group supports retaining the Rural designation and gave reasons such as potential depletion Of water recharge aieai drainage problems, lighting impacts County s policy for non conforming parcels and to preserve feathering: Lee McCann, 17,74 Western, commented. on. County non-conforming lots, drainage problems, and supported.the Rural designation, infill within City limits,and feathering at the.UGB:. Mike Kohl` mentioned :drainage" issues, lighting impacts, and the' size of the new homes -wouldn't be appropriate in an area with smaller homes.He supported retaining the Rural.designation. Jocelia Adams,,representing her mother Lorraine Adams living at 1850 Western Avenue,the adjoining property. Stated her mother opposes the increased density and signed a petition in,error. She mentioned drainage problems; need for livestock in the area to keep grass in control, and the Rural designation would allow this to remain. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED COMMISSIONER COMMENT CommissionerKosewic explainedhis'comments aboutnot beingable;to replacea home.ifit Wu]destroyed was based on his experiences *n12'1'36446 who owned;businesses He said he understands the neighbors concerns;and that"Fin-here, no one else.should`be allowed in He:suggested that if homeowners want to keep a,parcel theisame, they should purehas`e it. Her said;that if everyone in thenaiea'has Y:,acre=parcels, When thissparcel,is'annexed it would.be consistentrwith the existing residences and_would have City services: Comihissioher•Arras reminded everyone that tt is4is a.discussion ofthe;General Plan LandUse designations and waspnot;project specific. He said the issue hasbeem;raised.regarding:the-western'edgenearthe.UGB and theidesire to,preserve the character of area. Hesaid the community supports Ruraf Residential and the,General Plan supports this designation and he feels it is appropriate. - Commissioner Sullivamaskedif the issue paper would help them make a decision:: Scott,explained it would illustrate'ithe development proposal moving from gross to netir Hesaid,Ruial would be .610 allow for roads, etc. to remain:in keeping with the Rural designation. ' Conunissioner,Sullivan stated that:given public input, she favored leaving the Rural designation but would be open to clustering of homes to keep rural feeling:. Commissioner Mills commented'on his qualifications;to make decisions;regarding land:use designations. He stated'the City can `condition-down"'but not condition-up" and-when a specific project comes forth, theseiconditions couldgive the applicant lower,densities, but if it remains as Rural it would''be set at-eight homes. He said not all development,is tothe maximum densities stated for the:parcels„and because of t its he supported.the Very Low Residential instead of-Rural. He said the surrounding,parcels are consistent. with this designation and with City conditions aiid mitigations:this'designation.would be;appropriate. Commissioner.Sullivan asked ifiConditions could be stated`in.the GP:to prevent development. . AssistantHireckif George;White stated it wasbestto,,avoid site specific details intthe'GP. ' CornmissionerMiller+stated;she'favored,Very•Low`Densitybasing,it on.Commissioner Mills' statement's. She said looking:at map.at=the edge of the UGH`there were'substantially;Low'Density.Residential parcels,rather than Rural. .• Council:Member Nau said she supported=maintaining„the Rural designations: She said entering/exiting. froth:Western created'adangerous,situationfor cars,°pedestrians;equestrians, and,bicyclists. ' Cliair:Dargie2asked'why some properties were notRural but'Very'Low andif these were non-conforming. trses., He asked'iftlux.designation would-make.the•parcels conforming and Scott+said"yes': ' He:polled'the Commissioners and three:supported'Very Lo'v Residential with four supporting the_Ruraf designation. H. Washington Core,Jefferson,Wilson and Vallejo iStreet. • Senior;Planner Scott Duivenpresented•the area.and;pointed out,landmarks and land;uses including Industrial.and Educational. PUBLICCOMMENT Bill Wilson, butanebusiness::=distributor representativ-e; said this business has.been in,tlisldeation. since' 1946iand;he wanted assurance that they could continue'the peaceful use without interruption of the way they currently operate their business Richard de Carli, of de Carli's Butane, said he too wanted to be assuredrthey could continue with business as usual. He described the property they own adjacent to•then business and their desire to develop in the future. Commissioner Mills asked, if the land use designation was changed to Mixed'Use and did not affect his business, would Mixed:Use.be their designation preference. Mr.,de,Carli stated that Mixed Usdwould.allow development,of the adjoining lot„so Mixed Use would be the preference as long as there was protection for their existing,business. Commissioner Kosewic asked if there had been any odorcomplaints. • Mr. de Carli said that they.have stopped venting the tanks to.repair.them and have been burning the gas in the tanks to'empty them for repairs, etc. He said when,neighbors have reported odors, it has turned out their business was not the source of the problem. Commissioner Kosewic suggested that the de Carli's should request a disclosure-from the developers of the Sunset Line and Twine site to'protect:their business from future problems. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED Commissioner Mills askedif the,Land Use designation was changed, would this adequately protect existing ' businesses. Assistant Director White said if was hard to say if this would endanger existing businesses. He noted that language such as in the CPSP could be•included with a policy statement: Commissioner Arras:said he didn'csee a'problem with the designation and asked about school parcels as Mixed-Use.He supported Mixed-Use with Educational designations for schools. Scott explained that currently,all schools are designated is educafional`for consistency. He said usages such as Jericho are protected by policy and the River-Dependant Industrial designation. Commissioner Sullivan asked if the inventory available for industrial land was-sufficient. Scott said the Industrial designation was used to maintain available"incubator" properties and that Mixed Use fails to eliminate these uses as time goes by. Commissioner Sullivan asked what,the down-side would'be to keeping schools educational and changing de Carli's adjoining lot Mixed Use with the rest Industrial. Scott said this creates spot zoning and doesn't look at the overall area. He said Mixed Use needs more clarification whether it is office/retail or residential. Commissioner Sullivan said she was concerned that if Mixed Use requires residential it would push the area to residential and would lose the-Industrial designation—she supported leaving it as staff designated. Commissioner Miller.agreed with the Industrial designation. Commissioner Mills said-the area seems better for Mixed Use but he understands the need for incubator businesses. He said residential users would not want industrial uses.,nearby-and with the development of Sunset Line and Twine as-residential,with the school nearby, he didnit see Industrial tas.compatible. He felt Mixed Use would provide a variety of uses and would increase property values and continue the improvement in the area. He supported Mixed Use. Commissioner Kosewic supported keeping the Industrial. • Council Member Nau supported staff recommendation., Chair-Dargie supported staff recommendation. Commissioner Arras asked if there was a standard-percentage for mixed use for a-city.the:size of Petaluma. Scott said he wasn't aware of any,such number. He explained:they arrived at this designation by looking at demand'and allowing fora consistent rated£absorption over the life'of,the GP. Commissioner Arras asked for clarification of replacement of:a home as compared to a busmesmif either was destroyed and' located m a Mixed Use designated area Assistant Director White answered it would depend if it was a conforming ornon-conforming usage and:he felt there could be problems;with replacing'a non-conforming business. He said this',will be looked at further. Chair Dargie took a poll and Industrial designation""was supported by the majority of the'Commission. HI: Drew.&Johnson.Property—276i Corona Road' Commissioner'Sullivan recused herself because.of-proximity:to the PG&E site eLand herstock holdings in this company. Senior Planner'Scot Duivetr presented:the site for Conmvssionerreview stating it was currently,;Industrial • and proposed for Mixed Use, including the site across the street'from the.planned raiPstation.,He:mentioned . the Centex Homes letter requesting:Medium=Density Residential but staff did not-support their request. based:on the:busyantersection;access problems,and the flood plain location. PUBLICCOMMENT—None COMMISSIONER COMMENT Conunissioner Arras support ed`Mixed Use based on existing land uses in the area. He did not see merit to Centex's:proposal. Commissioner Miller agreed with Mixed Use. Council Member Nau agreed with Mixed.Use:after'weighing the Industrial options: Commissioner Kosewic supported Mixed'Use since='the existing businesses could continue.,operations under this designation. Chair Dargie supported Mixed Use. Commissioner Mills%said that since he had not read or had knowledge of the Centex letter he would'abstain from voting. IV. Landsnof Agnese; Hummel and Benson — 4902 Old Redwood Highway, 415 and 504 Denman'Road'. Senior Planner Scott Duiven presented the discussion paper and explained that in the 1987 GP the property was designated as Agricultural like aplaceholderto allowlfor possible future City expansion.He mentioned'. floodingproblemslandithe need to,Maintain/improve'detention/ietentionofexisting' storm water flows on site. Heimentibned that Council.had strongly 7ecortimended not adding,additional development potential unless flooding.issues.can.beaddressed. • •1 Commissioner Kosewic asked‘ 'Mere was'a''Detention Pond" designation,and thought the City should purchase it and create adetentionpond i Scott said there wasn't such a designation as they did not know how to articulate this or where they would be located. Commissioner Mills asked if the-existing,Agricultural with the Urban Separator designation would result in a down zoning and therefore a.taking. Scott said he did not think so because it would not.preclude'using-the property:for agriculture. He said this would be looked at and whether an urban`separator could be used within anSgricultural designation. He said a policy statement could be developed when a regional flooding,solution is{identified,the designation could be changed_ Commissioner Mills clarified the current Open Space designation was being replaced with less open space. Commissioner. Sullivan asked if-there were examples'of the:policies under Alternative.B that included business parks and felt that information would be needed to recommend any changes. Scott said that policies in the Water Resources element would help recognize historic flows and any developer would need'.to'-analyze'the current retention andtthe-'need.for no-net run-off. PUBLIC COMMENT Patricia Hummel, property owner:—Said'.they.supported the.change to Business,Park or Commercial. She referred to a 10/17/06 letter sent-to Pamela Tuft supporting this designation. She said her property is grouped with unrelated properties and has been shown to havenstibstantial development potential from studies they have done. She referred to the Draft General Plan designating it as Business Park and gave an explanation for this:designation as it is contiguous to an existing.business park;it is the northern gateway to the City property was designated by the City as Phasei4 of the business.park expansion; based on the City's plans, they agreed to-a sewer assessment and_4,65'easement to allow access to,the property from the existing business park; they had met landscape requirements the City required, and this was done with the tacit agreement that.the City would allow,the,.phaserfour'development of the business park. She said her property would allow the City to attain'itsjobs/housing;goals necessary for the future and the tax base potential provided by the Business Park'designation would'benefit the City. Commissioner Kosewic'asked'ifthe assessment wasa one-time payment or over the years. Mrs.Hummel said it was paid with their,taxes: Council Member Nau.asked if Mrs. Hummel had thought about her'suggestion to use the property asr,a vineyard. Mrs.Hununel said that she had no expertise'm developing'a vineyard and the cost would be prohibitive. Bill.Saks of Williams'A.-Saks and.Company,,a development company, said he has a desire to purchaseand. develop the property to its highest and best use He mentioned in the past, his'review of previous maps showed Business Parkas the designation until;the flooding occurred on New Years Day. He said this was a • regional upstream event and if a solution is identified in the General Plan process, the development would help pay for.pnblic improvements to prevent'further flooding from occurring..:He;said leaving;the property as Agricultural didn'tinakesense because of its location next to the;existing business park and being within the City limits. He felt:development would contribute to the.City's needfor.a goodjobs/housing+mix and help with flooding issues. • • Bryant:Moynihan, Nezus Realty aiid;repiesentative of the Hunimels, said‘the staff:report-wassmisleading and the Business,Talk designation waslisted=on themap';thatthe!UP consultants used to.create the original draft land;use map. He supported keeping the Business,Park;designation and'that a regional flooding solution would have to be,developed and`keeping+these three;properties as:Agricultural would nottsolve flooding;problems.. , PUBLI&COMMENT CLOSED COMMISSIONER'COMMENT Chair Dargie.polled.the.Commission about continuing past 11:00.p:m.;and4he need'to ido further research and liSten to the surface water information that would betresented at the next meeting. All were in favor of continuing thisiitem.to the.12/1.2/06,meeting:. • V, Living Word Lutheran Church..901 Ely Boulevard South Senior Planner Scott Duiven presented the:request by the'church, explaining the existing designation as Public/Semi-Public; He explained the topography with a Swale; and the misunderstanding 'about the location'of development as the church proposed With said Living Word wanted consideration for residential, land use;for;the rear portion of the property with either a Medium DensrtyTorthey would accept a Low Density designation. He.said the Church•wanted to sell the'property;to raise funds to enhance,its services;to. the,community{ Scott.,pointed,to'the adjoining City-owned parcel that was a surplus.school site with a designation of Medium Density residential and mentioned the compromise that was developed to create an addition'to Arroyo`Park'that would allow additional access'potential for Living Word's`-development: He. said the total,acreage was 3:2 acres with Livinfford,using half;of this•and theiemaining portion would be best suited L w'Density Residential for consisteney: Commissioner Millsaasked why the City-owned property•was;Medium;Density and Living Word's was Low Density and statedhe feltit would make sense to•have.them'the same. Scott explained that the:converse:could' be supported asflwell and that is why both :parcels,are being; reviewed: Council Member Nail,asked for clarification about.the;Fish and Game;issue and how'it affected the Medium Density designation..;She•wanted to know.why itcouldn't be'a•soccer field. Scott-pointed to theporrionof.the!parcel that would be undevelopable because of setbacks:.but•in'the rear, the-four acres could support;Medium-Density:Residential: Hei said:Parks and Recreation did not support taking over:the;whole,asa,park:because of neighborhood complaintsand-parkingdssues. ,He saidtheWork. Forceproposal in'thepast wasn't supported because of the:highdensitynecessary to.make itaffordable. PUBLIC COMMENT - Barbara,Creamer,neighborhood resident=said' he solicited•the petitionwith.37 signatures from neighbors of the property. She.said most had-no;idea the.General:Plan was,changing^the designation. She explained' that when she purchased,her•home, the:school•use was expected to remain with the.only other"option,as park.use. She said,the:neighbors,supportedthe park use especially because Cross Creeks park was not built because•of'Airport,flight;patter problems,andtthis:would,befan"opportunity to}have a park in,thejarea: She said the current neighborhood has a balance of medium and low.density that works very well. Dennis Kelley,.Living Word Church member.—mentioned that,they.have talked,to adjoining neighborsl?He said.the+church wants'to convert the;property:to provide'cash for enhancement:of their"services; He„said •theyhad not had any discussions with the'City.regarding(the City's;parcel. He stateclthe;Chin-dlt wants to blend into the neighborhood, and,-to make the property more attractive for development, they wanted the' designation changed,, He said Low Density would accommodate their financial needs'for:theirplanned improvements: - Commissioner Kosewic referred to the letter and clarified that the churchwanted 3—4 homes. Cathy Staller, lives in Village East, said she does notoppose•single family::homes,but when she purchased her home, the promise was that it would remain open space. She said the neighbors had-talked to the church about purchasing the-property but the cost was prohibitive. They also offered to maintain the property to help the church. She mentioned a safety hazard as people have created a path that runs along the creek that is very narrow-and someone could fall into the creek. She,also mentioned vandalism and people not cleaning up after pets'as.another problem-She said medium density would ruin her,view and she supported single-level,single-family-homes. Commissioner Kosewic askedif she objected to the church building 3—4 homes and she said she did not. Glenn Illian — also said he didn't object to 3 - 4 homes and did not support the Medium Density designation. He was concerned about the narrow access near the creek. He said the church should designate a specific area as low density and the,restas church property. He also supported expanding the park for later development. David Stone, 1817 Village East—said he had met with the church and supports;the churches' need for 3—4 homes. He would like the park,to continue from the south to the west. He felt the neighbors could work out a solution for the small triangular piece to purchase and maintain. Mr.Kelly said the"L"shaped area was part of the current driveway with a fire-hydrant and provides access to Ely without crossing chinch property. Commissioner Arras clarified than this area would not be developed and Mr. Kelly replied that with setbacks,creek,etc,nothing could be built. Rina Cresta, Village East.—said-she supports the church building single family dwellings. She stated that when she purchased her home it was with the understanding it would be park land and she opposed Medium Density and supported_Low Density. John Christensen,Rosemary Court—stated he did not support Medium density and wanted a park or leave as open space. - Dennis Staller, 1805 Village'East— mentioned flash flooding occurs in the area and did not want to see overdevelopment,he supported single-family-homes. PUBLIC COMMENT CLOSED COMMISSIONER COMMENT • Commissioner Mills'stated that since the landowner, neighbors, and the Cityy will accept the.Low Density Residential designation; he supported this he also wanted to include the City-owned northern portion as well in this designation. He said the site specific issues would be dealt with atthe project level. Council Member Nau agreed. Commissioner Arras agreed.with Commissioner Mills as well but was concerned with..the "L"portion and if it was necessary to redesignate it as Low Residential with the front portion remaining as institutional. He was concerned about development in the front near the swale. Commissioner Mills clarified that if the site is designated completely as Low Density Residential, when a site-specific project is proposed, restrictions will beplaced. • Commissioner Kosewic said the advantage in designating the "h" shape as low density, it would allow the entire"L"would go to•SPARC for sitespecific review. Commissioner Sullivan agreed. Chair,•Dargle said he would dissent becausethis parcel has come before the Commission in various forms. He felt it to leave it as is, and when a,projectis proposed,,a GP amendment could be adopted.: Commissioner Kosewic said he wasn't aware the City-owned parcel was part of this' and wondered'if proper noticing had been done: He felt the park,was'to remain a park and was a separate issue. Commissioner Mills?said that since this waspart of the General Plan discussion,no additional noticing:was necessary. He saidthe Draft GP designated the'parcel as medium and going to low would be agreeableto everyone concerned. He stated his designation would include the "L" section as low density residential.as well. Chair Dargie polled the Commission and found four in agreement to change to Low:Density Residential. Motioii:,Mills Second:Nau • Motion continue the;General plan and the LiasionrR'eports until next meeting December'12,.2006. Moved bIJohn Mills,seconded by Karen Nau. Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Yes: Will Dargie;TerryKosewic;John Mills;:Karen-Nau;'Kathy Miller;Christopher Arras;'Tanya Sullivan III. LIAISON REPORTS: Continued until next meeting(11:52 PM) a.City'Council:I Commissioner Nau . b.SPARC: Commissioner Mills c.Petaluma Bicycle Advisory Committee: Commissioner Arras' d.TreeAdvisory.Committee: Commissioner Sullivan Adjournment:(1'1:52 PM) •