Laserfiche WebLink
Paths Contid. - .-5- <br /> Commissioner Bowler commented on Item 5 of the ' Guidelides' relative to -' <br /> ( the acceptance of payment in lieu of construction of paths where there <br /> is little traffic which would permit pedestrians to walk. He stated <br /> that is :i£ the road is suitable for foot traffic, there is no need for <br /> construction of formal paths. <br /> The City Clerk stated that this has already been done ; but that he dis- <br /> agrees that there be no paths constructed along cul de sacs because <br /> the mothers will not like this ; they feel that their children should <br /> walk on protected paths. <br /> Commissioner Hawley disagreed with the City Clerk. <br /> The Mayor mentioned that the weed sterlization program might help in <br /> keeping paths in shake when shoulders are (;traded. <br /> ACTION: <br /> That after Commissioner Hawley and Mr. Salfen have discussed the <br /> existing path plan between themselves for not less than one hour <br /> and a half , the Council will have a Study Session to study the <br /> Path Plan. <br /> MOTION: Fowle ; SECOND : Bowler; VOTE: Passed unanimously <br /> 2. Subdivision Improvements. <br /> Mayor Clayton announced that this Item will be taken off the Agenda be- <br /> cause of legal implications , and will be discussed with the City Attorney. <br /> DIVISIONS OF LAND: <br /> 1. Cranston, Alan - Tract No. 3327. Engr. John W. Riley. <br /> The City Clerk stated that all conditions of approval have been com- <br /> plied with. <br /> ACTION : <br /> That the Final Map of Alan Cranston, Tract No 3327 be approved,. <br /> MOTION: Aiken; SECOND : Bowler; <br /> VOTE: AYES : Aiken, Bowler, Mayor Clayton <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSTAINED : Fowle <br /> ABSENT.: Henley <br /> ORDINANCES: <br /> • <br /> 1. Ordinance No. 84 - Underground Utilites. <br /> The City Attorney reported that he attended a Study Session with the <br /> Planning Commission at which the Underground Utilities Ordinance was <br /> discussed , and that , it was the consensus of opinion of the Commissioners <br /> 1 , that they did not have a clear mandate from the Council to proceed with <br /> drafting provisions to be added to the existing ordinance. In view of <br /> this , Mr. Faisant recommended that the Council issue specific instruct- <br /> ions to the Planning Commission as to what is desired. <br />