HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/1979 (2)PLANNING COMMISSION
`,� Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, September 12, 1979
Reel 80, Side 2, Tr. 2 894 to End; Side 1, Tr. 2, 001 to End; Side 2, Tr. 1, 001 to 257
Chairman vanTamelen called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order in the
Council Chambers of the Town Hall at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Carico, Lachenbruch, Stewart, Dochnahl, Kuranoff, vanTamelen
Absent: Commissioner Rydell (excused absence)
Also Present: City Manager Robert Crowe, City Engineer/Planner John Markl, Assistant
Planner Pat Webb, Secretary Ethel Hopkins
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Commissioner Stewart requested that the Lands of Lynch, File #A 4485, be removed
from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration.
L MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: On the motion of Commissioner Dochnahl, seconded by
Commissioner Kuranoff, the Consent Calendar was approved, namely, the Minutes of
the August 22nd meeting.
1 AYES: Commissioners Carico, Lachenbruch, Stewart, Dochnahl, Kuranoff
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner vanTamelen
LANDS OF LYNCH, File #A 4485, 25701 Lomita Linda, Request for Planning Commission
Approval of Grading, Drainage, and Landscaping for Caboose Installation on Site
(Referral by Site Development Committee):
Commissioner Stewart noted that this was referred to the Planning Commission
because there were no Municipal Code provisions for handling such a request.
He noted that the applicant wanted to use the caboose as a playhouse for his
children, that his concern (Commissioner Stewart's concern) was that such a
vehicle could appear to be a mobile home, that he himself had no objection to
the request but did not want to make the decision without consulting the full
Commission. Conmissioner Stewart discussed the clearing of poison oak in the
area, the proposal for painting the caboose, and landscaping.
Commissioner Carico expressed concern on dust and possible mudsliding on Ravensbury
that could occur as a result of the area cleared of brush by Mr. Lynch.
Thomas L nch, A licant, discussed his intentions for landscaping in the area,
and noted that a iad consulted a soils engineer regarding the stability of the
area he had had cleared. He responded to Commissioners' questions on materials
�,. he would use to build the retaining wall, whether electricity or water would be
provided in the caboose (none had been planned), and his future intentions to
build a tennis court on the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 12, 1979
C Page two
fir' CONSENT CALENDAR: (continued)
LANDS OF LYNCH, File #A 4485: (continued)
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl
and seconded by Commissioner Stewart that the Lands of Lynch, File #A 4485, be
approved with the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall plant a fifteen (15) gallon tree for landscaping
and screening purposes.
2. The retaining wall shall have a perforated pipe at the bottom,
and the engineering for the wooden retaining wall shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for approval.
3. If tremendous erosion occurs during the coming winter months (1979),
the applicant shall hydroseed the hillside before the winter of 1980.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. LANDS OF MELCHOR, File #TM 2100-79, Westwind Way, John Riley, Engineer
equest for Recommendation of Approval of Negative Declaration and Tentative
Map, 6 Lots - Continued to October 10 at the request of the Applicant and
his Engineer
2. LANDS OF JOHNSON, File #TM 2098-79, Stonebrook and Prospect Avenue, Paul Nowack
an ssociates, Engineers, Request for Recommendation of Approval of Negative
Declaration and Tentative Map, 2 Lots:
Mr. Carlson began the review by recommending that the Negative Declaration be
considered and approved. Thereafter the hearing was opened to the public discussion.
No one spoke from the floor, but Commissioner Stewart asked if land still under
the Williamson Act contract could be subdivided. He was assured by Mr. Carlson
that he had checked with the City Attorney and was told that this subdivision could
be accomplished.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl
and seconded by Commissioner Carico that a Negative Declaration be recommended for
the Lands of Johnson, File #TM 2098-79.
Mr. Carlson discussed the application by noting that the subdivision had been delayed
a considerable amount of time in order to clarify the legal status of the land in the
Williamson Act contract. He noted, however, that the City Attorney had assured staff
that the subject parcel could be subdivided into the two parcels. He noted that
ultimate development of the parcel would yield five lots and referred Commissioners
to his staff report for the September 12th meeting for further information.
Mr. Crowe noted that the applicant is permitted to divide the property in two,
and that this is permissible under the Town's zoning laws. However, he must re-
negotiate his Williamson Act contract with the Town. He could not, however, develop
his property to the saturation point and remain under the Williamson Act. Under the
new contract with the Williamson Act, the property owner could not subdivide his
property. Mr. Crowe was asked by Commissioner Kuranoff to obtain a letter from the
` City Attorney stating that it was legally permissible to subdivide the Johnson property
into two lots under the present Williamson Act Contract on the land.
Commissioners asked questions on the shape of the conservation easement on the
property and on requested improvements on Prospect Road. The hearing was opened to
the public discussion.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 12, 1979
Page three
W PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
2. LANDS OF JOHNSON, File #TM 2098-79: (continued)
Mr. Johnson, Applicant, noted that the proposed subdivision was to provide home -
sites for himse— f�his family; discussed the possibility of waiving some of the
road conditions, specifically Conditions 7(a) and 9(b) because of his own nominal
use of the roads and his understanding that this was not required with a simple
lot split; stated that he wanted to continue to have his land under the Williamson
Act Contract; and proposed that the pathway be located following the conservation
easement on the property•
Commissioners discussed the request with respect to whether the 160 foot circle
on the map could encroach into the conservation easement area; the location of
the driveway and its proximity to the Perrett property, the steepness of the
proposed driveway; and the possibility of providing another way of access to
the subdivided lot. The public hearing was closed and a review of the conditions
was begun.
Considerable discussion occurred on when road development would occur with the
dedication requested in Condition 1, the need for the Town to be able to grade
and maintain in pathway areas, the need to separate pathways from the travel way,
the precise location of the pathway along roadway areas, and the disposition of
the fence along Prospect Avenue.
Mr. Johnson questioned the utility of a pathway along Prospect, as most path
users o Prospect went along the opposite side of the road.
The costliness to the applicant of the proposed road improvements was discussed,
and the proposal made that these improvements could be delayed until the time
when saturation development occurred when the land would be subdivided into
the ultimate five lots it could sustain.
Paul Robbins, Applicant's son-in-law, spoke against the removal of the fence
along Prospect Avenue as people use the other side for walking, and the path on
Stonebrook because a gravel pathway would be used mostly by trucks in the area.
Mrs. Stutz, Pathwa Committee, discussed the need for a pathway along the Johnson
property on Prospect, as the pathway referred to on the other side of the road was
merely a permissive path. She spoke for pathway requests made.
Discussion was concluded and the following motions passed:
Condition 4.A: Amend condition to read "...a 1500 gallon tank...".
Conditions 6(a) and 6(b): MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved
by Commissioner Kuranoff and seconded by Commissioner
vanTamelen to delete Conditions 6(a) and 6(b).
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenbruch
and seconded by Commissioner Carico that Conditions 6(a) and 6(b) shall be considered
as conditions for any additional development of the property.
Condition 7(a): MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner
Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Carico that Condition 7(a) be
deleted.
Condition 8(a): Amend the condition to read: Prior to occupancy, all combustible
brush must be removed from around any new residence.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 12, 1979
Page four
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
2. LANDS OF JOHNSON, File #iTM 2098-79: (continued)
Condition 8(b): (added condition) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by
Commissioner vanTamelen and seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch
to add as Condition 8(b) the following: The fence on Prospect Avenue
shall be moved back to the new property line where possible excluding
the gate area.
AYES: Commissioners vanTamelen, Lachenbruch, Dochnahl, Kuranoff
NOES; [lone
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Carico and Stewart
Condition 9(b): MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner
Lachenbruch and seconded by Commissioner Kuranoff that Condition 9(b)
be amended to charge $3.50 per foot for road improvement for the
length of Prospect Avenue. Fees for Stonebrook Avenue were waived
in favor of charging full amount of the fees at the time of further
subdivision.
Before concluding discussion on the above item, Commissioner Lachenbruch noted the
need to go on record to register the need to improve the pathways referred to in
Conditions 6(a) and 6(b). He proposed a study of the Stonebrook and Prospect areas
to clarify where the proposed and needed pathways should be located.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl
and seconded by Commissioner Carico that the Lands of Johnson, File HTM 2098-79,
be recommended for approval with conditions as amended.
3. CHAPARRAL WAY SUBAREA PLAN, Re -consideration of Planning Commission Recommendations
as equeste y City Council:
Mr. Carlson reviewed background on the above request by the City Council for the
Planning Commission to consider again the Chaparral Way Subarea Plan alternative,
and also to recommend ways of implementing the alternative finally recommended.
He referred to previous staff report material and a memorandum prepared by him,
dated September 7, which spelled out methods of implementing the Planning Commission
recommendation that might be made.
A short discussion followed, with Mr. Crowe outlining that two issues were to
be clarified by the Commission. These were: The proposed recommendations by
the Planning Commission and whether these should be changed; and if a new proposal
was to be made, how should it be implemented. Commissioner Carico questioned
whether, with three members of the City Council stepping down at the Council
discussion, two could be considered a quorum. Mr. Crowe stated that two Council -
members could, in this instance, be considered a quorum. Thereafter, the hearing
was opened to the public discussion.
Bob Poole Chaparral Way, commended the Planning Commission on their original
recommendation to the City Council. He could not remember when Mr. Perkins had
come up Chapparal Way, and wanted Mr. Perkins to tell him why Chapparal Way
was unsafe. He noted that the people who live on the road feel that it is
perfectly adequate. He spoke for retaining Chaparral Way as it is. He noted,
in response to Commissioner vanTamelen's question on why Mr. Looper had not
been heard from, that Mr. Looper had back problems and had had to leave themeeting.
However, he had conveyed his opinion to Mr. Poole that the road should remain as it
is. Mr. Poole noted that he was afriend of Mr. McReynolds, but he could not give
Mr. McReynolds' opinion on this matter.
4W
fW
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 12, 1979
Page five
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
3. CHAPARRAL WAY SUBAREA PLAN: (continued)
neer
der Creek
of Cecil Kiggan, wno was in ine procebb vi ecyUII IF19 11 c
for a timely solution to the problem of Chaparral Way, stating
he had no strong opinion one way or another on the matter.
as a representative
tad property, spoke
that at this time
Mrs. Horton, Chaparral Way, owner of parcel five, stated thatshe was opposed to
any change in Chaparral Way and noted that she had made this clear many times.
She noted that hersubdivision had been pending for two years and felt she was
entitled to the property rights that she had when she purchased her property.
Commissioner vanTamelen read into the record a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Ruben
Rath.ien requesting correction of traffic problems on Chaparral Way at the entrance
area to the Hillestad subdivision.
Discussion returned to the Commissioners, with Commissioner Stewart discussing
methods, such as caissons, for alleviating the problem noted by Mrs. Rathjen.
He noted, however, that this might be better discussed when the Hillestad sub-
division was reviewed. He noted his opposition to taking land from a private
property owner and routing a road through Mrs. Horton's subdivision. He noted
that Mr.. Kuranoff's letter sent to the City Council with the original recommendation
had addressed the Chaparral Way problem, and he was opposed to any change, that
a strongly worded letter should be sent back to the City Council supporting the
original recommendation.
Commissioner Kuranoff noted that all the residents on the private road were saying
that the road was safe. He questioned the reason for discussing safety on a private
road unless the road was going to be dedicated.
Commissioner Carico noted that the Town policy had been to encourage private roads
and that there would only be two further dwellings on the road, and adequate fire
access was available; she agreed therefore with Commissioner Kuranoff.
Commissioner Lachenbruch requested clarification on Town policy regarding safety
on private roads, questioned whether the road was safe as it is and who would
take the responsibility for correcting unsafe conditions in the future. He questioned
that if the Commissioners did not act now, would the Town Engineer ask that the
road be improved to Town standards at the time of future development. Mr.
Carlson noted that this would be requested. He then asked about options for
road development in the future, and it was noted that Commissioner Kuranoff's
letter of July 27 did take note of the future need for connection from Chaparral
to Altamont Road (paragraph 3).
Commissioner vanTamelen reviewed possibilities for future road development and
the ways of acquiring the needed connection to Altamont, but she too noted that
at this time she could not see a problem with Chaparral Road. The need for safety
was not demonstrated to the point that two developed cul-de-sacs could be justified
from an aesthetic point of view.
Commissioner Dochnahl commended Commissioner Carico's remarks on private roads,
noting that keeping roads rural was an important element of Town policy. When
cul-de-sacs were developed to Town standards, they were no longer rural roads.
He stated that the Planning Commission should stand with their original recommendations.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 12, 1979
Page six
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
3. CHAPARRAL WAY SUBAREA PLAN: (continued)
Commissioner Lachenbruch noted that one of the issues before the Commission was:
Was Chaparral Way safe for saturation development; and if the road is safe, there
is no reason for advocating changes. He noted, however, the clear responsibility
to provide for safe roads in the Town, and an attendant problem was how to improve
rural roads without making them into ridiculous highway type roads that Town
standards would mandate.. As of now, the Town only had the either/or method of
dealing with the matter, and it was not a matter of 'either/or`.
Commissioner Kuranoff pointed out thatanother important thing to be considered is
that people living on the road had expressed their opinions on the road, and two
people backing up to the road had expressed extreme concern for safety on the road.
Both the Profts and the Rathjens had expressed concerns for getting safe conditions
on the roads. Mr. Kuranoff questioned whether the interest of these persons might
be separate from the question of safety on the road; that is, obtaining privacy and
le" noise for their properties.
Commissioner vanTamelen noted that Commissioner Lachenbruch had still not responded
to the question of whether, with two more lots to be developed on the road (saturation
development), the road would be safe.
L Commissioner Lachenbruch noted that an elicitation of Mr. Carlson's opinion was
\r that the road would be more or less safe. He noted he was not an expert, but
he was impressed with the road; it was true that one did have to exercise caution,
but the road was a good road. It was his impression that even with two more houses
to be added to the mond, the "leave alone" policy is a reasonable one.
After consideration as to whether the Planning Commission had indeed responded to
the City Council's request on further consideration of the Chaparral Way Subarea
Plan, Commissioner Stewart asked that the response should be put into an outline
form so that decisions made are clearly spelled out, and that this should be sent
back to the City Council.
Commissioner Kuranoff concurred with Commissioner Lachenbruch on the need to
develop methods for dealing with small, private roads. He pointed out that
over -engineering often resulted from public pressure on the Town to improve
such areas, and that the result of such improvement often resulted in areas
that are difficult for a driver to negotiate and which leave the Town open for
liability claims in case of accidents. Instead., Mr. Kuranoff suggested that there
were nominal ways to improve safety on Chaparral Way that would not change a very
pleasant, gravel road to a city standard road with paved cul-de-sacs. The changes
suggested were: If three or four cars are added to the road, improvements such as
daylighting a couple of turns and improving the sight distance on curves, and
perhaps adding one place where it would be easier to pass than it is now were
mentioned. These would negate the need for radical changes such as cul-de-sacs.
Discussion turned to ways to recommend for payment of road improvements on
Chaparral Way. The various proposals in Mr. Carlson's September 7th memo were
reviewed, and Commissioners commented on pros nd cons of ase sment district
methods of financing road improvements, the reluctance of t e commission to
recommend financing on improvements that they were not in favor of having, and
the ways the Town has had of requiring road improvements in the past..
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 12, 1979
Page seven
4W PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
3. CHAPARRAL WAY SUBAREA PLAN: (continued)
Commissioner Dochnahl in particular noted that it has been the Town rule that when
a subdivider comes in, it is his responsibility to pay for development of roads. It
was not the Town policy to pay for roads that the subdivider needs for access to
his property. He reviewed the options cited under Item #2 of the heading "Roadway":
Item #1 was out, as he noted that the subdivider, if he wants to no out to Altamont,
will have to negotiate and pay for the road connection that extends to the property
he wishes to develop. Items #1 and #2 were out of the question as they were not
an acceptable means of paying for the development of the road.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Carico and seconded
by Commissioner vanTamelen that Item #3, titled "Assessment District" be the
method recommended for financing any improvements on Chaparral.
AYES: Commissioners vanTamelen, Dochnahl, Kuranoff
NOES: Commissioner Carico
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Lachenbruch and Stewart
At 11:20 p.m., on the motion of Commissioner Carico and seconded by Commissioner
Stewart, it was moved to continue the meeting past the hour of adjournment. A
short break in the meeting occurred, and the meeting resumed at 11:30 p.m.
5. LANDS OF STEERS, File #TM 2087-78, Central and Buena Vista Drive, G. Nolte
and Associates, Engineers, Request for Recommendation of Approval of Negative
cr Declaration and Resubmitted Tentative Map and Circulation Study for the
Buena Vista Drive Area, 2 Lots:
Because of the lateness of the hour, and the difficulty of getting through the
balance of the agenda, the Planning Commission discussed with the applicants and
their engineers the possibility of continuing the subject request. All agreed
that this would be the best course to take.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and
seconded by Commissioner Carico to continue the Lands of Steers, File #TM 2087-78,
to the meeting of September 26th, when it would be the first item of business on
the agenda.
4. LANDS OF HILLESTAD, File #TM 2095-79, Chaparral Way, Dexter Ahlgren, Engineer,
Request for Recommendation of Approval of Tentative Map, 2 Lots:
Mr. Carlson directed the Commissioners to his September 7th memo which addressed
questions the Planning Commission had had on the subject request when they last
discussed the matter on March 14. He added that the only thing he had not discussed
was that the request be required to conform to the drainage plan that had been
recommended as part of the Chaparral Way study, and that property ownership may soon
be changed.
Commissioner vanTamelen, however, noted that the drainage plan had been acted on
with the Negative Declaration recommendation.
Commissioner Stewart began the discussion by noting that he could not approve a
64r plan for a road that is constructed on the property when it differed from the plan
approved by the City Council, and he reviewed for the Commission the history of
the BSA that had been approved before the Lands of Hillestad became a subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 12, 1979
Page eight
4W PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
4. LANDS OF HILLESTAD, File #TM 2095-79: (continued)
Commissioners questioned Mr. Carlson on how much grading would be involved to
accomplish providing for two way traffic (Item 1(a) of the September 7th memo)
and the widening of the right angle curve pavement (Item 1(b)); and Mr. Carlson
discussed the plans for widening the driveway and providing for the passage of
cars as well as the realignment of the driveway entrance.
Commissioner Kuranoff expressed concern at the appearance of the driveway area
after an extensive amount of grading. He then proposed a light system to alert
cars to other cars on the road, noting that this solution to the problem of
widening the road to two -car traffic would be less expensive and result in much
less grading.
Dexter Ahlgren, 20320 Highway 9, Boulder Creek, noted that he was representing
Cecil Riggan, whi was in tile process ss of acquiring the Hillestad property. Mr. Ahlgren
discussed with the Commission the grading problems on the roadway on the property,
and possible ways to improve the quality of the road. He suggested that the original
conditions of the BSA might be applied and noted that the road as it now exists is
not in the final state.
Commissioner Stewart reiterated his desire to have the road conform to the original
conditions of the BSA granted to the Lands of Ungerman before the Hillestads bought
the property, and he proposed methods of requiring that conditions be met.
L Mr. Carlson noted that the Hillestad road problem was different from the Tanglewood
Drive problem where the developer was required to re -construct the road, noting that
the Hillestad driveway is actually located in the approximate position shown on the
map and that any changes were the result of conditions found on the site rather than
changes made in the plan by the developer of the road.
A motion by Commissioner Stewart to delay further consideration of the Lands of
Hillestad request until the existing roadway is built according to what was intially
required by the BSA, but with City Engineer approval of changes made in the field
died for lack of a second.
Commissioner Lachenbruch noted his concern on the stability and oversteepness of the
road; Commissioner Dochnahl expressed concern on slope problems, fills and cuts to be
approved by a soils engineer, whether the present Tentative Map is correct on the
actual road alignment „whether the entrance on Chaparral Way is safe, the steepness
of the road, and whether there was danger to adjacent homes from oncoming traffic in
the area; Commissioner vanTamelen expressed the need for grading plans and soils
engineering information, as well as concrete solutions to the problems cited before
the Tentative Map can be fully considered.
Specifically, Commissioner Lachenbruch asked for the following things: 1)A good drawing
to a much expanded scale of the proposed roadway, with cross sections and profiles
of critical sections; 2) A map keyed to the road alignment so that Commissioners can
get some perspective of what they are looking at; 3) Engineering methods to cope
with problem areas on the road,(i.e. adequate ways to handle traffic from the two
lot subdivision, safe ways to handle traffic between the lots, and safe traffic
measures for the intersection on Chaparral Way). Other items requested were:
1)slide potential of the roadway; 2) the road cross-sections as built and as it will
be when completed; 3) contact Hassan Amer on soils stability and guarantees on the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 12, 1979
Page nine
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
4. LANDS OF HILLESTAD, File #TM 2095-79: (continued)
' road, plus review by the Town Geologist of all soils reports. Discussion was
concluded and the applicant's engineer requested continuance of the Tentative Map
until the requested information could be supplied to the Planning Commission.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. Pro osed Amendment to Code on Im ervious Surfaces: Planner Pat Webb noted that
inc ug e In t e staff report for the Lands of Melchor were calculations on
impervious surfaces that addressed proposals made by Commissioner Lachenbruch
on limitation of impervious surface areas in steep areas. Commissioner vanTamelen
asked for clarification on some of the terms in the proposed ordinance change, and
the matter was continued to the October 10th meeting when further discussion would
occur on the matter.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Setting of Public Hearing Dates for September 26th:
(a) Public Hearing on Tennis Court Policy - Meeting Date Set at August 22 Meeting
(b) Lands of Berry Hills Farms, File NCU 8028-77 - Amendment to Use Permit
2. Consideration of Need for Plannin Commission ud StSession: Commissioner vanTamelen
noted the nee for Planning Commission consideration of matters from the County,
fir as well as consideration of what the Commission should be doing and how well it is
filling its role. She proposed a Saturday morning meeting to consider these matters.
Commissioners asked that a crisp agenda be proposed, and that the line be adhered
to during discussion. Thereafter, Commissioner vanTamelen stated that she would
propose several dates for the study session meeting.at a future meeting.
3. Report from the City Council Meeting of September 5 - Commissioner Stewart:
Commissioner Stewart apprised the Commissioners of a proposal to provide a gasoline
allowance for Planning Commissioners.
4. Historical Society - List of Street Names ofWistorical Significance: Commissioner
Lac en ruc suggested t at t e Historica Society be as ed to suggest names for
streets for new subdivisions that would reflect some of the historical interest
that the area has. Commissioner Carico commended this suggestion, and suggested
that this be done also.
5. Study Session To ics Su ested: Commissioners named items to be included on
a 1st for discussion at t e proposed study session. They were: 1) Private Roads -
where do we go with private roads; 2) Committees - how does the Commission feel
about their individual Committee assignments (Council Sub -committees); and 3) A
pathway study for the Stonebrook-Prospect area.
An.101IPNM FNT
f� There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m.
fir' Respectfully submitted,
Ethel Hopkins
Secretary