Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Mtg Minutes 09-02-1986 htgular Meeting September 2, 190u' - A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on September 2, 1986, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Mack, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Petty, Mack, and Raley, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, and Kevin J. Gailey, Senior Planner. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Mack led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, the minutes of the August 18, 1986, Planning Commission meeting were approved contingent upon correction of the second to the motion adopting Resolution 86-044, Kahler's Auto Repair, page 98. -Cm. Burnham seconded the motion, not Cm. Barnes, and this correction will be reflected in the mintues. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received three Final Action Letters for Conditional Use Permits which had been acted upon at the previous Planning Commission meeting. * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-6-103 September 2, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 86-024 Fallon School Site - Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map requests. Cm. Mack advised that a request had been received to continue Item 8.3, PA 86-024 Fallon School Site - Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Map, until the next Planning Commission meeting. Upon ascertaining that there were no members of the audience who desired to speak on this item, on motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, PA 86-024 Fallon School Site (Item 8.3 on the agenda) was continued until the Planning Commission meeting of September 15, 1986. SUBJECT: PA 86-074 Eagle's Nest Christian Fellow- ship Coggitional Use Permit request. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that the subject request was for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Church and Ministry Center occupancy in an M-1, Light Industrial District. He said the proposed uses were to include cassette tape duplication and distribution, production and printing of literature, and production of video cassettes. Mr. Gailey reviewed the surrounding land uses and zoning, and read Section 8-51.0, Light Industrial Districts: Intent, of the Zoning Ordinance. He advised the Commission of Staff's position that a Church and Ministry Center would be more appropriately located in a residential or other non-industrial district. Mr. Gailey expressed concern regarding the potential for heavy truck traffic in the subject area, and discussed several potential problems related to parking. Mr. Gailey stated that Staff thought a Conditional Use Permit for a Church Ministry Center in an M-1 District would be an inappropriate land use, and if approved, would set an inappropriate precedent for future requests. He advised that Staff was recommending the Commission adopt the Draft Resolution denying PA 86-074. Gary West, Applicant and Pastor of Eagle's Nest Christian Fellowship, addressed comments made by Staff and said that many communities have made provisions for churches to locate on non-traditional sites. Pastor West cited several incidences of this, including several cities in which churches had been authorized to locate in light industrial or office districts. He advised that under the specific proposal, only three parking spaces would initially be required during the work week by Eagle's Nest staff, and that he anticipated that no more than ten spaces would be required during the work week for the duration of their lease. Pastor West indicated that the primary Church activities take place on Sunday mornings and evenings and on Wednesday evenings, with occasional Saturday functions for a single's group, and that no more than 50 to 60 cars are anticipated to use the parking area in conjunction with those assembly uses, which are held at times when the parking lot is otherwise unoccupied. Pastor West displayed pictures of the surrounding vicinity taken during a weekend, which responded to Staff's concern regarding potential heavy truck traffic during the Church's hours of operation. He also said he thought heavy truck traffic would be unlikely during weekends because most trucking firms are unionized and, as a result, would not normally work weekends due to the exorbitant overtime salaries. Pastor West stated that traditionally churches have been located in places where traffic is heavy. He referred to Parkway Baptist Church on Village Parkway, Church of the Resurrection located on Amador Valley Boulevard, and Regular Meeting PCM-6-104 September 2, 1986 several others which al~ located on sites with heavy traLfic. Eagle's Nest's activities will be confined to the interior of and should not generate pedestrian vehicular conflicts. He said The the building, Pastor West also displayed a transparency of the parking areas and site plan obtained from the Property Owner. He advised that the main entrance to the lot would be to the rear of the building in which the Church would be housed, and that ushers would be present to direct traffic when services are scheduled. Pastor West referred to the Staff Report and advised that he believed the Church could benefit the adjacent tenants, in part by providing additional parking area in the back of the building during their hours of normal activity. He also said he believed the Church would benefit the spiritual needs of the community, and that potential homeowners often look for a local church to meet family needs prior to moving into the community, and that he thought the City of Dublin is "under-churched." He stated that if the request is approved, the Property Owner would also benefit, as the subject building has been vacant for a year. Bill Thorne, representing The Eagle's Nest and employed by Cushman & Wakefield, stated that he thought The Eagle's Nest would be an asset to the community. Robert Vigil, 7056 Portage Road, said he supported Pastor West's request, and that he thought the strength of a country is in the strength of the family, and that because Pastor West's Marriage Survival Courses have been utilized statewide, the City would profit if even one family benefitted from the courses. Steve Kirwin, 2279 Segundo Court, #1, Pleasanton, said he is the Single's Pastor for The Eagle's Nest, and that he is also a retailer at the Dublin Place Shopping Center. He stated that he believed the Church would be an asset to the community, and disagreed that the subject application would necessarily set a precedent. He referred to the Zion Lutheran Church in Pleasanton, which is located in an industrial area, and indicated its location had not established a precedent. He said The Eagle's Nest has a tape distri- bution center and has a good rapport with Viacom Cablevision. Mr. Kirwin urged the Planning Commision to authorize the plans. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed. After discussion, Cm. Raley made a motion that the request to permit a Church and Ministry Center occupancy in an M-1, Light Industrial District, be denied. He stated that he did not object to the addition of a church in the City of Dublin, but that he did not believe an M-1 District to be an appropriate location. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. Cm. Mack stated that she believed The Eagle's-Nest would be more appropriately located elsewhere, but because no alternate location had been proposed, she moved that the Conditional Use Permit request, PA 86-074, be approved, contingent upon the preparation of the appropriate Findings and Conditions of Approval. Cm. Burnham seconded the motion, and the motion passed by a four to one vote. Cm. Raley opposed the motion. Regular Meeting PCM-6-105 September 2, 1986 In response to an inqu~.y from Mr. Gailey, Cm. Mack adv~~ed that the request should be approved for a three-year period to be in conjunction with the lease on the subject property, that the hours of operation would be Sunday mornings and evenings, and Wednesday and Saturday evenings, and that the tenant occu- pancy during the regular work day would not involve more than ten employees and/or volunteers. Mr. Gailey stated that Staff has regularly been recommending imposition of a one-year review period for Conditional Use Permits in order to provide an opportunity to review the land use activities, and, if necessary, to impose additional restrictions after the land use activities have been in place for a one-year period. Cm. Mack indicated she would agree with a one-year review period. In response to a suggestion from Cm. Raley for Staff to give direction regarding building improvements, Mr. Gailey advised that the majority of the improvements have been installed by Zendex,__and that the bulk of tenant work would be located on the southern portion of the building. Mr. Gailey stated that the Building Inspector had advised the Applicant of reservations related to the Building Code requirements dealing with occupancy loads, which may impact the size of the services, but advised that the Planning Staff and Building Department Staff will review this item. Pastor West indicated that the only tenant improvements planned by the Church are those necessary to comply with Building and Fire Codes, and that very little construction would occur. Mr. Gailey stated that Staff must verify the parking calculations presented by Pastor West, and advised that if they are not adequate to comply with the parking requirements, a continuance of the hearing may be necessary to resolve parking concerns, or a numerical parking Variance application would need to be pursued. Pastor West said that the lease for the property becomes effective September 15, 1986, and asked for clarification of the time frame in which they may be permitted to occupy the building. Mr. Gailey responded that it may be possible to prepare a resolution and handle this request at the September 15, 1986, Planning Commission meeting, but that even if the Commission adopts the Resolution and authorizes the Conditional Use Permit, the building may not be occupied by the Applicant until the 10-day appeal period has passed, and then only if no appeal has been received and Building Code requirements and Conditions of Approval have been met. He said that, in that case, the first day of occupancy would be September 25, 1986. SUBJECT: PA 86-058 Pulte Homes Corporation - Stedman & Associates Tentative Map 5588 request. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised the Commission that a revised application had been sub- mitted by Pulte Homes Corporation which proposes the creation of 25 single family residential lots (instead of 26 as originally submitted), and which shifts the lots previously shown along Betlen Drive back into the center of the project. He also stated that a change in the grading plan had been sub- mitted, which would place all the lots at one basic pad elevation. Mr. Gailey advised that with the proposed changes, Staff believed the major directives from the previous Planning Commission meetings had been accommodated. Regular Meeting PCM-6-106 September 2, 1986 Mr. Gailey reviewed tht revised plans, and stated that ~(aff's major remaining concern was associated with the potential visibility of future residential units from the adjoining section of 1-580; 'or as they appear above the ridge- line as viewed from the City's major aterials lying to the east of the site. He advised that Staff recommended that no action be taken on the project until visual studies have been prepared by the Applicant to allow a careful assessment of potential visual impacts. There was discussion regarding landscape maintenance, and Mr. Gailey advised that direction from the City Engineer had been received which included a recommendation that the Developer bear the maintenance responsibility for the landscaping and irrigation system. Mr. Gailey said that a common open space area was not envisioned by the Applicant to be created for the project, and that it did not appear that a lighting and landscape assessment district would be a viable means of insuring upkeep of these improvements for a project of the size proposed. Mr. Steele, Forward Planner for Pulte Homes Corporation, addressed areas of concern that he thought remained unsolved. In particular, Mr. Steele referred to the question of visual impacts, and said that the Developer was willing to listen to the concerns of adjacent property owners and to work with Staff in this regards, and that it is the Developer's intent to provide landscaping adequate to create a very dense foliage cover which would mitigate the identi- fied potential visual impacts within a few years. He said that he hoped the Commission would consider and approve the application, and advised that the Developer would be willing to form whatever agency the Commission considered appropriate for landscape and irrigation maintenance (i.e., an assessment district, homeowners association, or to include conditions within the CC&R's). Mr. Steele indicated that he had concerns regarding several of the Conditions of Approval. He requested that the phrase in Condition #19, "tying to the Black Reservoir and construction of a new pumping facility", be deleted, and that a statement be included stating that the development's water service be developed "in a manner approved by the DSRSD." Regarding Condition #29, Mr. Steele stated that he thought it would be virtually impossible to insure that the proposed units will not be visible from the adjoining 1-580 traffic corridor nor appear above the City's southwestern ridgeline as viewed from the City's major arterials lying to the east of the site, and he requested that the portion of Condition #29 imposing these requirements be modified or deleted. Mr. Steele requested that the minimum depth for the setback of slopes from the public right-of-way be changed from the five feet referred to in Condition #31 to a three foot minimum. Mr. Steele requested that Condition #44 be modified to include a statement to the effect that the location of the sound wall shall be as determined necessary by the acoustical study. Mr. Steele referred to Attachment #8, Item #3 (memorandum from the City Engineer dated August 25, 1986), and asked that Condition #77 (subsequently renumbered as Condition #78) be modified to give the City Engineer discre- tionary authority on how the item will be enforced (referred to site drainage at the southern property boundary). Regular Meeting PCM-6-107 September 2, 1986 Ed Galigher, 2220 Grouse way, Union City, Owner and Deve~Jper of Tract 4929, said he had the following concerns regarding the proposed project: 1) landscaping - he requested that an additional condition be added insuring that the landscaping on the eastern slopes would.be the same as that required for Valley Christian Center; 2) the Site Development Review process - he said he desired to have the submittal made available to the general public, and that he believed adjacent property owners should be made aware of what occurs during the Site Develoment Review process. Glenna Stoffager, Betlen Drive resident, referred to a letter she had received from Betty and Ken Moore, residents who were unable to attend the meeting. She said they had expressed a desire that the Developer be responsible for maintaining the landscaping until the plants are well-established. She advised of the Moore's suggestion regarding a backyard fence. She indicated that the Moores were requesting that the cul-de-sac be designed to be more than a large, 900 turn, and that one-story homes be included in the develop- ment, which would be consistent with other homes in the area, and that those one story homes be located in the areas of high visibility. She said the Moores were requesting an assessment district be established for long term maintenance of the landscaping rather than a homeowners' association. Dolores Felton, 11250 Betlen Drive, said she and her husband were still con- cerned that the back yards of some of the proposed lots would face Betlen Drive. She stated that she thought this lotting arrangement would do nothing to mitigate existing parking problems on Friday evenings along Betlen Drive and would increase the problems associated with litter. She also indicated that she thought there should be use of both one and two story homes. Regard- ing landscaping, she said that she hoped no plans were being pursued to plant euctalyptus trees. Jim Cuellar, 7385 Hansen Drive, said he had concerns regarding the question of use of an assessment district or a homeowner's association. He stated that he had been involved with CC&R's, and that in the case of projects of the size of the proposed project, modification to the CC&R's can be made by a simple majority vote. He said he was concerned that with use of C.C. & R. control, the City may not maintain an adequate degree of control over the project's landscape maintenance five or more years in the future. Mr. Cuellar indicated that he was also concerned about the potential visual impacts of the project. Tom Fahey, resident on Betlen Drive, reiterated his concerns about improvement clubs (such as homeowner's associations) and said that in his opinion they have never been effective, and that another method for assuring landscape and irrigation maintenance should be developed. In response to an inquiry from Cm. Burnham, Mr. Steele said that the market place, as related to larger homes, was for two-story units, but that the Developer would be willing to place single story units on some of the lots if determined necessary to mitigate potential visual impacts. Cm. Raley requested that consideration be given to use of single story units along the southwest corner of the proposed project (Lots 17, 18 and 19). Mr. Tong advised that Lot 16 might also necessitate use of a single story unit. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Petty, and by a unanimous vote, the public hearing was closed. Regular Meeting PCM-6-108 September 2, 1986 . -",'f..T.;:>::;:,...".>.. Cm. Raley stated that he thought the City should be invo~ved in the means of assuring the maintenance of the open space landscaping. Mr. Gailey referred to Condition #73, which limits the Developer's responsibility for maintaining the landscaping to a two-year period. Mr. Gailey suggested that a condition similar to one imposed on the Developer for the Villages at Alamo Creek be incorporated into the Conditions for the proposed development to address land- scape and irrigation maintenance. Cm. Raley expressed his concerns regarding potential project visibility from the 1-580 corridor, and stated that he did not have a concern regarding visibility from the core of Dublin. Mr. Gailey advised that the City Attorney had provided direction indicating that the Planning Commission had the option to require submittal of a Site Development review for the proposed project. Cm. Raley indicated his preference for single-story units on certain lots to minimize visibility of the development as viewed from the 1-580 corridor. Mr. Gailey stated that Condition #29 could be revised to provide review of the configuration of the lots at the southern pLDperty boundary to allow use of single story units. Regarding Condition #19, Mr. Gailey suggested that Condition #19 remain as it is written, but that a statement be added "or as determined otherwise acceptable". Mr. Gailey indicated that Staff would agree to the requested change for Condition #31. The Commission requested that an Area 5 be defined and added to Condition #73 to entail the east property boundary. Mr. Gailey asked for the ability at the Staff level to specify that it be the responsibility of the Developer to install appropriate irrigation systems, and to direct that the systems be developed as individual systems for each lot involved with dense project landscaping. Cm. Raley stated that he thought that project perimeter fencing should be at the top of the slopes rather than the toe for Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Steele said he was in agreement with this suggestion. The Commissioners stated their consensus that no fence should be installed along the toe of the slope along Betlen Drive. Mr. Steele said he thought some type of fence should be installed to prevent people from walking through the area. Mr. Tong referred to the Zoning Ordinance which permits the property owners to install fences along the streets up to a maximum height of four feet. At the request of the Commission, Mr. Steele stated that a condition would be written into the CC&R's prohibiting the installation of fences at the toe of the slope. Mr. Gailey referred to Attachment 3 (Letter dated August 28, 1986, directed to Mr. Steele), and asked for Mr. Steele's concurrence with the letter as it relates to the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Steele indicated his agreement contingent upon the modification of item l.b. on page 2 of the letter, as it related to project development visibility from the 1-580 corridor. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, Resolution No. 86-047 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environ- mental Significance for PA 86-058 Pulte Homes Corporation was approved contingent upon the addition of a paragraph relating to the Zoning/Visual Resources Section of the Initial Study of Environmental Significance. Regular Meeting PCM-6-109 September 2, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86-047 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR TIIE SUBDIVISION MAP (TENTATIVE MAP 5588) REQUEST FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 25 LOTS PROPOSED FOR AN 8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG TIIE SOUTH SIDE OF TIIE TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE, REQUESTED UNDER PA 86-058 PULTE HOMES CORPORATION On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, Resolution No. 86-048 approving Tentative Map 5588 concerning PA 86-058 Pulte Homes Corporation was adopted with amendments to the Draft Resolution to provide for the following: Condition #19: Addition of a statement indicating that the development shall be subject to the requirements of the DSRSD - Fire Department, as stated in the DSRSD letters of March 24, 1986, and August 26, 1986. Condition #29: Modification to require th~-residential units developed on Lots 16 through 19 be of a single-story design unless the Developer can demonstrate through the Site Development Review process that necessary project design changes have been satisfactorily incorporated into the project to address the goal of minimizing the visual impact of the project as viewed from the adjoining 1-580 traffic corridor. Condition #31: Revised to decrease the m~n~mum required depth of the flat and level area extending away from the project's Betlen Drive frontage from five feet to three feet. Condition #68: Modified to prohibit fencing from being developed at the toe of the slope along Betlen Drive (with an exception for Lot 1), and that the fencing developed at the rear of the pads established for Lots 1, 3, 4 and 5, be located at the top of the slope located along Betlen Drive. Condition #73: Revisions to establish a new area (Landscape Area #5), which is to include the rear slopes of Lots 11 through 15. In addition, a new Condition was added which was to be drafted to be similar to that stipulated in the Conditions for Villages at Alamo Creek in regards to the ongoing maintenance of landscaping and irrigation installed in Landscape Area #1. RESOLUTION NO. 86-048 APPROVING TENTATIVE MAP 5588 CONCERNING PA 86-058 PULTE HOMES CORPORATION - BETLEN DRIVE FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 25 LOTS PROPOSED OVER AN 8.4+ ACRE PROPERTY FRONTING ALONG TIIE SOUTH SIDE OF TIIE TERMINUS OF BETLEN DRIVE On motion by Cm. Raley at 11:00 p.m., seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a unanimous vote, the Commission extended the Planning Commission meeting for one half of an hour and to hear Item 8.4, PA 86-049 San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment Study. SUBJECT: PA 86-049 San Ramon Road Specific Plan Amendment study. Cm. Mack opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Gailey advised that as a result of direction provided by the Commission at the previous Planning Commission meeting, the Draft Resolution recommending approval by the City Council of an Amendment to the San Ramon Road Specific Regular Me'eting PCM-6-11 0 September 2, 1986 Plan was revised as follows: 1) text was deleted which would have provided for the formation of Area 3B, which would have permitted that portion of the Plan to be developed predominantly by Office-type-Uses, and 2) text was provided amending the Land Use Plan Section of the Specific Plan to permit limited occupancy (25% maximum) in Area 3 of the Plan by Personal Service, Financial and Office Uses, regardless of property size. Myron Crawford, Representative, expressed his disappointment at the Planning Commission's consensus vote at the previous meeting and their failure to support Option I-A, adjusting the allowable land uses for the 1.4+ acre Moret property by creation and adoption of a new Sub-Area for Area 3 of the Specific Plan. Mr. Crawford stated that he thought the subject site is best suited for Office-type Uses, and that the action that was taken placing a restriction of no more than 25% Office-type Uses works against the original intent of the Specific Plan. He said that Mr. Moret had purchased the property prior to the creation of the San Ramon Road Specific Plan, and that at that time, the property was zoned C-l. Mr. Crawford expressed concern related to the physical limitations of the property, and discussed impacts he thought would adversely affect the project if a shared driveway was required to be utilized off of San Ramon Road. Mr. Crawford also expressed concern regarding new language dealing with the refinement and location of pedestrian and bicycle easements. He said there is an existing easement along the south side of the Hayward Fisheries property which could potentially be used for a pedestrian/ ,bicycle path. Mr. Jerry Lem, representing the Commercial Ltd. property, said there are three easements covering the property he was representing, and that a building was already on it. He said if the zoning for the Commercial Ltd. property was changed, he thought it would be most feasible to change it to a C-1 District. Cm. Mack closed the public hearing. Cm. Petty said he had reversed his opinion, and would like to see the Moret property be allowed to be develped with up to 100% Office Uses, with an optional, maximum occupancy by Retail Shopper Uses of 25%. Cm. Barnes advised that she was opposed to designating the subject site for development with Office Uses, and said she supported the adoption of the Draft Resolution submitted by Staff. Cm. Burnham said he was confused by the Commission's action at the previous meeting, and that he was is in agreement with Cm. Petty, that the Moret site should be authorized for up to 100% Office Uses, with a 25% "cap" for Retail Shopper Uses. Cm. Raley stated that he thought the site should retain the Retail Shopper Use designation, and advised that he had been against the Specific Plan Amendment granted for the Town & Country Shopping Center. Cm. Mack said she had decided she would also prefer to have the subject property redesignated for Office Uses. Cm. Raley made a motion that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt Exhibit B, a Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the San Ramon Road Specific Plan, amending Area 3 to incude up to 25% occupancy by Personal Service, Financial or Office Uses and to adjust the Circulation System Section and General Regular Meeting PCM-6-111 September 2, 1986 Development Criteria Sections of the Specific Plan. motion. The motion failed due to a lack of majority Cm. Mack and Cm. Petty opposed the motion.-} Cm. rlarnes seconded the votes. (Cm. Burnham, In compliance with Planning Commission procedures, on motion by Cm. Raley and seconded by Cm. Petty, the Planning Commission meeting was continued for an additional 30 mintues. After further discussion, Cm. Petty moved that the Commission adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance. The motion died due to a lack of a second. Cm. Raley moved, and Cm. Barnes seconded that the meeting be adjourned. However, after discussion, Cm. Raley withdrew his motion and Cm. Barnes withdrew her second. Cm. Petty moved that the public hearing fo~PA 86-049, San Ramon Road Specific Plan Study, be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. Cm. Burnham seconded the motion. Mr. Tong advised that Staff had desired to place the Specific Plan Amendment Study for the Moret property and the Planned Devlepoment Rezoning and Site Development Review requests for The Fishery in Dublin on the agenda for the next City Council meeting. Cm. Petty withdrew his motion to continue the public hearing for the Specific Plan Amendment Study, and Cm. Burnham withdrew his second. Cm. Raley resubmitted his previous motion that the Draft Resolution as presented in Exhibit B of the Staff Report be approved. Cm. Barnes seconded the motion. The motion failed due to a lack of majority votes. (Cm. Petty and Cm. Burnham opposed the motion; Cm. Mack abstained from voting.) Mr. Tong suggested that the Commission had an option to forward the request for the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Study for the Moret property to the City Council without coming to a consensus. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a three to two consensus, the Commission voted to forward the San Ramon Road Specific Plan Study for the Moret property to the City Council without a Planning Commission recommendation, but including comments made by the Planning Commission at the public hearings. A roll call vote was taken: Ayes - Brian Raley, Valerie Barnes, Eddie Jo Mack; Noes - Dave Petty, Bill Burnham. SUBJECT: PA 86-053 The Fishery in Dublin - Planned Development Rezoning and Site Development Review requests. On motion by Cm. Raley, seconded by Cm. Barnes, and by a unanimous vote, Item 8.5, PA 86-053 The Fishery in Dublin, was continued to the Planning Commisison meeting of September 15, 1986. * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-6-112 September 2, 1986 NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS None. * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS None. * * * *-- ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. * * * * Respectfully submitted, dbr~~ Laurence L. To~~_ U Planning Director . * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-6-113 September 2, 1986