Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3... MATIERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />8.L Future Planninl! Calendar <br /> <br />Mr. Swift advised that there is potential for a special worksh <br />September and asked the Planning Commissioners to review <br />possible dates. <br /> <br />8..h... Actions of the Citv Council <br /> <br />sometime in early <br />eir calendars for <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh inquired about the resolution of the extensio of Mirador and what <br />happened on the Ridgelands issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift stated that the Council voted to leave the extension of M' <br />which means the street will be open by the time the subdivision is <br />General Plan Amendment that was then referred to the General P <br />review of the Mirador connection to Bernal as part of the city-wide <br />review which they will be doing as part of the General Plan Update <br /> <br /> <br />or Drive status quo, <br />mplete, but initiated a <br />Steering Committee for <br />irculation element <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh inquired whether the Ridgelands agreement 'th the City of Hayward <br />would be placed on the ballot or if only the General Plan Amendm t will be on the ballot. <br />Mr. Swift responded by saying only the General Plan Amendment i on the ballot. The <br />initiative includes the general plan language, basically as recommen ed by the committee, <br />with a few modifications. He noted that Alameda County approved e agreement in <br />concept. <br /> <br />1& Actions of the Zoninl! Administrator <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh inquired if the installation of railroad tracks Z-93-l22, Ed Churka, <br />for the Pleasanton Railroad Association) would in any way impact 0 future parking or future <br />use of the transportation corridor. Mr. Swift stated that the tracks ould go back where the <br />old ones used to be, in the center of the corridor. There is no parki g in that corridor now. <br />Alameda County has told staff numerous times they will not support that area for City <br />parking. <br /> <br />M <br /> <br />Determination of whether second units are subject to the 1 <br />of PUD-approved building envelopes according to the Stat <br />and City Ordinance. <br /> <br />Continued to 9/8/93. <br /> <br />2.. COMMUNICATIONS <br /> <br />There were none. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />tional requirements <br />Government Code <br />