Laserfiche WebLink
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS: <br /> 1. Pedestrian Rights-of-Way - Junirero Serra Freeway. <br /> Commissioner Garbett , after attending a meeting of the Division <br /> of Highways in regard to Junipero Serra Freeway plans , stated <br /> there were no equestrian, pedestrian or bicycle crossings at the <br /> interchanges planned by the State Highway Commission. <br /> The Mayor explained that the equestrian trails at Robleda, Elena <br /> and Magdalena were obtainedduring discussion with the State and <br /> are included in the Freeway agreement . The City Attorney explained <br /> that due to the fact that no streets would be cut off during the <br /> course of construction of the Freeway, that the Town had no <br /> bargaining power to request these additional walkways. <br /> OLD BUSINESS : <br /> 1. Page Mill Estates - Entry Gates. <br /> Mr. T. Gamboa, representing Page Mill Development Co. , reiterated <br /> that the intent of their sign was not advertising but solely for <br /> identification purposes only. <br /> In view of the recommendation of the Planning Commission and after <br /> a further review of the intent of the sign ordinance , the following <br /> action was taken: - <br /> ACTION: <br /> That the City Staff be instructed to inform the <br /> subdivider, Page Mill Development Co. , that the <br /> lettering on the brick structure in front of Page <br /> Mill Estates is in violation of Ordinance No. 42 <br /> and must be removed. <br /> MOTION: Fowle ; SECOND : Bowler; VOTE: Passed. unanimously. <br /> 2. Robert B. Ward - Appeal of Underground Utility Requirement in <br /> Tract No. 3505. <br /> As directed by the Council October '7, 1963 , the City Manager <br /> reported a transformer installation is best suitedto be above <br /> ground, pad mounted , generally 2x3 ' , and properly landscared by <br /> the developer. <br /> Mr. Robert B. Ward was present and explained the location of the <br /> proposed additional 3 poles, of his desire to retain the natural <br /> beauty of the land, that there were no objections from surrounding <br /> property owners , and of the hardship due to cost per lot for under- <br /> ground utilities. <br /> ,�-I� It was the opinion. of the Council that it was not in a position to <br /> vary from the present ordinance . <br /> -2- <br />