HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 25 2016
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0425.doc 6/29/16 1
Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL
Minutes of Special Meeting of Thursday, April 25, 2016
1. ADMINISTRATIVE
A. Call to Order. Chairman Ann Duwe called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
B. Members/Associates present: Jim Basiji (arrived 8:00 pm), Alisa Bredo (left 8:00 pm), Weegie
Caughlan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Vic Hesterman, Breene Kerr, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch, Denise
Williams
Members/Associates absent: Eileen Gibbons (Member); Bob Stutz, Rachelle Mirkin, Tim Warner
(Associates)
Council Liaison present: John Radford
Council Members Present: Courtenay Corrigan
LAH Staff Present: Carl Cahill, City Manager
Steve Mattas, City Attorney
Members of Public Present: Kjell Karlsson (Traffic Safety Committee, Finance Committee)
Scott Vanderlip (LAH Parks and Recreation Committee)
Heinz Blennemann (Berkshire Drive)
Susan Chappell (Terry Way)
Bud Cristal (Mora Drive)
Gerda Cristal (Mora Drive)
Alan Epstein (Ravensbury Avenue)
Suzanne Epstein (Ravensbury Avenue)
Hal Feeney (Mora Drive)
Gary Gorchak (Old Ranch Road)
Donald McCauley (Ravensbury Avenue)
Brian Mahbod (Mora Drive)
Dominic McCarthy (West Loyola Drive)
R. Minton (Mora Drive)
Miro Muller (Sunsor Drive)
Rosemarie Nahm (Mora Drive)
Farzin Shakib (Arroyo Oaks)
Kathy Woodhall (Berkshire Drive)
C. Approval of Agenda. AD reported that Item 3C (PWC recommendations for unresolved areas from
2005 MPP update) is continued to a later meeting. The agenda was approved as amended to continue
Item 3A (discussion of pathway CIP projects) until the next meeting. WC moved, SW seconded and the
vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, VH, BK, BM, SW, DW). BK moved to modify the
agenda to move Item 1D (approval of minutes) to end. SW seconded and vote was unanimously in favor
(AB, WC, ND, AD, VH, BK, BM, SW, DW).
D. Approval of Minutes. Minutes for PWC meeting of 3/31/16 were approved with minor amendments.
WC moved, ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, WC, ND, AD, VH, BK, BM,
SW, DW). Minutes for PWC meeting of 4/14/16 were approved with minor amendments. SW moved,
DW seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, WC, ND, AD, VH, BK, BM, SW, DW).
2. Properties for Review
The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations
A. 25975 Alicante Lane (Lands of Zeisler and Bailey; APN 175-34-039; #94-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for
pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the
south side of Alicante, a public cul-de-sac (TR#6097) serving 7 lots with no existing or future off-road
paths exiting from it. The PWC working reference map shows an existing roadside path on this side of
Alicante on the adjacent parcel to the west. No existing pathway easements were identified for the
parcel in a limited record search. PWC discussed options. WC moved that PWC recommend the
Town request the developers of 25975 Alicante Lane to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. BM seconded
and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, VH, BK, BM, SW, DW).
B. 13210 East Sunset (Lands of Wu Family Trust; APN 175-27-019; #109-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for
pathway review is construction of a new residence. The parcel is on the east side of East Sunset (a
public cul-de-sac serving 15 lots) near the end of the cul-de-sac. No existing pathway easements were
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0425.doc 6/29/16 2
identified for the parcel in a limited record search. Roadside paths exist on the same side of East Sunset
on 13300 East Sunset and the East Sunset frontage of 13241 Burke Road. An existing off-road path
connecting to the end of West Sunset exits from the end of East Sunset. Mike Muller, project manager,
was present representing the developer. He said the road is narrow and the back (east) side is sloped. He
asked for information about in-lieu fees. PWC members discussed whether a roadside path was needed
and whether a connection down the eastern border to connect to an existing path in Los Altos was
feasible. Although this parcel is very close to one of the six unresolved areas that will be revisited as
part of the MPP update, City Attorney reported that because the 2005 MPP map does not show an off-
road easement in this location, the Town cannot require one as a condition of development. City
Manager Carl Cahill suggested the developer could voluntarily offer an off-road easement, but unless a
path is built may still have to pay an in-lieu fee. The homeowner will meet with staff and PWC Chair to
discuss whether he wants to dedicate a voluntary pathway easement. WC moved that the PWC defer
recommendation until further information is obtained about the in-lieu fee and a potential off-
road path. BK seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, VH, BK, BM,
SW, DW).
C. 26062 Todd Lane (Lands of Johnson Living Trust; APN 175-24-062; #95-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for
pathway review is construction of guesthouse and pool. Developer was not present. The parcel is on the
south side of Todd Lane, a public cul-de-sac serving 11 lots. No existing pathway easements were
identified for the parcel in a limited record search. PWC reviewed this parcel on 4/26/10 with a
recommendation to construct a IIB path along the Todd frontage. However, no path was constructed and
trees and shrubs were planted in the road ROW where a path would be located. An off-road path
connecting to the back of Gardiner Bullis School exits from the end of the Todd cul-de-sac. The PWC
working reference map indicates this side of Todd is the preferred side for a roadside path. In Mar 2014,
PWC reviewed the adjacent parcel at 26096 Todd and recommended construction of IIB roadside path
along the Todd (and La Paloma) frontage. WC moved that the PWC recommend the Town require
the developers of 26062 Todd Lane to construct a IIB path in the road ROW along the Todd
frontage. VH seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, VH, BK, BM,
SW, DW).
D. 14975 Page Mill Road (Lands of John Paul Ho; APN 182-32-024; #115-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for
pathway review is construction of a major addition and sports court. The developer was present but
declined to speak. The parcel is on the west side of Page Mill Road at the intersection with Paseo del
Roble with frontages on both streets. Page Mill is designated to have roadside paths on both sides and
has heavy auto and bicycle traffic. The PWC working reference map indicates existing roadside paths
on both frontages. PWC has not recently reviewed other parcels in the immediate area. PWC discussed
the importance of providing safe roadside paths along this busy road and whether a native or IIB path
was appropriate along the Paseo del Roble frontage. BK moved that PWC recommend the Town
require the developers of 14975 Page Mill Road to restore the existing roadside paths along the
Page Mill Road and Paseo del Roble frontages to IIB standards after construction is completed.
ND seconded and the vote was 7 in favor (AB, ND, AD, VH, BK, SW, DW) and 2 opposed (WC,
BM).
E. 10842 West Loyola (Lands of Lloyd Ho, APN 331-21-002; #117-16-ZP-SD-GD). WC and BM recused
themselves for proximity and left the table. Developer was not present. This vacant parcel is on the east
side of West Loyola. City Attorney Steve Mattas advised PWC to follow Council direction of 06/06/16
for making pathway recommendations for parcels in annexed areas for which no MPP map exists, which
is to accept a pathway in-lieu fee until an updated MPP is approved. Council Liaison Radford elaborated
a condition of the directive that the Town may elect to, after the pathways system is put in [MPP is
amended], to require a pathway, in which case the in-lieu fee would be refunded and the pathway
requirement would be implemented. The “straw man” draft map of 4/14/16 has two errors in this area:
1) the parcels shown as 10850 and 10858 West Loyola should be 10842 and 10850, respectively; 2), the
arrow indicating a proposed future off-road path to eventually connect to Eastbrook is shown going into
10836 West Loyola Drive. The correct location for the arrow is along the border between 10840 and
10842 West Loyola (corrected addresses). A 20-ft wide driveway easement connecting to Eastbrook
runs along the eastern border of the parcel and a future off-road path through the parcel connecting West
Loyola to Eastbrook may be proposed as part of the MPP map update. BK moved that for 10842 West
Loyola PWC recommend the Town require payment of a pathway in-lieu fee and ask that the
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0425.doc 6/29/16 3
condition specified by Council directive of April 6, 2016 be placed on this property to reserve the
ability to require that the in-lieu fee be returned and a pathway easement dedicated and/or a path
built if the amended the path is on the amended MPP map. This revision can be made only up
until the time the developers receive a certificate of occupancy. AB seconded and the vote was 7 in
favor (AB, ND, AD, VH, BK, SW, DW) and 2 recused (WC, BM).
3. OLD BUSINESS
A. Acknowledgement of undifferentiated CIP list. Continued until next meeting.
B. Review of Draft Maps for Master Path Plan (MPP) Map Update.
Council Liaison John Radford reminded attendees that PWC makes recommendations—not final
decisions—for the MPP map update. PWC recommendations will go to Planning Commission for
review and approval or modification, and then to City Council, who are responsible for final decisions.
PWC members WC and BM recused themselves for proximity from discussion and votes on the
West Loyola, Mora Drive, and Ravensbury annexation areas and left the table.
Chair AD showed slides (Attachment A) reviewing fundamentals of the LAH pathway system,
objectives of the MPP map update, the process for the update; and work done to date by the MPP
subcommittee. In Jan 2015, Council directed PWC to update the MPP map to include proposed paths in
areas of Town annexed since the 2005 MPP update. A subcommittee of five PWC members was formed
to create a first rough draft maps, which were presented to PWC on April 14, 2016. PWC members were
asked to make site visits to map areas. At tonight’s meeting, PWC will discuss the straw man draft maps
and vote on a draft map to be sent to Planning Commission and City Council for further review and
discussion.
AD’s presentation summarized MPP map requirements as specified in LAH ordinances and General
Plan and contributions to the pathway system that may be required by developers at the time of site
development. Council approval is required for MPP maps showing 1) roads with paths planned on both
sides and 2) proposed future needed off-road paths. Since 1981, the MPP map indicates roads with a
roadside path planned on one side with a green line down the middle of the road. This is because
ordinances specify the side of the road is determined at the time of site development. Council approval
is not required for the more detailed PWC Working Reference Map, which is provisional and advisory
only and serves as a general, non-binding reference document for PWC. The MPP also includes maps of
pathway easements dedicated to the Town and built path segments.
Two draft maps prepared by the subcommittee and presented to PWC on 04/14/16 were shown. One
map (Attachment B) indicates parts of Town annexed since the 2005 MPP map update (Ravensbury, La
Loma, Olive Tree, West Loyola, and Mora Drive) and shows: 1) roads proposed to have roadside paths
(i.e., in the road right-of way, over the pavement, or on easements on private land); and 2) arrows
indicating the general location for proposed future off-road paths. After PWC review and approval by
vote, a version of this map will be sent to the Planning Commission and Council for public comment
and review. The final version approved by Council will be amended to the General Plan. The second
map (Attachment C) is the draft map showing additions to the Working Reference Map in the newly
annexed areas. It shows streets with paths proposed over the pavement; streets with provisional
preferred side for roadside paths, and general locations for proposed future off-road routes.
Council Member Radford clarified that property owners are required to make a contribution to the
pathway system (e.g., an in-lieu fee, path, or easement) only at the time of a major development project
as specified by ordinance.
Chair AD reviewed the draft maps street-by-street beginning with the Ravensbury, West Loyola,
and Mora annexation areas. Paths proposed on the draft map are summarized below and in the attached
table (Attachment D).
Ravensbury Annexation
Roadside paths are proposed on both sides of Ravensbury from the intersection with Magdalena to
Arroyo Oaks. This section has a fair amount of traffic from multiple feeder streets and is a relatively
straight road where speeding is common. Several parcels on this part of Ravensbury already have IIB
roadside paths. From Arroyo Oaks to the intersection with West Loyola roadside paths are proposed for
one side only.
Easements conferring public access over the pavement are proposed on Crestridge, Old Ranch Road,
Old Ranch Lane, Hillpark Lane, and Arroyo Oaks. The map proposes a future off-road path on the
existing path connecting Ravensbury to Par and on the Foothills subdivision equestrian/pedestrian
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0425.doc 6/29/16 4
easements that are now private easements (stars on map). City Attorney provided information on how
this conversion could be done.
West Loyola Annexation
Two errors on the “straw man” draft map of 4/14/16 on West Loyola were corrected: 1) the parcels
shown as 10850 and 10858 West Loyola should be 10842 and 10850, respectively; 2), the arrow
indicating a proposed future off-road path to eventually connect to Eastbrook is shown going into 10836
West Loyola Drive. The correct location for the arrow is along the border between 10840 and 10842
West Loyola (corrected addresses).
Roadside paths are proposed on the south side of West Loyola from intersection with Ravensbury to
Sunhills. The shoulder is wide and flat over most of this section and can easily accommodate a roadside
path. A IIB roadside path in the ROW has been installed at 10300 Ravensbury and one was requested on
10180 West Loyola. A roadside path is proposed on the west side of West Loyola from Sunhills to the
Berkshire, where the topography can better accommodate path and paths would be further from homes.
From Berkshire around the sharp curve (at 10855 West Loyola) and down to Eastbrook, the roadside
path is proposed on the side of West Loyola. From the sharp curve northwards, the opposite (east) side
of the road is not in LAH. The map proposes easements conferring public access over the pavement on
Eloise Circle and Rolly (private roads), and a roadside path along the south side of Berkshire (where the
path will be further from homes). Although the topography along this narrow winding road is somewhat
steep, it is similar to many areas of LAH where roadside paths have been built.
Arrows indicating future off-road paths are proposed between Eloise Circle and Arroyo Oaks and from
West Loyola to Eastbrook (two locations) as alternatives to roadside paths on the lower (north) part of
West Loyola. (PWC members suggested removing the arrows indicating proposed future off-road
route between Eloise and Arroyo Oaks and the between 10840 and 10842 West Loyola, and instead
placing arrows along the northeast border of 10842 West Loyola.)
Mora Drive Annexation
Roadside paths are proposed on the east side of Mora from the end of the cul-de-sac at the Rancho San
Antonio County Park entrance to just past the intersection with Sunhills. From there north to the LAH
border a roadside path is proposed on the west side of Mora. A roadside path is proposed on the west
side of Sunhills. Easements conferring public access over the pavement are recommended for the part of
Kenbar (private road) that is in LAH. An arrow indicating the general location of a possible future off-
road path is shown from the end of Terry Way towards the east side of the West Loyola annexation area
in the event that lower Mora Drive is annexed to LAH. This area is in the LAH Sphere of Influence and
has been prezoned for annexation.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Public Comment. The following public comments were made on the draft maps proposed for
Ravensbury, West Loyola, and Mora Drive areas.
Unidentified resident (Ravensbury Ave) spoke in opposition to pathways on Ravensbury, citing issues
of loss of privacy, reduced security, robbers, loss of roadside landscaping, additional noise from
pedestrians and barking dogs, and reduction in home prices.
Katherine Woodhall (10465 Berkshire Drive) said she sent a letter stating none of the 63 property
owners in the West Loyola annexation area want roadside pathways, but want to walk in the road as
they have done for 75 years.
Unidentified resident (Hilltop) said he has never seen anyone use the pathway easements on Hilltop and
does not want people walking there.
Brian Mahbod (10931 Mora Drive) reported the entrance to Rancho San Antonio attracts a large amount
of non-resident traffic, as well as illegal parking and burglaries. He said Google maps show the entrance
and visitors park illegally on Mora. He said roadside paths on Mora will lead to increased non-resident
traffic and more crime. He recommends a stop sign at Mora and Terry Way or speed bumps to improve
safety.
Heinz Blennemann (Eloise) thanked the PWC for visiting his property. He said West Loyola residents
appreciate the outdoors, but they do not want roadside paths and prefer to keep the status quo in the
neighborhood and continue walking in the road.
Alan Epstein (Ravensbury) spoke in opposition to roadside and off-road paths in the Ravensbury area,
citing interference with privacy and safety, and loss of existing landscaping. He said Ravensbury
residents did not receive any notification of tonight’s meeting. The PWC agenda specified only “MPP”,
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0425.doc 6/29/16 5
an abbreviation the general public may not understand to refer to the “Master Path Plan”. He submitted
an email petition with names of 22 Ravensbury residents opposed to paths in the area.
Gary Dorcak (Old Ranch Road) spoke in opposition to pathways in the area because they would require
removal of massive quantities of trees, disturb wildlife, and have a huge environmental impact. He also
said the newly built homes in his neighborhood would never be developed in 100 years, so no new paths
could ever be built on those parcels.
Rosemarie Nahm (Mora Drive) is opposed to roadside paths and said the draft map does not take into
account the topography, traffic, and safety issues in the Mora and Sunhills area. She said Mora has a
traffic congestion problem on a narrow, hilly road that needs to be addressed first before paths are
considered. She said speeding bikes coming downhill and hikers walking up and down (3 or 4 abreast)
are an “extremely dangerous” situation. She noted that Sunhills has a drainage ditch on the west side
that will preclude a roadside path.
Susannah Gaines representing Winchell (Mora Drive) said “the traffic on Mora is ridiculous”. They can
hear people’s conversations in the road and are often awakened early by people on the road. “Currently
we have no privacy and paths will make it worse. Mora drive is out of control. Please do not add to the
congestion.”
Hal Feeney (Mora Drive) spoke in opposition to roadside paths on Mora Drive. The county section of
Mora has a walkway built in 1965 from Terry Way to Eastbrook that could be repaired. He does not
want to make the area more attractive and draw more people to the neighborhood.
Don McCauley (Ravensbury) suggested that rather than constructing paths according to a plan, the
Town should employ the method used by the Department of the Interior to determine path locations in
Yellowstone Park: plant grass and see where people walk. Then build paths where people have walked.
Bud Cristal (Mora Drive) estimates 10,000 or more people enter Rancho San Antonio each year via the
Mora Drive entrance. The trailhead is a magnet for people and the numbers using Mora will grow and
grow, bringing noise, pollution, parking, and vandalism. He recommends the Town find a practical
solution for the unique situation on Mora.
R. Minton (Mora Drive) said he recently purchased the property at 10370 Mora Drive and was required
to build a roadside path as a condition of development but does not plan any development. He also
reported parking problems.
Unidentified resident (West Loyola) pointed out that the proposed off-road path to avoid the sharp curve
is not feasible because of steepness of the property at 10855 West Loyola. He requested clarification of
how pathways are installed at the time of development and whether trees are cut down.
W. Caughlan (West Loyola; a PWC member speaking about her own property) said her property at
10840 West Loyola is not subdividable and the entrance to the proposed off-road path from West
Loyola is too steep. She said the ingress-egress easement from Eastbrook runs over two properties and
cannot be used as a public easement.
S. Epstein (Ravensbury) said we walk along Ravensbury and Magdalena every day and we avoid the
paths and walk in the road. She said there is not much traffic, roadside paths are not needed, and
neighbors do not want roadside paths. Why not leave us alone?
Gerry Miller (23921 Ravensbury) asked the City Attorney about transfer of easements from the county
at the time of annexation. She said she “finds it chilling that government is telling us they will change
the character of our neighborhood”. She suggested there could be protracted litigation.
Bridget Morgan (Eloise Circle) said she has expressed to the Town her opposition to roadside paths for
four years but has never received a response addressing her concerns. She said an engineer told her it
would cost over $100K to build a roadside path on their property frontage. An easement would be
needed and a path would invade her privacy. She asks the Town to drop this plan.
Susan Chappell (Terry Way) spoke in support of a roadside path on Mora for the safety of the
community. She said she approached the Town a year ago about special consideration for a path on
Mora. The street is winding with many blind curves, with an especially dangerous blind spot at the
curve above Terry. Close calls between cars and pedestrians are a daily occurrence. It is irresponsible to
require a fatal accident before resolving an unnecessary danger. Paths will not increase traffic, but will
make the road safer. Some neighbors drive their children to the top of Mora because they consider it too
dangerous to walk on the road. She submitted a petition asking for a pathway along Mora Drive signed
by 93 people (46 LA/LAH residents) who regularly walk on Mora.
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0425.doc 6/29/16 6
Scott Vanderlip (LAH Parks and Recreation Committee) spoke about the benefits of pathways and
invited residents of the newly annexed areas to participate in the LAH Pathway Run Walk to be held
Saturday May 7 starting at the Westwind Community Barn and a walk to other LAH pathways and free
lunch on May 14.
Gerda Cristal (Mora Drive) said groups of students from the Waldorf School on Eastbrook walk up
Mora Drive several times a week and they do not have a problem with safety.
Farzin Shakib (Arroyo Oaks) spoke in opposition to the proposed off-road path connection between
Arroyo oaks and Eloise Circle citing topography problems at the Arroyo end.
________________________________
PWC discussed proposed paths on the “straw man” draft maps for the Ravensbury, West
Loyola, and Mora Drive annexation areas. General comments included: Town is required by state law
(i.e., California Complete Streets Act) to consider all potential users (e.g., pedestrians, bicycles, horses
as well as cars) in planning Town streets; the fact that roads in the newly annexed areas were
constructed as part of the county without adequate planning for pedestrians does not preclude the Town
from obligation to create safe pedestrian routes through the neighborhoods; roadside paths improve
safety and are generally in the road ROW, often adjacent to the pavement, and not an imposition to
property owners; current narrow road ROWs will be increased to Town standards (60 feet) in many
locations in annexed areas; development of the Town pathway system occurs incrementally over many
years and although some current residents oppose paths, the proposed future paths in the MPP plan will
provide benefits for future property owners. Motions on map routes were made and voted on
(summarized in table Attachment D). AD reiterated that PWC draft maps sent to the Planning
Commission will show roads proposed to have a roadside path on only one side with a green line down
the center of the road because the final determination of the preferred side of the road for a roadside
path is determined at the time of site development.
Following votes on “straw man” draft maps for the Ravensbury, West Loyola, and Mora Drive
annexation areas and a short break, WC and BM returned to the table and PWC reviewed, discussed,
and voted on recommendations on the draft map for the La Loma and Olive Tree annexation areas. No
public comment was given for these areas. Paths proposed on the draft map are summarized below and
in the attached table (Attachment D). Motions and votes are shown in the table (Attachment D).
La Loma Annexation
Because parts of La Loma were already in LAH in 2005, the approved 2005 MPP map includes arrows
indicating a future off-road path along the shared driveway serving 25309 and 25313 La Loma and
along the property line between these parcels. The approved 2005 MPP map also shows arrows
indicating future off-road paths through 25355 La Loma Road (when the 8-acre site is subdivided or
developed) from La Loma Road, connecting to Laura Court, and connecting to an existing fire road in
the open space.
The draft PWC map for the recently annexed area of La Loma Road proposes roadside paths on the
southwest side of the road; an off-road path connecting La Loma Road to Rhus Ridge Road; and future
off-road connections through 25355 La Loma Road (when the 8-acre site is subdivided or developed).
connecting to Laura Court and to a fire road in the adjacent open space. The four arrows indicate future
off-road paths connecting to/from 1) La Loma Drive; 2) off-road path from 28008 Laura Court; 3)
northeast slope of lot; 3) existing fire-road path to the south. A future off-road connection from the end
of Laura Court to 24840 Prospect (at time of subdivision) is also proposed to connect the newly annexed
La Loma areas to Prospect Road neighborhood to the north.
Olive Tree Annexation
Roadside paths are proposed on the south side of Olive Tree Lane from the border of the annexed area
to the sharp turn to the south (24808 and north border of 24860). From there to the end of the cul-de-sac
an easement over the pavement is proposed. The draft map proposes adding an off-road pathway
easement over the existing emergency access road on Northcrest (red stars) to connect Olive Tree Lane
to Stonebrook, the quarry neighborhood, and Magdalena to the north. This is consistent with an LAH
ordinance requirement to establish pathway easements over emergency access roads. Neighbors in the
area who spoke to PWC members support this.
C. Unresolved Areas. Continued to next PWC meeting.
4. Reports from Other Meetings. None
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0425.doc 6/29/16 7
5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. None
6. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND PATHWAY REPRESENTATION REQUESTS
7. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting: Monday, May 23, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Next Pathway Walk: Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 9:00 AM at Town Hall
Next Regular Meeting: Monday, June 6, 2016 at 6:00 PM at Town Hall
8. REQUEST TOPICS FOR NEXT AGENDA
9. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 pm.
Attachment A: Slide Presentation from PWC Chair
Attachment B: “Straw man” Draft Map for PWC Review for Council Review (available from City Clerk)
Attachment C: “Straw man” Draft Working Reference Map for PWC Use (available from City Clerk)
Attachment D: Summary Table of PWC Recommendations for MPP Draft Map
Final minutes approved as amended (red text) at the Regular Pathways Committee meeting of 06/27/16.
!"#$%&’("$)’(*"+’,-."$%/’’
0’1"#2’34’$)%’("$)5"6#’789:3;;<=%%’
3+’!"--<+>’
?<*%%+’@<993+#A’B)"<&’
C<:2’D8+:2%*A’0++’D85%A’E&<.>%$’!3&>"+A’78%’F%*:)’
April 25, 2016’
!"#$%&’("$)’(*"+’,-."$%A’GHIJ’
0’7%$’34’D3:8;%+$#’’
•!7)35#’#$&%%$#’5<$)’&3".#<.%’-"$)#’-*"++%.’3+’’
93$)’#<.%#’
•!7)35#’#$&%%$#’5)%&%’&3".#<.%’-"$)#’"&%’-*"++%.’
3+’3+%’#<.%’
•!D3:8;%+$#’-"$)5"6’%"#%;%+$#’.%.<:"$%.’#<+:%’
GHHK’
•!D3:8;%+$#’-"$)#’"+.’#%>;%+$#’98<*$’#<+:%’GHHK’
•!78>>%#$#’"’4&";%53&2’43&’48$8&%’3LM&3".’-"$)#’’
N’
O8+.";%+$"*#’
?":)’-"&:%*’<+’135+’:3+$&<98$%#’$3’$)%’-"$)5"6’
#6#$%;P’’1)%’:3+$&<98Q3+’:"+’9%/’
IP’’D%.<:"Q+>’"+’%"#%;%+$’
GP’’E8<*.<+>’"’-"$)’3R%&’"+’%"#%;%+$’3&’&<>)$M34M5"6’
NP’’0’’:3;9<+"Q3+’34’IP’"+.’GP’"93R%’
SP’’("6<+>’"+’<+M*<%8’4%%’
O8+.";%+$"*#’
•!1)%’!((’:3+$"<+#’"’;"-’34’%T<#Q+>’"+.’48$8&%’
3LM&3".’-"$)#P’
•!1)%’;"-’34’48$8&%’3LM&3".’-"$)#’;8#$’9%’
"--&3R%.’96’$)%’(*"++<+>’B3;;<##<3+’"+.’$)%’
B<$6’B38+:<*P’
O8+.";%+$"*#’
1)%’!((’:3+$"<+#’"’;"-’#)35<+>’&3".#’3+’
5)<:)’&3".#<.%’-"$)#’"&%’-*"++%.’3+’3+%’#<.%P’’
7<+:%’IUVIA’$)%’!((’<+.<:"$%#’$)%#%’&3".#’5<$)’
"’>&%%+’*<+%’.35+’$)%’:%+$%&’34’$)%’&3".P’
1)%’&%"#3+’43&’$)<#’.%#<>+"Q3+’<#’$)"$’"’W+"*’
.%:<#<3+’"938$’5)<:)’#<.%’34’$)%’&3".’"’&3".#<.%’
-"$)’3::8-<%#’<#’;".%’3+*6’"$’$)%’Q;%’34’#<$%’
.%R%*3-;%+$P’
O8+.";%+$"*#’
1)%’!((’:3+$"<+#’"’X53&2<+>’&%4%&%+:%’;"-AY’
3Z%+’&%4%&&%.’$3’"#’$)%’9899*%’;"-P’’1)%’
53&2<+>’&%4%&%+:%’;"-’<#’".R<#3&6’3+*6[’<$’<#’+3$’
9<+.<+>’"+.’$)%&%43&%’.3%#’C\1’&%]8<&%’
(*"++<+>’B3;;<##<3+’3&’B<$6’B38+:<*’"--&3R"*P’’
O8+.";%+$"*#’
•!1)%’!((’:3+$"<+#’.3:8;%+$"Q3+’43&’"**’-"$)5"6’%"#%;%+$#’.%.<:"$%.’#<+:%’GHHKP’
•!1)%’!((’:3+$"<+#’.3:8;%+$"Q3+’43&’"**’-"$)#’
"+.’#%>;%+$#’98<*$’#<+:%’GHHKP’
E3$)’<$%;#’&%]8<&%.’"--&3R"*#’96’$)%’(*"++<+>’
B3;;<##<3+’"+.^3&’B<$6’B38+:<*’"$’$)%’Q;%’$)%6’5%&%’.3+%’"+.’$)%&%43&%’+%%.’+3’48&$)%&’"--&3R"*#P’
O8+.";%+$"*#’
F)%+%R%&’-3##<9*%A’%;%&>%+:6’"::%##’&38$%#’
#)"**’9%’"::%##<9*%’43&’-%.%#$&<"+A’%]8%#$&<"+’
"+.’9<:6:*%’8#%P’’’
!"-’,-."$%’C%T$’7$%-#’
•!!"#$%"&’()*++,-..(;"2%#’&%:3;;%+."Q3+#’$3’$)%’(*"++<+>’B3;;<##<3+P’
•!!/"00,01()*++,’’,*0(&%R<%5#’$)%’(FB’
&%:3;;%+."Q3+#P’’1)%’(*"++<+>’B3;;<##<3+’)3*.#’-89*<:’)%"&<+>#’9%43&%’;"2<+>’’&%:3;;%+."Q3+#’$3’$)%’B<$6’B38+:<*P’’
•!),#&()*203,/()3*.#’-89*<:’)%"&<+>#’9%43&%’;"2<+>’"’W+"*’.%:<#<3+’$3’"::%-$A’.%+6’3&’:)"+>%’$)%’’!"#$%&’("$)’(*"+’,-."$%’34’GHIJP’’
•!_%#<.%+$#’"&%’%+:38&">%.’$3’-"&Q:<-"$%’<+’"**’-89*<:’
;%%Q+>#’*%".<+>’$3’"--&3R"*’34’$)%’8-."$%’$3’$)%’!"#$%&’("$)’(*"+P’’
IH’
\8&’-"$)5"6’#6#$%;’<#’"’53&2’<+’-&3>&%##P’’
‘;-*%;%+$"Q3+’$"2%#’.%:".%#P’
a%$b#’53&2’$3>%$)%&’"#’3+%’:3;;8+<$6’$3’
%+)"+:%’$)%’#6#$%;A’:3+#<#$%+$*6A’<+’"**’
+%<>)93&)33.#P’
PWC_Draft_MPP_Update_MapsTABLE16-0425.docx 6/17/16 1
Draft Master Path Plan Map Update Approved by Pathways Committee at Regular Meeting of 04/25/16
West Loyola Annexation
Street Section Pathways proposed
on Strawman Draft
Map (04/14/16)
Rationale/Comments Pathways recommended
at PWC meeting of
4/25/16
PWC Vote
Roadside Paths
West Loyola
Drive
From Eastbrook to
Sunhills Drive
Roadside paths on
west side of road
(blue bubbles)
East side of road from Eastbrook
to 10850 West Loyola is not in
LAH. From 10855 West Loyola to
Sunhills, roadside topography on
west side can better
accommodate roadside path.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
West Loyola
Drive
From Sunhills Dr to
Ravensbury
Roadside paths on
south side of road
(blue bubbles)
Shoulders on south side are wide
and relatively flat for most of this
section and can better
accommodate roadside paths.
Roadside path is already installed
in ROW at 10300 West Loyola.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Eloise Circle Full length Easements conferring
public access over
pavement on private
road (purple
triangles)
Narrow private street loop with
10 lots; little traffic; some homes
close to road.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Berkshire Drive Full length (from
eastern intersection
with West Loyola to
western
intersection with
West Loyola)
Roadside paths on
south or east side of
road (blue bubbles)
Through‐road with poor sight‐
distance at curves. Some homes
on west and north side are very
close to road. Topography on
south and east side not flat, but
comparable to many other roads
in LAH that have roadside paths.
Easements conferring
public access over
pavement on private road.
(Remove blue bubbles.
Place purple triangles in
roadway.)
Motion 6 below
(Vote was 5 in favor; 1
opposed; 1 abstaining;
2 recused)
Rolly Road From West Loyola
to Town border
Easements conferring
public access over
pavement on private
road (purple
triangles)
Private road serving only 3 lots,
only one of which is in LAH.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Offroad paths
West Loyola Dr
to West Loyola
Dr across sharp
curve
Proposed future off‐
road path
Arrow indicating
future off‐road path
between 10811 and
10855 West Loyola
Avoid roadside path along the
blind sharp curve on West Loyola
Remove this proposed
future off‐road path from
draft map. Route steep and
close to houses. (Remove
Motion 3 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Attachment D: PWC meeting of 04/25/16
PWC_Draft_MPP_Update_MapsTABLE16-0425.docx 6/17/16 2
green dots.)
Eloise Circle to
Arroyo Oaks
Proposed future off‐
road path
Arrow indicating
future off‐road path
between 10665 and
10669 Eloise;
between 11564 and
11566 Arroyo Oaks;
on shared drive
between 11552 and
11568 Arroyo Oaks
Connect West Loyola
neighborhood to Ravensbury
neighborhood
Remove this proposed
future off‐road path from
draft map. Route steep and
too close to houses.
(Remove green dots.)
Motion 1 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
West Loyola to
Eastbrook
Proposed future off‐
road path
Arrow indicating
future off‐road path
between 10840 and
10842 West Loyola
(corrected addresses)
Connect West Loyola to Eastbrook
as alternative to roadside path
along lower West Loyola.
Assumes future annexation of
unincorporated county lands
along Terry and Eastbrook that
are in LAH SOI and have been pre‐
zoned for annexation.
1. Remove arrow indicating
future off‐road path
between 10840 and 10842
West Loyola. Route steep.
2. Add arrow indicating
future off‐road path along
northeast border of 10842
West Loyola; continuing
along eastern border of
10850 West Loyola; and
along driveway easement
to Eastbrook
1. Motion 4 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
2. Motion 5 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Mora Drive Annexation
Street Section Pathways proposed
on Strawman Draft
Map (04/14/16)
Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at
meeting of 4/25/16
PWC Vote
Roadside Paths
Mora Drive Northern LAH
border to just north
of intersection with
Sunhills on 10810
Mora Drive
Roadside paths on
west side of road
(blue bubbles)
Narrow, winding road with heavy
pedestrian and bike use by
residents and others entering
Rancho San Antonio County Park.
IIB roadside path was requested
from developer of 10730 Mora.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Mora Drive 10810 Mora Drive
to southern end of
Mora Drive at
MROSD entrance
Roadside paths on
east side of road (blue
bubbles)
Narrow, winding road with heavy
pedestrian and bike use by
residents and others entering
Rancho San Antonio County Park.
Topography better for roadside
path. Same side as path installed
by county in 1965.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
PWC_Draft_MPP_Update_MapsTABLE16-0425.docx 6/17/16 3
Sunhills Drive From West Loyola
Drive to Mora Drive
Roadside paths on
west side of road
(blue bubbles)
Local connector to County park
entrance. West side topography
can better accommodate roadside
paths; homes on east side closer
to road.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Kenbar Road From Sunhills Drive
to Town border
Easements conferring
public access over
pavement on private
road (purple
triangles)
Narrow private cul‐de‐sac with 10
lots, only 2 lots in LAH; little
traffic; some homes close to road.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Offroad paths
Terry Way to
eastern West
Loyola area
Proposed future off‐
road path
Arrow indicating
proposed future off‐
road path from end of
Terry Way cul‐de‐sac
towards Town border
Connect lower Mora and Terry to
West Loyola and Eastbrook.
Assumes future annexation of
unincorporated county lands
along Terry and Eastbrook that
are in LAH SOI and have been pre‐
zoned for annexation.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Ravensbury Annexation
Street Section Pathways proposed
on Strawman Draft
Map (04/14/16)
Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at
meeting of 4/25/16
PWC Vote
Roadside paths
Ravensbury
Avenue
From Magdalena to
Arroyo Oaks
Roadside paths on
BOTH sides of road.
(blue bubbles)
Road carries traffic to lower
Magdalena from multiple feeder
streets in Ravensbury annex area;
speeding occurs along this
straight, downhill section
No Change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Ravensbury
Avenue
From Arroyo Oaks
south around the
90‐degree curve to
southwest border of
23576 Ravensbury
Roadside paths on
southwest side of road
at 23600 and 23576
Ravensbury around
90‐degree curve (blue
bubbles)
Shoulders on southwest side from
Arroyo Oaks around curve are
wide and relatively flat for most
of this section and can better
accommodate roadside paths.
East side of road drops off steeply
around the curve.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Ravensbury
Avenue
From parcel across
from 23548
Ravensbury south to
intersection with
West Loyola
Roadside paths on
southeast side of road
(blue bubbles)
Topography of shoulders on
southeast side can better
accommodate roadside paths.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
PWC_Draft_MPP_Update_MapsTABLE16-0425.docx 6/17/16 4
Ravensbury
Avenue
West Loyola south
to and including
23230 Ravensbury
Roadside paths on
east side of road (blue
bubbles) except last
parcel within LAH
Topography of shoulders on this
side can better accommodate
roadside paths. Native path along
Ravensbury frontage was
requested from developer at
10180 West Loyola. Allow access
over the pavement along the
parcel south of 23230
Ravensbury, which slopes up
steeply from road.
No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Crestridge Drive Full length Access over pavement
on public road (purple
triangles)
Wide public cul‐de‐sac with 7 lots No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Old Ranch Road Full length of cul‐de‐
sac
Access over pavement
on public road (purple
triangles)
Wide public cul‐de‐sac with 6 lots No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Old Ranch Lane Full length of cul‐de‐
sac
Access over pavement
on public road (purple
triangles)
Wide public cul‐de‐sac with 7 lots No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Hillpark Lane Full length of cul‐de‐
sac
Access over pavement
on public road (purple
triangles)
Wide public cul‐de‐sac with 9 lots No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Arroyo Oaks Full length of cul‐de‐
sac
Access over pavement
on public road (purple
triangles)
Wide public cul‐de‐sac with 9 lots No change Motion 8 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
OffRoad Paths
Ravensbury
Avenue to Par
Ave
Connect Ravensbury
Ave to Par Ave
Convert easement and
existing off‐road path
along northwest
border of Foothills
Ranch subdivision
between Ravensbury
and Par to LAH off‐
road path easement
conferring public
access (red stars).
Off‐road path can serve as
alternative to walking along
Magdalena. Route is on approved
Master Path Plan of 2005 and
path is in common use. Staff to
research easement status. May be
public utility easement and/or
private equestrian easement
requiring conversion to standard
pathway easement.
Confirm scope of existing
easement along northwest
border and propose as
future conventional LAH
off‐road path with public
access. (Change red stars to
green dots.)
Motion 2. Below.
(Vote was 6 in favor; 1
opposed; 2 recused)
Foothills Ranch
Subdivision (lots
on Crestridge,
Private equestrian
easements along
northeast and
Convert private
equestrian easements
(red stars) to LAH off‐
Remove proposed off‐road
paths along private
equestrian easements along
Motion 2. Below.
(Vote was 6 in favor; 1
opposed; 2 recused)
PWC_Draft_MPP_Update_MapsTABLE16-0425.docx 6/17/16 5
Old Ranch Road,
Old Ranch Lane)
southeast borders of
subdivision
road easement
conferring public
access (red stars).
northeast and southeast
borders of Foothills Ranch
subdivision. (Remove red
stars.)
La Loma Annexation
Street Section Pathways proposed
on Strawman Draft
Map (04/14/16)
Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at
meeting of 4/25/16
PWC Vote
Roadside Paths
La Loma Drive From northern
border of annexed
area (shared drive
off west side of La
Loma just south of
25259) to and
including 25275 La
Loma Dr
Roadside paths on
southwest side of road
New paths will connect to existing
roadside paths on this side;
shoulders are flat and can
accommodate roadside paths
Roadside paths on south
side of road (blue bubbles)
Motion 10 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
La Loma Drive 25355 La Loma
Drive
Roadside paths on
south side of road
New path will connect to existing
roadside paths on this side;
shoulders are flat and can
accommodate roadside paths
Roadside paths on south
side of road (blue bubbles)
Motion 10 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
OffRoad Paths
La Loma Drive to
Rhus Ridge Road
Proposed future off‐
road path
1. Arrow indicating
future off‐road path
over shared driveway
off west side of La
Loma (green dots)
2. Arrow pointing
northwest along
property line between
25263 and 25265 La
Loma and arrow
pointing southeast
from Rhus Ridge Road
Connect La Loma neighborhood to
Rhus Ridge neighborhood to the
west.
No change Motion 10 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
PWC_Draft_MPP_Update_MapsTABLE16-0425.docx 6/17/16 6
La Loma Drive to
open space
Proposed future off‐
road path
(Approved on 2005
MPP map)
Easement conferring
public access over
shared driveway to
25309 and 25313 La
Loma and along
property line between
these parcels (blue and
green lines);
Connect La Loma neighborhood to
Rancho San Antonio to the south;
this 8‐acre parcel is subdividable.
Retain approved future off‐road
paths shown on 2005 MPP map
(blue and green lines)
La Loma Drive to
open space
Proposed future off‐
road path
(Approved on 2005
MPP map)
Retain arrows shown
on approved 2005 MPP
indicating future off‐
road paths into 25355
La Loma connecting to
1) La Loma Road; 2)
Laura Ct; and 3) fire
road. Add arrow into
NE corner of parcel.
Connect newly annexed La Loma
neighborhood to quarry
neighborhood to the east and fire
road/path in open space. Future
off‐road paths that an be added
when 25355 La Loma (a
subdividable 8‐acre parcel) is
subdivided or developed’.
No change Motion 10 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
La Loma Drive to
Prospect
Proposed future off‐
road path
Retain arrows shown on
approved 2005 MPP
indicating future off‐road
paths into 24840
Prospect Ave from north,
southeast, and west were
approved in 2005. Add
arrow into SW corner of
parcel.
Connect newly annexed La Loma
neighborhood to Prospect
neighborhood to the north.
Replaces approved off‐road route
behind lots on Stonebrook that is
not maintained or accessible.
No change Motion 10 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Olive Tree Annexation
Roadside Paths
Olive Tree Lane From eastern
border of annexed
area to sharp curve
to south (24808 and
part of 24860 Olive
Tree)
Roadside paths on
south side of road (blue
bubbles)
Road is steep downhill at this
blind curve
No change Motion 10 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Olive Tree Lane Part of 24860 Olive
Tree to end of Olive
Tree cul‐de‐sac
Easements conferring
public access over
pavement on private
road (purple triangles)
Private cul‐de‐sac with
reasonable sight distance. Steeply
sloped roadsides.
No change Motion 10 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
PWC_Draft_MPP_Update_MapsTABLE16-0425.docx 6/17/16 7
OffRoad Paths
Northcrest Lane From Stonebrook to
Olive Tree Drive
Easements conferring
public access over
existing Emergency
Access Road (red stars)
Connect newly annexed Olive tree
area to quarry neighborhood,
Stonebrook, and Magdalena to the
north
Show emergency access
route as proposed future
off‐road path and seek
public access. Staff to
confirm scope of existing
emergency access
easement/private road.
(Change red stars to green
dots)
Motion 10 below.
(Vote was 7 in favor; 2
recused)
Address Errors. The “strawman” draft map of 4/14/16 has two errors on West Loyola: 1) the parcels shown as 10850 and 10858 West
Loyola should be 10842 and 10850, respectively; 2), the arrow indicating a proposed future off-road path to eventually connect to Eastbrook
is shown going into 10836 West Loyola Drive. The correct location for the arrow is along the border between 10840 and 10842 West
Loyola (corrected addresses).
Motion 1: BK moved that PWC recommend removing from the draft map the proposed off‐road path from Eloise Circle to Arroyo
Oaks. ND seconded. Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND, AD, VH, BK, SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB not present for vote.
Motion 2: AD moved that PWC recommend removing from the draft map the proposed off‐road path routes over the private
equestrian easements along the borders of the Foothill Subdivision (red stars) with the exception of retaining the proposed off‐road
route along the easement (and existing path) connecting Ravensbury to Par along the northwest border of the subdivision. BK
seconded. Vote was 6 in favor (JB, ND, AD, VH, BK, SW); 1 opposed (DW); with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB not present for vote.
Motion 3: BK moved that PWC recommend removing from the draft map the proposed off‐road path across the “thumb” of the
sharp curve on West Loyola between 10811 and 10855 West Loyola. AD seconded. Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND, AD, VH, BK, SW, DW)
with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB not present for vote.
Motion 4: BK moved that PWC recommend removing from the draft map the proposed off‐road path connection between 10840
and 10842 West Loyola (corrected addresses) connecting to Eastbrook. AD seconded. Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND, AD, VH, BK, SW,
DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB not present for vote.
Motion 5: BK moved that PWC recommend adding to the draft map a proposed off‐road path route along the northeast border of
10842 West Loyola (corrected addresses) continuing along the eastern border of 10850 West Loyola on an easement not public at
this time) and connecting to Eastbrook. AD seconded. Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND, AD, VH, BK, SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB
not present for vote.
PWC_Draft_MPP_Update_MapsTABLE16-0425.docx 6/17/16 8
Motion 6: SW moved that PWC change the recommendation on the draft map for Berkshire Drive from proposed roadside paths
along the south side of Berkshire to easements conferring public access over the road. ND second. Vote was 5 in favor (JB, ND, VH,
BK, SW); 1 opposed (AD); 1 abstaining (VH); with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB not present for vote.
Motion 7: BK moved that PWC recommend Ravensbury be designated as a “2‐sided” road to have roadside paths on both sides from
Magdalena to Arroyo Oaks. JB seconded. Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND, AD, VH, BK, SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB not present
for vote.
Motion 8: BK moved that PWC recommend adopting the draft map with the roadside and off‐road paths as shown for the West
Loyola, Mora Drive, and Ravensbury annexation areas (with Berkshire changed to access over pavement). Vote was 7 in favor (JB,
ND, AD, VH, BK, SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB not present for vote.
Motion 9: BM moved that the proposed off‐road paths from La Loma to Rhus Ridge Road and Bassett and over Northcrest from
Olive Tree to Stonebrook be removed from the draft map. WC seconded. Vote was 3 in favor (WC, VH, BM) with 6 opposed ((JB, ND,
AD, BK, SW, DW)); AB not present for vote.
Motion 10: ND moved that PWC recommend adopting the paths for the La Loma and Olive Tree annexation areas as shown on the
draft map, with the modification that the route on Northcrest Drive is to be shown as a future off‐road path route. BK seconded. Vote
was 7 in favor (JB, ND, AD, VH, BK, SW, DW) with 2 opposed (WC, BM); AB not present for vote.