The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMarch 31 2016 FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0331.doc 5/2/16 1 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday, March 31, 2016 1. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Call to Order. Chairman Ann Duwe called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM B. Members/Associates present: Alisa Bredo, Jim Basiji, Weegie Caughlan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Vic Hesterman, Eileen Gibbons, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch, Denise Williams Members/Associates absent: Breene Kerr (Member); Bob Stutz, Rachelle Mirkin, Tim Warner (Associates) Council Liaison present: John Radford Council Members Present: Courtenay Corrigan LAH Staff Present: Steve Mattas (City Attorney) Carl Cahill (City Manager) Pak Lin (Director of Finances and Administrative Services) Members of public present: Cooper Allison (Engineer for Aron development)) Navneet Aron (for 10800, 10880, 10888 Magdalena Road) Peter Brown (LAH) Rob Dowling Kjell Karlsson (Traffic Safety Committee) C. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as published. EG moved, ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW). D. Approval of Minutes. Minutes from the Feb 22, 2015 meeting were approved without amendments. EG moved, ND seconded, and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW). E. Ex Parte communications. AD reported discussion of Brown Act and conflict of interest with City Attorney Steve Mattas. 2. PROPERTIES FOR REVIEW The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: A. 10800 Magdalena (Lands of Aron; Lot 2; APN 336-35-007; #55-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The parcel is on the southwest side of Magdalena Road (a public road not designated to have paths on both sides) just past the sharp curve to the southeast. This is one of three parcels being developed by the same developer, Navneet Aron, who was present and gave a general overview of the plans (Attachment A). No existing pathway easements on the parcel were identified in a limited records search. Lot 2 has frontage on Magdalena and existing driveway. PWC maps (May 27, 2015) show the opposite side of Magdalena is the preferred side for a roadside path. Topography is flatter on that side and roadside paths exist along several nearby parcels on that side, including directly opposite 10800. WC moved that for 10800, 10880, and 10888 Magdalena, the PWC recommend the Town require payment of a pathway in-lieu fee for each parcel. ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW). B. 10880 Magdalena (Lands of Aron; Lot 3; APN 336-35-008; #50-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The parcel is on the southwest side of Magdalena Road (a public road not designated to have paths on both sides) just past the sharp curve to the southeast. This is one of three parcels being developed by the same developer, Navneet Aron, who was present and gave a general overview of the plans (Attachment A). No existing pathway easements on the parcel were identified in a limited records search. Lot 3 is a flag lot with no frontage on Magdalena and access via a future driveway through an easement on Lot 2. No off-road paths exist or are planned in the adjacent area. WC moved that for 10800, 10880, and 10888 Magdalena, the PWC recommend that the Town require payment of a pathway in-lieu fee for each parcel. ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW). C. 10888 Magdalena (Lands of Aron; Lot 1; APN 336-35-006; #66-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The parcel is on the southwest side of Magdalena Road (a public road not designated to have paths on both sides) just past the sharp curve to the southeast. This is one of three parcels being developed by the same developer, Navneet Aron, who was present and gave a general overview of the plans (Attachment A). No existing pathway easements on the parcel were identified in a limited records search. Lot 1 has frontage on Magdalena and a future driveway is FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0331.doc 5/2/16 2 planned. PWC maps (May 27, 2015) show the opposite side of Magdalena is the preferred side for a roadside path. Topography is flatter on that side and roadside paths exist along several nearby parcels on that side, including directly opposite 10800. WC moved that for 10800, 10880, and 10888 Magdalena, the PWC recommend that the Town require payment of a pathway in-lieu fee for each parcel. ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW). D. 13335 Wildcrest Drive (Lands of Wildcrest Properties; APN 175-36-010; #54-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is a flag lot on the east side of Wildcrest near the end of the cul-de-sac. Wildcrest is a private cul-de-sac (TR#6208) serving 13 addresses. No pathway easements on the parcel were identified in a limited records search. An off-road path exits from the short Wildflower Lane cul-de-sac, but is well proximal to this parcel. Further, the only frontage on Wildcrest for this parcel is the driveway. EG moved that PWC ask the Town to require the developers of 13335 Wildcrest Drive to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. WC seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW). E. 25600 Burke Lane (Lands of Mcdermott Trust; APN 175-26-035; #61-16-ZP-SD). Reason for pathway review is a remodel and major addition. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the south side of Burke Lane, a private cul-de-sac (TR#3239, ROS 608/23) serving 7 parcels. A 10-ft wide pathway easement exists along the north frontage along Burke on this parcel (CR-92-96, Nov 96) and on 25620 (adjacent) and 25550 Burke Lane. A walkable shoulder or degraded path exists on the frontage of 25600 and the PWC map (May 27, 2015) shows existing roadside paths on 25550 and the adjacent parcel to the west (no address). An existing off-road path connecting to Robleda exits from the end of Burke Lane and a future off-road path connecting to the end of Deerfield is planned. ND moved that the PWC ask the Town to require the developer of 25600 Burke Lane to construct a IIB roadside path along the Burke Lane frontage and to roughen the driveway for equestrian safety. DW seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW). F. 10490 West Loyola Drive (Lands of West Loyola LLC; owner Steven Johnson; APN 331-17-027; #65- 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 West Loyola (a private road) between Rolly Road and Sunhills Drive. A shallow asphalt drainage runs along the outside edge of the pavement. Development plans indicate the road ROW will be widened to 60 feet, providing room for a roadside path in the ROW on the property side of the drainage. No existing pathway easements on the parcel were identified in a limited records search. PWC discussed at length whether the Town/PWC have authority to require/recommend pathways in areas of Town annexed after the 2005 Master Path map update. Two PWC members expressed the opinion that the PWC does not have authority to recommend roadside pathways in the absence of a Master Path Plan for this area. They also reported that most of the residents in this area do not want roadside paths. Other PWC members reported that Council had instructed PWC to use the policies and guidelines outlined in the Pathway Element of the General Plan until the Master Path Plan was amended to include the annexed areas. In earlier site development reviews, PWC recommended roadside paths along the West Loyola frontage for two parcels on the same side of West Loyola in this annexation area (i.e., 10300 West Loyola, reviewed 11/28/11; and 10180 West Loyola, reviewed 6/23/14). The path has been constructed on 10300 West Loyola. Town conditions of approval for development of 10180 West Loyola require a IIB path on the West Loyola frontage, but it has not been constructed yet because house construction is ongoing. PWC discussed the site and pros and cons of roadside pathway options, including issues related to topography, traffic, limited sight-distance along the frontage, and the expanded road ROW. EG moved the PWC recommend that the Town require the developer of 10490 West Loyola to build a IIB roadside path in the road ROW along the West Loyola frontage located on the property side of the shallow drainage ditch. AB seconded and the vote was 8 in favor (JB, AB, ND, AD, EG, VH, SW, DW) and 2 opposed (WC, BM). G. 10511 Magdalena Road (Lands of Narayanan Rajagopalan; APN 336-39-031; #82-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the north side of Magdalena Road (a public road not designated to have roadside paths on both sides) midway between Blandor and Albertsworth. The road shoulder and parcel are relatively flat FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0331.doc 5/2/16 3 and can easily accommodate a roadside path. No existing pathway easements on the parcel were identified in a limited records search. PWC map (dated May 27, 2015) show the opposite side of Magdalena is the preferred side for a roadside path and roadside paths already exist on that side. On 10/19/15, PWC reviewed 10631 Magdalena (four parcels to the west on the same side) and recommended a IIB roadside path. PWC recommended a pathway in-lieu fee for nearby parcel on the opposite side of Magdalena (10250). The PWC map (dated May 27, 2015) indicates an off-road path along the northern border of 10511 Magdalena as “proposed revised route” to connect Magdalena to Fernhill, but because this off-road path is not on the 2005 approved MPP map, no PWC action was taken at this time. ND moved that PWC ask the Town to require the developer of 10511 Magdalena Road to construct a IIB roadside path along the Magdalena frontage in the road ROW or on an easement if necessary. WC seconded and the vote was 9 in favor (JB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW) and one opposed (AB). H. 26850 St. Francis Road (Lands of X; APN 175-53-006; #87-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the southwest side of St Francis, a public road not designated to have paths on both sides (Res 181, TR#1848), across from the intersection with Ortega. No existing pathway easements on the parcel were identified in a limited records search. PWC maps (May 27, 2015) show the opposite side of St. Francis is the preferred side for a roadside path and many roadside paths already exist on that side. In 11/06, PWC reviewed 26900 St. Francis (two parcels to the west on the same side) and recommended a pathway in-lieu fee. ND moved that PWC ask the Town to require the developer of 26850 St. Francis Road to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. SW seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW). I. 26642 Purissima Road (Lands of XX; APN 182-06-017; #324-13-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is a second unit. The developer was not present. The parcel is a flag lot on the south side of Purissima, a public road that is designated to have paths on both sides. Access to the parcel is a shared driveway off Purissima. The parcel abuts to very small parcels (possibly CalTrans lands) adjacent to I- 280. No existing pathway easements on the parcel or in the vicinity were identified in a limited records search. WC moved that PWC ask the Town to require the developer of 26642 Purissima Road to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. DW seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BM, SW, DW). 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Brown Act Clarification. LAH City Attorney Steve Mattas reviewed aspects of the Brown Act regarding meetings, site visits, and subcommittees. The Standing Committee Resolution adopted by Council requires that group site visits must be comprised of less than a quorum of PWC members (a quorum of PWC is 6 members). Any gathering to discuss matters under PWC review when a quorum is present is a public meeting and requires public notice. Subcommittees also must be comprised of less than a quorum so that they are not subject to the Brown Act and do not require public notice and there can be limits to access to the subcommittee meeting. Further, only PWC members (not associate members) are permitted to make site visits. One exception is that a member or associate member who owns the property on which the site visit is made is permitted to be present at the site visit and address the PWC as a property owner. Mr. Mattas also reviewed the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations regarding conflict of interest for committee members. If a member has a material financial interest in a decision before the committee, the member must abstain on that decision. FPPC has a series of rules for determining material financial interest for property issues. In general, if the issue before the committee involves a property that is within 500 feet of your property, then you generally have a conflict of interest that would require you to abstain. If you do abstain, you still have a right to speak as an individual (as a private citizen, not as a PWC member) about how the issue before the committee will affect your property, but not regarding any effects beyond your property. He also discussed distinctions between advisory committees and decision-making committees, how they are defined by FPPC, and how the COI rules apply to them. For site development decisions, PWC might be considered part of the decision- making process because PWC recommendations are often accepted by the PC and /or CC without modification. Because decisions the PWC makes on the Master Path Plan map update will eventually be amendments to the General Plan, members who live in the affected neighborhoods might have to recuse FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0331.doc 5/2/16 4 themselves from discussion of the MPP update for their neighborhood. However, because PC and CC often amend PWC recommendations on MPP issues, PWC might be considered advisory only for the MMP update. In this case members would not have to abstain. There is a lot of ambiguity in this area and determination must be made a case-by-case basis. One PC member has asked Mr. Mattas to request Council to seek a formal written advice letter from the FPPC regarding whether the PWC is an advisory or a decision-making committee and for which PWC issues members must recuse themselves. PWC members who have additional questions or need more information about these issues can pass their questions on to AD to send to Mr. Mattas or call him directly. B. Finance Director Pak Lin Budget Discussion. Pak Lin, LAH Director of Finance and Administrative Services presented an overview of the budget process (Attachment B), including role of the budget, pathways operation costs, funding sources, history of capital improvement projects, and request for PWC input for the pathways budget the FY 2016-17 FY and for the next five years. She suggested the PWC identify by June one or two projects for the next two years and additional projects for the longer term. The audited ending fund balance for the Pathways fund (from in-lieu fees) is about $300K. The joint City Council/FIC budget study session will be held May 23, 2016 and the budget will be adopted in June. Director Lin will provide data for the average pathway in-lieu fee paid for one-acre lots. C. CIP Project Priority Planning. AD distributed a summary of the 2015 PWC CIP priorities (Attachment C) and comments from the Los Altos Hills Horsemen’s’ Association (LAHHA) including: 1) their top three ranked projects from the PWC CIP project list; and 2) suggestions for other pathway projects (Attachment D). The objective of the CIP discussions is to identify projects that are a) top priority; b) important but not top priority; and c) smaller projects that can be done by staff at modest cost. Discussion included whether to prioritize another large project (such as Miranda path) or several smaller projects; whether PWC and Town should set aside funds each year to save funds for a large project (e.g., Fremont Road from Town Hall to Arastradero); how to encourage contributions from the Town General Fund; whether or not to explore improvements for the roadside path under and east of the Magdalena/I-280 intersection; whether Richard Chiu can provide cost estimates of proposed projects. John Radford suggested PWC direct some of funds to maintenance of existing paths rather than construction of new paths (i.e., identify and assess major paths on Town arterials that need upgrading). PWC discussed this at length, including how to determine the most important paths for upgrading; whether a consultant was needed. AD asked PWC members to submit suggestions for discussion at the next meeting for use of pathway funds for 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years. 4. OLD BUSINESS A. Report from Map Update Subcommittee. EG reported the subcommittee has completed all neighborhood meetings except the one for the Mora area, which must be rescheduled because of noticing errors. The meeting will be held April 8, 2016 with the walk on April 9. The “straw man” maps prepared by the subcommittee will be presented at a special PWC meeting on Thursday, April 14, 2016. No votes on the maps will be taken at this meeting. PWC members will be asked to visit the proposed path location sites and be prepared to discuss and vote at the regular PWC meeting on April 25, 2016. B. Earth Day. AD and DW volunteered to staff the PWC information tables at this event on April 17, 2016. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. None 6 NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS. Next Special Meeting: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall (Presentation of “Straw Man” Draft MPP Maps to PWC) Next +1 Pathway Walk: Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 9:00 am at Town Hall Next +1 Regular Meeting: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 pm at Town Hall NOTE EARLY START TIME 6. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. Attachment A: SCC Assessor’s map showing 10800, 10880, and 10888 Magdalena Road Attachment B: 2016/17 Budget Kickoff Presentation from Pak Lin Attachment C: Summary of 2015 PWC CIP Priorities (3/1/15) Attachment D: LAHHA Comments on Pathway CIP Projects Final minutes approved at the Regular Pathways Meeting of April 25, 2016. ts 2 6 I E o0o E gt 6 >\tsd2C t o(tz.F eL<oct uci2afE "ttg E€F-d<z _9 rE; z $r\II NR'QJ:\z$-lhrlea--. --) S--:o\\\- V<--.I c \-; _s \ tf\ \-a -.\ * s \ \) N t $c eJs\ € F3+- $113 $89 $192 $211 $211 $37 $36 $67 $54 $60 $163 $145 $158 $164 $175 $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 EstThousandsPathway Operation (in thousands) Operations Services Personnel Operation Detail Services •Tree Survey and Maintenance, •Landscape Maintenance, •Rebecca Ln Pathway Survey, •Tractor Repair Operations •Utility, •Material Disposal, •Support from administration, Corp Yard crew, and other overhead Funding Source 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Budget Pathway in-lieu 172,848 202,763 132,341 141,086 170,000 Grants (SCVWD)8,300 8,150 General Fund 1,275 -200 1,714 3,130 1,000 Total Funding Source 182,424 202,563 142,205 144,216 171,000 Project Cost 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Budget Stanford C-2 Trail (427893)130,713 63,235 54,307 Robleda Pathway (427894)33,660 Moody Connector Path (427895)679 35,643 VTA Vehicle Emission Reduction (427896)132,111 1,107,398 13,754 461 Pathway Crosswalks (427898)69,101 Pathways Ramp 2012-13 (427900)44,650 El Monte/Magdalena Path (467215)14,860 Miranda Pathway(467218)9,843 11,001 Other Pathway Projects (Various)1,032 4,306 5 Total Project Cost 367,807 1,255,232 69,208 25,164 221,001 Date Action 3/31 •Introduce Budget Process •Identify priority list for 2016/17 and 2017/18 •Identify program cost for 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21 April 2016 Town Staff will provide estimated cost for the projects 4/25 Discuss result Pathways committee and begin to fine-tune the process in the following year 5/31 CC/FIC joint budget study session 6/16 Budget adoption   Attachment_C_PWC_16‐0331_CIP Priorities_2015.docx        5/2/16 1  ATTACHMENT C: Pathways Committee Meeting 03/31/16    Pathway Committee 2015 CIP Priorities  Summarized by Pathway Committee Chairman, Ann Duwe  3/1/15      1.  The highest priority project for 2015 is completion of a roadside path on  the west side of Miranda Road.  The Pathway Committee recommends that the  City Council authorize $100,000 from the Pathway Fund for this purpose.  To keep  costs as low as possible, the Pathway Committee further recommends that Town  staff be used to complete the work.  The remainder of the cost of the project will  have to come from the Town’s General Fund.     In descending order of priority, additional projects for the year include the  following:    2.  Summerhill Road.  Construct a new roadside path on the west side of Summerhill  from Miraloma to Amigos Court.  Ten‐foot easements dedicated in 1979 should be  re‐confirmed before construction begins.  As a courtesy, letters should be sent by  the Planning Department to homeowners to advise them of the work.    3.  Eastbook at I‐280/Magdalena off‐ramp.  Build a IIB path over the existing  easement from the end of the Bob Stutz Path to the roadside path on Magdalena.   New path should be separated from the I‐280 off‐ramp.  Authorization for CIP funds  for surveying the path have already been authorized.     4.  Natoma at Elena. Create a horse‐friendly descent from the bank on the Poor  Clare’s side of Natoma at the intersection with Elena Road.  The purpose of the new  short segment is to provide safer crossing than the current one, which is not visible  to cars from Elena  turning onto Natoma.  Natoma is frequently used by equestrians.  Discussion of the required 10’ easement from Poor Clares stalled when their lawyer  failed to respond to the Pathway Committee in 2012 though maybe the Town has a  record of a response.          CIP projects that require additional information before being turned over to  Town staff for completion:     Hilltop to Dawnridge.  An off‐road path between the two roads has been on the map  for years.  The easements exist, but there may be a less expensive alternative to the  approved route if the Santa Clara Valley Water District allows the route to be moved  onto their land.  PWC will follow up and report.       Attachment_C_PWC_16‐0331_CIP Priorities_2015.docx        5/2/16 2  Manuella Road.  Make improvements to existing paths, including making curb cuts  at intersections.  PWC will walk the road in March and report on the need for  construction of any missing segments.    25810 Altamont.  At least one previous request has been made to Town staff to re‐ vise the end of the off‐road path from Vinedo Lane so it can safely join the roadside  path along Altamont.  At present the off‐road path has a very steep drop straight  down the bank to Altamont.  This section is unsafe and creates erosion.  At least  some of the land needed to create a safer descent is within the road right‐of‐way.       Attachment_D_PWC_16‐0331_LAHHA.docx 5/2/16 1  Attachment D: Pathways Committee Meeting of 03/31/16 Suggestions for Use of Pathway Funds from Los Altos Hills Horsemen’s Association LAHHA discussed the CIP project list in our last meeting, and also had a few suggestions for potential future projects, from an equestrian perspective (below): Note: We did not rank the Miranda Rd project because we deemed it already in progress/#1 priority, but LAHHA is fully in support of the project. As a side note, we have submitted a note to the City Council expressing our preference for avoidance of the plastic bumps at intersections if possible, since they can be slippery for horses and we generally go around them, which can put us in the road. LAHHA ranking of the CIP projects listed: 1st: Summerhill Rd. Currently this area cannot be used in winter, and it is not possible to get off the trail because of a ditch, so for safety concerns this was #1. A side question came up regarding whether this could be part of the Safe Routes to School initiative, as it should be applicable. 2nd: Eastbrook at I-280/Magdalena off-ramp. This would be very valuable to equestrians to keep them away from traffic on the offramp, which can be quite fast and is usually not expecting equestrians. The Bob Stutz path is a big draw for equestrians because it is a long off-road path, so will definitely be utilized. Side note: Also of high importance is the area on the east side of 280 at Magdalena. Currently equestrians have to ride in the bicycle lane against traffic. Suggest making this a CIP project, and also checking if it could be part of the Safe Routes to School initiative for Layola School. 3rd: Natoma at Elena. This needs a better transition to the road. Last/Not a priority from equestrian perspective: Paving Bob Stutz Path Side note: Opening up the rest of the Bob Stutz path to Magdalena would be a higher priority for equestrians LAHHA Comments/Suggestions for other projects: 1. Need path on El Monte between Foothill and Stonebrook Drive. Currently riding in the road, and this is a major equestrian connection to the Bob Stutz path. 2. As noted above, need path on Magdalena east of I-280. Currently riding against traffic in the road, and this connects between the Bob Stutz path and the off-road path from Dawnridge. 3. 25810 Altamont needs transition (as noted in A-List Projects for Staff) 4. Manuella Rd improvements needed to complete loop (as noted in A-List Projects Attachment_D_PWC_16‐0331_LAHHA.docx 5/2/16 2  for Staff) 5. Hilltop and Dawnridge Very steep, noted on A-List Projects for Staff to build connection between these roads. This would be very nice, but it was deemed even more important (per LAHHA) to open the easement in the middle (Miraloma to Amigos Ct.) 6. Magdalena/Camino Hermoso/Ravensbury Paths currently incomplete/dangerous for equestrians in sections, particularly where we have to go on the road at turns 7. Re-open Edgerton path connecting to Black Mountain 8. Create path around stairs on Mary Stutz path for horses 9. Build bridge on south side of Page Mill at Paseo del Roble Dangerous crossing of Page Mill at a curve, lots of fast traffic. The path on the south side ends here, then picks up again, so we cross Page Mill twice. 10. Path from Arastradero preserve to Alpine - highly traveled route, currently have to ride in road at Alpine. From the Fire Dept map it appeared that some of this land might be part of LAH? 11. Clausen Ct - steep and slippery, transition of path could be improved 12. 12135 Barley Hill - I didn't record good notes on this one but I think it's a slippery driveway/no path 13. Path on Country Way or Page Mill west of Country Way to connect Page Mill path with 3 Forks Lane and/or Via Feliz. Page Mill used to have a path along this stretch but it has eroded into the creek at points, forcing equestrians onto Page Mill. 14. Orchard Hill to Robleda Would be nice to have a path connector between Orchard Hill and Newbridge. Currently paved and quite narrow, but it is useable as-is so this is more of a nice-to-have. Other * Is there an easement between Via Feliz and 3 Forks? If not that would be desirable in future. Currently the route between the Town Arena and Westwind Barn includes a section on Page Mill. If there were a path 'inland' that would be a much safer option.  