Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.13 . I TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 10, 2005 Staff Report to the Plannin Commission RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE TOWN MASTER PATH PLAN OF 1981 AND REVIEW OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION; TOWN WIDE LOS ALTOS HILLS. FROM: Carl Cahill, Planning Director CC. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Review and recommend that the City Council adopt the attached Negative Declaration & Initial Study. 2. Approve the attached resolution recommending to the City Council that the proposed General Plan amendment to the 1981 Master Path Plan be approved. BACKGROUND The current Master Path Map is 21 years old. The 1996 General Plan Pathway Element calls for a new map to be developed by the Pathways Committee and approved by the City Council. The Town General Plan Pathway Element requires the 1981 Master Path Plan to be updated. The Master Path Plan is a map that shows the entire network of planned off-road pathways and roadside pathways throughout the Town. At the direction of the City Council, the Pathways Committee has been studying the Town's off-road pathways system, as shown on the 1981 Master Path Plan, for over one year. Since August 2004, the Pathway Committee has held three public hearings with Town wide notice and conducted numerous neighborhood visits to discuss the Town's off-road pathways system with residents. The outcome of these meetings was the development of the draft 2005 Off -Road Path Plan. The Pathway Committee will present the draft 2005 Off -Road Path Plan to the Planning Commission for consideration and its recommendation. No changes to the roadside pathways system, as shown on the 1981 Master Path Plan, are planned at this time. DISCUSSION The rationale for each of the Pathway Committee's Off -Road Path Plan recommendations is detailed in the attached spreadsheet. Each recommendation is keyed to a corresponding off-road path location as shown on the attached 2005 Off -Road Master Path Map "Version 2.0." The primary focus of the Pathway Committee's review of the off-road system was to review pathways shown on the 1981 Map under certain criteria that include: impractical to construct due to either steep terrain, redundancy with other pathway routes, obsolescence due to the subsequent subdivision of land and significant impacts to Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills 2005 Pathway Map Update February 10, 2005 Page 2 resident privacy. In addition, where possible, the Pathway Committee proposed alternate pathway routes that were more practical to construct. The feasibility of these new routes were field verified by Pathway Committee members. The environmental analysis for this project is also attached. The basic conclusion of the attached initial study is that impacts of the proposed project can be mitigated by following the pathway policies contained in the 1996 General Plan Pathway Element and the development standards found in "Article 6. Pathway Dedication, Maintenance, and Improvement' of the Town Site Development Ordinance. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or the public may have. ATTACHMENTS 1. Spreadsheet: "Town of Los Altos Hills Master Pathway Plan: Off -Road Pathway Recommendations" 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study 3. Copy of Town General Plan Pathway Element 4. "Pathway Dedication, Maintenance and Improvement' Article 6 of the Site Development Ordinance 5. 1951 Master Path Plan 6. 2005 Town of Los Altos Hills Off -Road Path Plan "Version 2.0" ATTACHMENT 1 {), { \)� \ /(\ OE )o }0 ! ) \\\\ ) \\\ \\` \ { \)� OE ) \\` \ \ OE ) \ � \ /� i - - � ) | - ]� \ \ _O ! ( \2 j 1 {\ ) )� �( 0 { 28 / a 2 / § � \ \- !ƒ 45 : � \ \ :0 0 , , ` ` \ \ \ \ ! i \ �F, \\ -- _ m q o m N p C ° 8 All t . / t rrE 5 E w m E o E o a E E E o d c u a a1.3 3 it r 16 Ec g¢ o i 0 i i i. z h ry 0 U 0 0 U 0 U 0 U U U U U U U U / 6 N ' E _ E 16 o 15 o 15 q m c a n no O �'. N r L z ig - n j � p • e m E y S U ". 5 6 a a a a E a - 'ry a 9 e.•� ¢ c z a a v 'u v 0 o 0 0 0 0 v U ... o o 0 $ 0 0 Y a d rc rc a' 0 0 c ATTACHMENT o2_ TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: 2005 OFF-ROAD PATH PLAN PREPARED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR: Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 LOCATION OF PROJECT: The project, which consists of various proposed and existing pathway routes, is located throughout Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County California 94022 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of a General Plan Amendment to the Master Path Plan whereby certain off-road paths are proposed to be deleted from the Plan and certain off-road paths are proposed to be added. FINDING: The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of the attached Initial Study, has determined that the project, as mitigated, will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed mitigation n n measures and monitoring program are also attached. n I CSX C� P / -/F- b � Carl Cahill, Planning Director Date TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Circulated on: January 18 2005 Adopted I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE This Initial Study of environmental impacts has been prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the Town of Los Altos Hills. This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result from an amendment to the Pathway Element of the Town of Los Altos Hill's General Plan. The project is an amendment to the Pathway Element of the Town of Los Altos Hill's General Plan for the adoption of the proposed 2005 Master Path Plan. The 2005 Master Path Plan would include the addition of certain off-road pathways within the Town as well as the removal of previously proposed off-road pathways as designated on the 1981 Master Path Plan. The project does not amend the roadside path routes as shown on the 1981 Plan. No existing pathways would be eliminated by adoption of the proposed Plan. IL PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION The Town of Los Altos Hills is located in northwestern Santa Clara County, nestled at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains, north of Cupertino, west of Los Altos, and south of Palo Alto, as shown on Figure 1. The majority of off-road pathways to be removed from the Master Path Plan are located along lot lines between properties. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the adoption of the proposed 2005 Master Path Plan of the Pathway Element of the Town of Los Altos Hill's General Plan. The Town's Pathway System serves three basic and important functions: circulation, recreation, and preservation of the open, rural character of the Town. The pathway system is designed to complement the Town's roadway system and to enhance non -motorized circulation by providing connections between neighborhoods and local or nearby destinations. Unlike larger communities, the Town does not maintain a park system with "active" recreational uses, and instead relies primarily on the pathway network to fulfill that function. The Town's pathway system is composed of roadside paths and off-road paths. Roadside paths are located within or adjacent to the road right-of-way. The road right-of-way is generally planned to have the needed width to accommodate both the paved road as well as a separated path. Roadside paths provide safe routes for pedestrians and equestrians in the Town, much as sidewalks function in more urban communities. This project proposes no changes to the roadside path system as depicted on the 1981 Master Path Plan. Off-road paths connect to roadside paths or open space areas and provide links between adjacent neighborhoods and schools. Off-road paths are generally located on dedicated easements on private property (usually along property lines), through public lands, or through privately owned conservation/open space easements. General Plan Amendment/Pathways Element 1 initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 The Town currently has approximately 24.44 miles of existing off-road pathways and an additional 15.18 miles of planned or fixture pathways as shown in Table 1, below. 9.7 miles of planned off-road pathways are proposed for deletion. These pathways were planned routes, but were never constructed. The deletion of these routes is recommended by the Pathway Committee because the path routes were determined to be either redundant in terms of function, impractical to construct or traverse due steep terrain and erosion potential or obsolete due to changes in surrounding land use. TABLE 1: OFFROAD PATH INVENTORY e of Pathwa Length in Miles Existing Off -Road Pathways designated on 1981 Master Path Plan (with 24.44 easements) proposed to be retained Future Off -Road Pathways designated on 1981 Master Path Plan (with .80 easements) pproposed to be retained Future Off -Road Pathways designated on 1981 Master Path Plan 12.63 without easements) proposed to be retained Future Off -Road Pathways (without easements) proposed to be added to 1.75 2005 Master Path Plan Future Off -Road Pathways designated on 1981 Master Path Plan 9.70 without easements) 2roposed to be deleted Total Future OR -Road Pathways 39.62 The proposed project would not result in the removal of any existing pathways within the Town The attached Exhibit "A" entitled 112005 Off -Road Path Plan" shows the proposed changes to the off- road path system in graphic detail. The attached Exhibit `B" is a spreadsheet that is keyed to the 2005 Off -Road Path Plan. The rationale for each change to the off-road path is described in the spreadsheet. Easements According to the Open Space Element of the General Plan, conservation easements, open space zoning, and other land use regulations should be used to prohibit development on unstable terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas determined hazardous to public welfare and safety. Therefore, some of these pathway alignments would require a conservation easement that would protect them in perpetuity from grading, tree removal, fencing (which might inhibit wildlife migration), and structures. The placement or retention of conservation easements on some of the currently planned off-road pathway alignments would be consistent with the General Plan. Emergency Access The proposed project and the removal of town easements on some planned pathways would not result in the loss of easements for emergency vehicle access. The emergency vehicle access routes, as shown on Figure C4 of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, are located along existing off- road pathways. The elimination of some planned off-road pathways would not affect designated emergency access routes within the Town. Genera Pan Amen en a ways emen[ 2 lnina to y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Pathway Construction As shown on Figure 1, all pathways would be constructed in as natural a state as possible. Pathways would be approximately five feet wide with two, two -foot shoulders. Pathway materials would be pervious and may include crushed gravel or topsoil. Redwood or pressure treated header boards would be installed along the path alignment to contain the pathway liner materials. The sides of the paths would be graded so that stormwater runoff would not collect on the surface of the pathways. Trees and shrubs shall not be planted closer than five feet from a pathway and groundcover may not be planted within three feet. Pathways to be constructed in steeper terrain may require handrails and/or retaining walls. General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element 3 Initial Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Figure 1 Typical pathway section General Pan Amen men Pathways E ement 4 Inma Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 HEADER BOARDS . PROJECT ABOVE THE I OR ADJACENT GRADES SHOULDER (MINIMUM) 3X-10% SLOPE AT EACH SPLICE. CONNECT STAKE TO HEADER WITH A MINIMUM OF 4-10d GALVANIZED NAILS. SHOULDER (MINIMUM) 3% SLOPE- 3%-10% 0 SLOPE 6" REDWOOD REDWOOD HEADERS MAY BE USE ON CURVES). (AYgk7l4��` \ — NO SEE TES D 4 & 6 AC BERM NOTES: OR CURB 1. PATHWAY MATERIAL AND SHOULDERS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVE DENSITY, 2. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 3 FEET TO A PATHWAY. NO IRRIGATION WATER MAY BE DIRECTED TOWARD OR ON THE PATHWAY. 3. TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5 FEET TO A PATHWAY. GROUND COVER MAY NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 3 FEET FROM A PATHWAY. •4. 5%. MAXIMUM IF APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. PATHWAY AND SHOULDER CROSS SLOPES SHALL DRAIN TOWARD OR AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT ROAD AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. S. UTILITY BOXES, SERVICE METERS, MANHOLES, MAIL BOXES, FIRE HYDRANTS AND ALL OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE PATHWAY. PATHWAYS MAY MEANDER AROUND EXISTING UTILITY POLES, FIRE HYDRANTS AND MAIL BOXES WHERE FEASIBLE. 6. HEADER BOARDS MAY BE OMITTED ON THE SIDE OF THE PATHWAY IMMEDIATLELY ADJACENT TO BERM AND CURBS. 7. SEE STANDARD DETAIL J32 FOR WATER BAR INSTALLATION. S. SEE STANDARD DETAIL 033 FOR PATHWAY MARKER POST. LOS ALTOS HILLS4 f A$�p� if i .413e $ * Or CIVIL AE" �\p ROADSIDE PATH (TYPE 2B) So..P6/30/99 ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL DATE: 6/04/97 SCALE: NONE DATE: JUNE 1997 CHK: JMP STANDARD DETAIL 24 SHT. 1 OF 1 CALIFORNIArF IAA III. CONSISTENCY WITH ZONING, PLANS, AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAND USE CONTROLS A. LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE Article 6 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (Sec. 10-2.601) states that the purpose of the article is to ensure that provision is made for public pathways to provide pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle access for Town residents; to implement the Master Pathway Plan of the General Plan; and to prevent damage to the Town's pathways from activities that occur on private property. General policies include the following: 1. Each property shall have direct access to a pathway or indirect access via a vehicular right-of-way. 2. Undeveloped properties along designated pathways and bicycle routes may be required to dedicate an easement for the extension of the pathway as a condition of site development approval. 3. Pathways may be sited and improved in a manner that creates minimal disturbance to the natural environment. 4. Equestrian and pedestrian paths should generally be separated from roadways. 5. Pathways shall be of sufficient width to provide a safe corridor for travel and pathway maintenance. 6. Except for designated regional trails and bikeways, paths shall be designed primarily for local use by Town residents. 7. Intersections of paths and vehicular rights-of-way shall be kept clear of vegetation which might obscure the view of users. 8. Pathways shall be designed and maintained to prevent erosion, to prevent injury from landslides or other soil movements, and to assure proper drainage of the path. 9. Pathways shall be designed and maintained to minimize their impact on adjacent properties. Consistency: The project is consistent with the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in modifications to the Master Path Plan that would allow both the addition of pathways within the Town and the removal of pathways from the Plan. However, pathways to be removed from the Master Path Plan would not result in the loss of direct or indirect access to a pathway for any residence. The additional pathways proposed are generally intended to replace less practical routes shown in the 1981 Master Path Plan that are not entirely consistent with the Municipal Code Policies enumerated above. All new path alignments would conform to the Town of Los Altos Hill's Municipal Code. ener Ian Amen ent/Pa ways ement 5 Inm Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 B. 1975 GENERAL PLAN The Town of Los Altos Hill's General Plan is an adopted statement of public policies regarding the future physical form of the Town, and serves as the basis for public and private decisions and actions. A summary of the major goals and policies that apply to the proposed General Plan Amendment are presented below. General Plan Objectives and Principles Community Goals The major community goals are general in nature; however, they provide the basic policy direction for the Town of Los Altos Hills. More detailed objectives, found in each element of the General Plan, are based on these community goals. These goals are: Los Altos Hills should be a community dedicated to maintaining a rural atmosphere, where people can live in the midst of open space, exposed to minimum noise, congestion, and confusion, and with sufficient space on each lot to allow the pursuit of space -consuming activities, such as small-scale farming, the keeping of horses, and outdoor recreation. Los Altos Hills should continue to serve as a transition between the urbanized mid - peninsula and the open coastal mountain range. This community should supply low density residential environment and open space for the region and rely on the more urbanized community for employment, goods, and most services. Circulation Element The Circulation Element of the Town of Los Altos Hill's General Plan was updated in January 1999. The basic characteristics of the circulation system proposed for Los Altos Hills are derived from the residents' desire to maintain the residential character and rural atmosphere of the community. In essence, the Town is meant to be largely impermeable to cars but permeable to equestrians and those on foot and on bicycle. The general objective of the Circulation Element that pertains to trails and paths is as follows: Develop and maintain corridors for travel through Town in which the user can enjoy and view the natural environment and open spaces that provide a buffer from adjacent Ind uses. These corridors should include pathways proposed or existing in the Pathways Element. The goals/objectives/policies of the Circulation Element that pertain to trails and pathways include the following: Goal 41: Los Altos Hills enjoys its quiet rural roadways. The Town wishes to preserve their current character, and desires to maintain their level of service without increasing their capacity. The policies and implementation measures should result in adequate space in public rights-of-way to accommodate rural roadways, pathways, utilities, drainage, and vegetative buffers. Goal G3: Driveways should be compatible with the natural terrain, with minimal impact on grades and vegetation and should be designed for safe access to and from the individual parcels. Driveway design shall allow for adequate and safe General Plan Amen men a ways ement 6 in Sm y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 development of pathways near roads. This will include a roughened surface at pathway crossings to allow safe equestrian use. 3. Goal Cd: To provide safe roadways for all travelers. Pedestrian and equestrian travel shall be separated from roadways by at least five feet where practical. 4. Goal C-5: The roadways of Los Altos Hills are scenic and rural. The design and maintenance of the roadways should preserve these qualities. A comprehensive pathways system developed as set forth in the Pathways Element of the General Plan. The Town shall request conservation easements where necessary to ensure the preservation of scenic areas and native vegetation immediately adjacent to roads and to preserve creeks. 5. Goal C-6: Provide far the most efficient use of roadwaysfor emergency vehicles and for emergency access for residents. Emergency vehicle access is provided in the Town by secondary emergency roads. These roads are usually one lane in width and closed to all except emergency traffic, and may allow for foot, equestrian, and bicycle traffic when appropriate easements are provided. 6. Goal C-8: The Town promotes more efficient use of Town roadways, easements and public lands to accommodate all modes of travel. Policies should result in a circulation system that provides better and safer access for pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists. Open Space Element The Open Space Element of the General Plan is comprised of objectives to preserve the residential character and rural atmosphere of Los Altos Hills, which results primarily form the open space and natural qualities of the area. Open space areas include areas for outdoor recreation, including, but not limited to, areas particularly suited for park and recreation uses. Objectives of the Open Space Element that may pertain to pathways include the following: 1. To provide for the maximum feasible preservation of open space in and adjoining the Town, with spaces ranging in size from regional scale to small scale open space or individual lots. 2. To protect and maintain those areas necessary to the integrity of natural resources and processes with special emphasis on, but not limited to, the water regime, open spaces vital for wildlife habitat, and other areas of major or unique ecological significance. 3. To provide open space for outdoor recreational needs and for the preservation of sites of historical and cultural significance. 4. To preserve the natural beauty and minimize disturbance of the natural terrain and vegetation. 5. To provide open space to shape and guide development and to enhance community identity. One of the principals of the Open Space Element is that the Town should use conservation easements, open space zoning, and other land use regulations to prohibit development on unstable General Pin Amen mendPa ways E ement 7 to Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas determined hazardous to public welfare and safety. Recreation Element The Recreation Element provides guidelines for meeting the recreational needs of the Town. In the most comprehensive sense, recreation starts within the home and extends through community facilities and on to wider areas. The recreation areas include open space preserves, open space conservation areas, public and private recreation areas, and trails and paths. The focus in the Recreation Element is on the role these areas should play in filling the overall recreational needs of the Town. The objective of the Recreation Element is to provide recreation areas adequate to meet neighborhood and community needs of the Town. The objectives that pertain to trails and pathways include the following: I. Public recreation areas should be specifically adapted to local needs and interests. 2. Trails and paths should constitute a major recreation facility in the Town and should link all recreation areas. Principles of the Recreation Element that pertain to trails and pathways include the following: 1. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and replanting required to maintain soil stability, prevent erosion, and retain the aesthetic quality of the community. 2. M overriding consideration in the design of any land development project should be conservation of the natural slope, and preserving existing native vegetation, and also conservation of natural drainage channels and swales since they serve in place of artificial storm drainage systems. 3. Zoning and other land use regulations should be used to limit and, in some cases, prohibit development in areas of identified geologic hazards, such as fault zones, identified active landslides, and other areas identified as highly unstable. 4. Topsoil destruction through overuse by motor vehicles or horses should be considered in environmental impact review and preventive measures should be required where necessary. 5. Those areas rich in wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature, e.g., areas of rare or endangered species of plants, riparian areas, etc., should be avoided in land development. Where necessary, these areas should be publicly acquired to ensure their protection. Gene mm Amen en a ways ET ment 8 Imna to y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Pathway Element The Town's Pathways System serves three basic and important functions — circulation, recreation, and preservation of the open character of the Town. The Town's pathway system is composed of roadside paths and off-road paths. Roadside paths are located within or adjacent to the road right-of-way. The road right-of-way is generally planned to have the needed width to accommodate both the paved road as well as the separated path. Roadside paths provide safe routes for pedestrians and equestrians in the Town, much as sidewalks function in more urban communities. off-road paths provide links between adjacent neighborhoods and schools for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. Off-road paths, which connect to roadside paths or open space lands, are generally located on dedicated easements on private property (usually along property lines), through public lands, or through privately owned conservation/open space easements. The goals of the Pathway Element of the General Plan include the following: GI: All residents of the Town shall have immediate access adjacent to or across the street from their residence to a pathway or pathways, for safe and convenient pedestrian and other non -vehicular travel along Town roads and to schools and community facilities, and for recreational enjoyment of the natural amenities of the community. G2: Pathways shall also serve to provide access to and from neighborhoods in the event of an emergency. G3: Pathways shall be separated from the roadway pavement and should meander, wherever possible. G4: All paths shall be located and designed to preserve the beauty and natural character of the area and to safeguard the user. G5: Except for connections to regional trail and bikeway networks, Town paths shall be designed primarily for local circulation and recreational use. Policies of the Pathway Element include the following: A. ROADSIDE PATHS Al: Roadside paths shall be located within or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way of Town streets and on separate path easements adjacent to or over private streets. Roadside paths shall be separated from the roadway pavement by landscape buffering and shall meander, where possible. A2: The Town Council shall adopt a list of those streets or segments of those streets that shall be planned for paths on both sides of the street. A3: A roadside path shall be maintained on only one side of the street unless the street is included on the list adopted pursuant to Policy A2. The path may be located on alternating sides of the street, however, depending on factors such as available easements, topography, or proximity to schools and other facilities. mere Pan Amen enUPa ways E emenl 9 In tta Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 A4: A roadside path shall not be maintained on a cul-de-sac that serves or could serve six or fewer lots. The traffic on such streets is deemed so minor that pedestrians can safely use the paved surface as a walkway. A roadside path along a cul-de-sac may be required by the Planning Commission or Council, however, for topographic or for safety reasons, and shall be required where it would connect to an off-road path. A5: The Planning Commission or Town Council may require that an easement separate from a private street be dedicated, or that a pathway easement over the paved roadway be granted (if feasible), when the width of a private street easement or right- of-way will not accommodate both the paved surface and a separate path. A6: Dedication of pathway easements outside of required road rights-of-way shall not affect the computation of the net area, LUF (lot unit factor), MDA (maximum development area) or MFA (maximum floor area) for a lot. B. OFF-ROAD PATHS BI: Off-road paths shall be located on private property on easements which have been dedicated to the Town, or over public lands. They provide connections between neighborhoods and provide direct routes to schools and open space. Cut -de -sacs should have off-road paths which connect the end of the street to adjoining neighborhoods. B2: There are three classes of off-road paths: Class 1 — Off-road paths for which easements have been granted to the Town for a completed route, on which a path has been developed or pathway use has been established, and which is maintained by the Town and is open for public use. Class 2 — Off-road paths for which easements have been granted to the Town for less than a completed route, or where the pathway easement exists but the path has not been constructed or maintained and is not open for public use. Such paths remain to be completed in the future. Class 3 — A planned future off-road path, as shown in the Master Path Plan. These paths may need dedication of easements over a single large parcel of land, or may require easements over a number of smaller parcels. B3: Off-road paths are a permitted use in a conservation and open space easement, and should be reflected as such in the language of the easement, at the time of dedication. 134: An emergency road easement shall also include dedication of an off-road path easement. B5: The design of new subdivisions — especially those with cul-de-sac streets — shall incorporate pathway connections to nearby neighborhoods or community facilities, such as schools, and to open space areas. 136: Dedication of off-road pathway easements shall not affect the computation of the net area, LUF, MDA, or MFA for a lot. GeDeral Pan Amen rnenVPat ways Element 10 nutiai xtuTy— Towa of Los Altos Hills January 2005 B7: Off-road paths shall be maintained in as natural a state as possible, except that installed surfaces may be acceptable when paths serve as connectors to schools or neighborhoods, or where special use or topography make it necessary. BS: Off-road paths shall be located along or as close to property lines as possible. Consistency: The proposed project is generally consistent with the Los Altos Hill's General Plan. All off-road pathways would be constructed in accordance with the various elements of the General Plan. These pathways would continue to reinforce the rural and natural atmosphere of the community. General Pan ArnenCanenVyatowaYs E ement I l Imna Stu y Tow of Los Altos Hills January 2005 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS The following section includes the Environmental Evaluation Checklist from the CEQA guidelines. The checklist identifies the potentially significant impacts which might result from the proposed project, an explanation of the answers to checklist questions, and a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potentially significant impacts. For a General Plan Amendment, the mitigation measures are in the form of General Plan policies, programmed mitigation measures, and mitigation measures to be considered at the time of development. "Programmed Mitigation Measures" are ordinances, laws, or adopted policies that would be implemented at the time of future development. A. AESTHETICS IMPACT SOURCE WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Leu Than Pote� aim Than Si n�Iamnt N�plm p�j lmoen Imine MNoation 1 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ N ❑ 1, 2, 12 including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 character or quality of the site and its sunoundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1,9 glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion; The existing visual and aesthetic character of the Town of Los Altos Hills is of a rural low-density residential area. The minimum lot size within the Town is one dwelling unit per acre; therefore, all homes are single-family with large lots. Much of the town is dominated by hillsides, heavy native vegetation, including oak trees, and canyons. Interstate 280, a scenic highway, divides the Town in a north/south direction. The residential streets within the Town are meandering with some native vegetation, and there are no paved urban sidewalks in order to retain the rural atmosphere of the Town. Pathways will be removed from the Master Path Plan; however, their removal may be considered a beneficial aesthetic impact to surrounding residents, whose homes may be visible from these pathways. Many of the pathways to be added will reduce privacy impacts as compared to the existing route. The project would not introduce additional lighting, as the proposed pathways would not be lit. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than Significant Impact) General Pan AmendmentfPathways Element 12 Initial Sru y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Mitigation and Avoidance. General Plan Policies While the project is not expected to result in significant aesthetic impacts, the Town will ensure that future pathway construction will conform to the following General Plan policies at the project stage, which would avoid or further reduce any potential aesthetic impacts: • Pathway Element Goal G4 states that all pathways shall be located to preserve the beauty and natural character of the area and to safeguard the user. • Pathway Element Policy B7 states that off-road paths shall be maintained in as natural a state as possible, except that installed surfaces may be acceptable when paths serve as connectors to schools or neighborhoods, or where special use or topography make it necessary. • Pathway Element Implementation Action tib states site development authorities shall be sensitive to path location and design. This is especially the case for the off-road paths. The location shall be sensitive to the privacy of future residents whenever a parcel is subdivided or a lot is developed. All paths shall be located and designed to preserve the beauty and natural character of the area and to safeguard the user. Particular care shall be given to retaining trees and vegetative cover and to minimize grading and erosion. Programmed Mitigation Measures The following policies of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code would be implemented at the time of pathway development. Their implementation would further reduce potential aesthetic impacts. • Section 10-2.602 (c) General Policies: Pathways shall be sited and improved in a manner that creates minimal disturbance to the natural environment. • Section 10-2.602 (i) General Policies: Pathways shall be designed and maintained to minimize their impact on adjacent properties. Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts to the project area. The implementation of the General Plan policies and Programmed Mitigation Measures described above would avoid or reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact) General Pan Amen enNPat ways Element 13 initial Smdy Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO SOURCE Po n all51 n��WMImoe�t Moab. FL_�a Irr. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 4 or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Caldomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1,4 use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1,4 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion: While the Town of Los Altos Hills was once an agricultural community characterized by country ranches and orchards, it is no longer used in an agricultural capacity. The Santa Clara County Important Famaland (Year 2000) map lists the Town area as "Urban Built-up Land". There are no properties designated as "Prime Farmland", "Faanland with Statewide Importance" or "Farmland of Local Importance", with the exception of Hidden Villa Farm on Moody Road, which is designated as "Unique Fam land". Impact: The proposed change to the Master Path Plan of the Pathway Element of the General Plan would not have any impact on agricultural land or agricultural activities within the Town of Los Altos Hills. (Less than Significant Impact) Finding: No mitigation measures are required or proposed. (Less than Significant Impact) General Plan Amendment/Pathways Element 14 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 C. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. IMPACT SOURCE WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO enfiall Less Tnann Les n Sionif nr Immo W� Sianlfiwm i nificanr � MNoation IrrumwareC ImoaG a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ® 1, 2, 3 applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 3 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 3 increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,3 pollutant concentrations? e) Create objeclionable odors or dust affecting a Ll El ® ❑ 1 substantial number of people? Discussion: The amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere's ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the State Air Resources Board, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as "non -attainment areas. Under the California Clean Air Act, Santa Clara County is a non -attainment area for ozone and particulate matter (PM,o). The project would result in an overall decrease in the miles of pathways planned within the Town. However, virtually all of the pathways proposed for removal were determined to be either impractical to build and traverse or were redundant in terms of function. No reduction in existing constructed pathways mileage will occur. Proposed additional pathways would ultimately provide direct access to more residences because they have been determined to be more feasible to construct and traverse. This may reduce the use of automobiles within the Town by providing an alternative means of transportation for both bicyclists and pedestrians. Therefore, the project could incrementally reduce airborne carbon monoxide levels along roadways that do not currently have planned pathways. Impact: The proposed General Plan Amendment would not adversely affect regional air quality, and may incrementally reduce air pollutant emissions within the Town by providing more residences with direct access to pathways than are currently designated on the Master Path Plan. enera Pan Amen en a ways ement I S Intra Ludy Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 The construction of additional trails, however, may result in short-term construction -related air quality impacts to surrounding homes. Due to large lot sizes within the Town, pathways would be located far enough away from houses that impacts from construction -related dust would minimal. In addition, pathways are constructed with pervious materials and in such a way so as to maintain the Town's open and rural setting. Therefore, construction of pathways would not require significant grading. (Less than Significant Impact) Mitigation and Avoidance: General Plan Policies While the proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts, the Town will ensure that future pathway design and construction would conform to the following existing General Plan policies, which would avoid or reduce potential air quality impacts. Other Programmed Measures The following mitigation measures implemented in conformance with General Plan policies will avoid or reduce impacts to air quality during construction: • Any future development allowed under the proposed General Plan designation would be subject to the Town's grading ordinance; all earth moving activities would include provisions to control fugitive dust, including regular watering of the ground surface, cleaning nearby streets, and damp sweeping. Finding: The proposed project would not result insignificant regional air quality impacts. Implementation of the above described mitigation measures would avoid or further reduce local air quality impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact) General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element 16 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO SOURCES Less�Th n- sipnifoanl eoi m.liv Les n M_4 We sm KaM Sqnifiranr Imoacl MiM1oaton In,wraled a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either [] ❑ ❑ 1,8 directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,2 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game of US Fish and Wldflfe Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 protected wetlands as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, veinal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1, 2, 9, 12 Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? fl Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1, 2, 9 protecting biological resources, such as a tree [] ❑ [ ❑ preservation policy or ordinance? Discussion: The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in the addition and removal of off-road pathways on the Master Path Plan. The removal of proposed pathways from the Plan would not result in biological impacts, since those pathways would not be constructed. Some of these pathway alignments are located in areas of significant vegetation; therefore, removing these pathways from the Plan could result in beneficial biological impacts. It is not proposed to abandon conservation easements along rights-of-way that contain sensitive biological habitats, drainages, or ordinance sized trees. According to the General Plan, four vegetative types dominate in the Town Sphere of Influence. These include broad -leafed conifer forests and chaparral in the Monte Bello and Kaiser ridge areas of southern and western Los Altos Hills. Other vegetative types include mixed oak woodland and grassland -savanna areas. Generally, the oak woodlands tend to support a higher diversity of organisms than do grasslands. The chaparral areas represent a particularly high fire hazard during the dry seasons of the year. General Plan Ameridment/Pathways Element 17 rtra Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Most of the off-road pathways proposed for addition are located on residentially developed properties. For pathways proposed in areas not previously developed or on protected open space lands, a site-specific biological assessment would be required to verify that there are no special status species habitats within these alignment. Impacts• While a site-specific biological assessment would be required prior to construction of any of the additional off-road pathways located in areas of open space including the Byrne Preserve or Murietta Ridge. Biological impacts could include impacts to nesting raptors in the trees during construction. Raptors (birds of prey including hawks, shrikes, owls, eagles, or kites) are protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Any loss of fertile raptor eggs or nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment, would constitute a potentially significant impact. Construction activities such as tree removal, site grading, etc., that disturb a nesting raptor on-site or immediately adjacent to the site constitute a potentially significant impact. Pre -construction surveys by a qualified biologist will be required to determine the significance of this potential impact. Mitigation measures will be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (Potentially Significant Impact) Mitigation and Avoidance: General Plan Policies The project would be subject to the following existing General Plan polices, which may avoid or reduce potentially significant biological impacts. • Pathway Element Policy B7 states that off-road paths shall be maintained in as natural a state as possible, except that installed surfaces may be acceptable when paths serve as connectors to schools or neighborhoods, or where special use or topography make it necessary. • Pathway Element Implementation Action 48 states that site development authorities shall be sensitive to path location and design. This is especially the case for the off-road paths. The location shall be sensitive to the privacy of future residents whenever a parcel is subdivided or a lot is developed. All paths shall be located and designed to preserve the beauty and natural character of the area and to safeguard the user. Particular care shall be given to retaining trees and vegetative cover and to minimize grading and erosion. • Open Space Element, Principle 410 states conservation easements, open space zoning, and other land use regulations should be used to prohibit development on unstable terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas determined hazardous to public welfare and safety. • Conservation Element, Objective 91 is to develop and implement programs by which the natural environmental features of the planning area can be conserved to the maximum extent feasible and by which areas already unduly disturbed by man can be returned to a more natural condition. • Conservation Element, Principle 41 states that all public and private projects that may have significant impact on the Los Altos Hills environment should be professionally reviewed. The results of such review should be analyzed and, where necessary, appropriate public action taken to ensure against irreversible damage. General Plan Aun-endruent/Pathways, Elemewt 18 Imn m y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 • Conservation Element, Principle 44 states that an overriding consideration in the design of any land development project should be conservation of the natural slope, and preserving existing native vegetation, and also conservation of natural drainage channels and swales since they serve in place of artificial storm drainage systems. • Conservation Element, Principle 45 states that in landscaping of individual sites and replanting where original vegetation has been destroyed or removed, emphasis should be on the use of native rather than exotic plants. In those areas of high fire risk, however, it may be preferable to introduce carefully chosen exotics with high fire resistance characteristics. Conservation Element, Principle #9 states that those areas rich in wildlife or of fragile ecological nature, e.g., areas of rare or endangered species of plants, riparian areas, etc., should be avoided in land development. Where necessary, these areas should be publicly acquired to ensure their protection. Programmed Mitigation Measures • In conformance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, pre -construction surveys for raptors, and incorporation of methods to avoid impacts to any raptors found, will be required and implemented prior to trail construction. • The Zoning and Site Development Ordinances will be used to provide additional mitigation measures regarding natural hazard regulations and trail construction. Municipal Code Section 10-2.602 includes the following applicable General Policies: c) Pathways shall be sited and improved in a manner that creates minimal disturbance to the natural environment. Mitigation for Removal of Significant Trees • Ordinance -size trees to be removed as part of the project would be replaced with 24 -inch box specimen trees at a ratio of four to one (4 replacement: I removed), in accordance Town of Los Altos Hills guidelines. • Planting will occur between November and January with locally collected plant stock. • Planting areas would be graded as required to provide appropriate topography and hydrology for the plantings. Redwood retaining boxed/walls may be used to create this topography. • Soils would be amended, as necessary. • All mitigation plantings would be maintained for a minimum of five years and will meet the success criteria requirements presented in the site-specific biological assessment. Conclusion: Implementation of the General Plan policies and programmed mitigation measures described above, would avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level for all proposed pathways. ceneral Plan Amendment/Pattoxays Element 19 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Mitigation Measures to be Considered at The Time of Future Development The following mitigation measures implemented in conformance with General Plan policies will avoid or further reduce impacts to biological resources during construction to a less than significant level: • A site-specific biological assessment should be completed for the off-road pathways that are proposed for open space areas after they are designed, to address the potential biological impacts of constructing these pathways. The biological assessment will include a field survey, a databank search to determine potential impacts to special status plant and animal species, a formal tree survey, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element 20 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 , n „ I I I SOURCE PP te?� s .,fu Less Than a.rfimt wth a No moacl Imoaa Mmeat moact I� a) Cause a substannal savers. cneuac of me significance of a historical resource pursuant u u — to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2, ?, 12 b) Cause a substantial adverse change significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 2 7 12 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique d) geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 2, ?, 12 interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: The first known residents of Los Altos Hills and the Santa Clara Valley were the Ohlone Indians and archaeological sites are located within the Town boundary. Indian remains and artifacts have been found at locations near Moody Road, O'Keefe Lane, and along Permanente and Matadero Creeks. Two large Spanish -Mexican land grants comprised the town in the early 1840's. The two large ranchos were eventually parceled and sold as smaller ranches for vineyards and ultimately for apricot, plum, and prune orchards. A recreational component of the Juan Bautista De Anza trail is proposed to ran in a north -south direction through the Town following the alignment of Rhus Ridge Drive, Moody, Elena, Purissima and Arastradero Roads. Cultural resources within the Town of Los Altos Hills are listed in the Open Space Element of the General Plan. Some of these sites have already been recognized for their historical importance and are registered state historical landmarks. These cultural resources are listed within the Open Space Element of the General Plan, and include both prehistoric and historic resources. Impacts: The proposed new pathway alignments would not conflict with any cultural resources identified in the General Plan, and would not impact any resources above ground. Since the construction of the proposed pathways would require very little grading and subsurface excavation, the construction of I roadside and off-road pathways within the Town would be unlikely to impact either prehistoric or historic resources. In conformance with adopted General Plan policies, a site-specific archival search would be prepared for each trail segment, if the final design for that segment will require excavation in native soil. If the archival search identifies the potential for subsurface cultural resources to be impacted by the proposed pathway construction, measures to avoid or reduce possible impacts will be incorporated into the project, as described below under "Mitigation Measures to be Considered at the Time of Future Development". (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project) Gene Pan Amen ent/Pa ways .men[ 21 Imna Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Mitigation and Avoidance Measures: General Plan Policies The Town will ensure that future pathway design and construction will conform to the following General Plan policies, which would avoid or reduce cultural resource impacts to a less than significant level: • Open Space Element, Objective #4 states that an objective of the element is to provide open space for outdoor recreational needs and for the preservation of sites of historical and cultural significance. • Conservation Element, Principle 41 states that all public and private projects that may have significant impact on the Los Altos Hills environment should be professionally reviewed. The results of such review should be analyzed and, where necessary, appropriate public action taken to ensure against irreversible damage. • Open Space Element, Principle #4 states that both public and private efforts should be directed to preserving historical landmarks which have open space value. • Open Space Element, Historical Sites, Implementation states that the historical significance of all sites, as listed in the General Plan, should be evaluated prior to development. If the site is found to be of some significance, at the least, provision for historical commemoration should be required as part of development. It is also proposed that the Town Historian in conjunction with Town officials establish a program for evaluation and preservation of historical sites. • Pathway Element, Implementation Action 48 states that site development authorities shall be sensitive to path location and design. All paths shall be located and designed to preserve the beauty and natural character of the area and to safeguard the user. Particular care shall be given to retaining trees and vegetative cover and to minimize grading and erosion. • Pathway Element, Implementation Action #14 states that major off-road paths should be named as a way to encourage their use and to recognize historical entities associated with the Town or to honor Town residents who have contributed to the development of the system. Conclusion: While the proposed project has a low potential for resulting in impacts to subsurface cultural resources, conformance with these General Plan policies would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project) Mitigation Measures to be Considered at The Time of Future Development Implementation of the following mitigation measures, if required, would avoid or reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level: A site specific archival search will be prepared by a professional archaeologist for any pathway alignment for which final design would require any excavation in native soil. If subsurface cultural resources that could be impacted by the proposed construction are identified in that General Plan Amenclime-ni7Pathways Element 22 initial Study Towm of Los Altos Hills January 2005 archival search, recommended measures to avoid or reduce those impacts will be incorporated into the project. These measures may include those listed below. • A program of mechanical subsurface presence/absence testing be conducted to search for archaeological deposits in those areas where earthmoving will reach more than a foot below the existing surface. • Any archaeological deposit found during mechanical subsurface testing should be accurately mapped both in terms of its aerial extent and its depth below the surface. If it is determined that future construction related earthmoving activities would impact an intact archaeological deposit, a mitigation plan for the evaluation of the resource through hand excavation should be submitted to the Town Planning Department for approval. Such evaluation will be a necessary first step to crafting a program of mitigation of impacts to resource deposits threatened by further earthmoving. • Should any suspected deposits of prehistoric materials be uncovered during excavation activities, work would be halted within 50 feet of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist has had the opportunity to assess the discovery. • If it is demonstrated that additional construction will cause damage to an intact archaeological deposit, it will be the responsibility of the Town to initiate archaeological excavations to evaluate the scientific importance of the deposit as required under current CEQA guidelines before a plan for mitigation of impacts is implemented. • If required, the mitigation plan will include the collection of additional data by hand excavation with archaeological monitoring of all additional excavation work on the project site. General Plan Amendment/Pathways Element 23 Imna Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT SOURCE WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Lgyy mvn Potentially Sonificern Less Tna" S,wnifica,rt v� s.;1xnm No in Impaq Mitt lim 1.0 Inmmaare0 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 10,13 delineated on the most recent Alquist- Pdolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the Stale Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. it) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 10,13 ii) Seismic+elated ground failure, including ❑ ® ❑ 10.13 liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 10,13 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 10,13 topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 2, 5, 13 unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 5 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or properly? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 5 use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewate(t Discussion: Topography The project site is located within the northwestern Santa Clara Valley, at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The planning area is hilly and mountainous, with extremely irregular patterns of drainage. Elevations range from 100 feet above sea level, primarily along the northeastern edge of the Town, to approximately 2,700 feet along the Monte Bello Ridge Line to the south. The lower elevations in the northeastern part of the Town are characterized by gently rolling hills, while the southwest terrain is more rugged and steep. Soils According to the Soil Conservation Service, soils within the Town of Los Altos Hills include those of the Azule, Ayar, Cropley, Diablo, Los Osos, Garretson, Pleasanton, San Ysidro, Zamora, Los Gatos, Madonna, Maymen, and Permanente series, as shown in the table below. General Plan Amandmenit'Pathways Element 24 trims m y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 TABLE 3: SOILS OF LOS ALTOS BILLS soil Erosion Shrink/SwellwDrainaAzule Sil CL 9-30% Moderate Hi A ar Cla 15-30% Moderate Hi h Cro le Cla 0-9% None to Mod. Hi h Diablo cla 9-30% Moderate Hi h Los Osos cla loam 15-30% Moderate Hi Garretson avell loam 0-5% Sli ht Low Pleasanton avell loam 0-2% None Moderate San Ysidro loam 2-9% eroded Slight to Moderate High Moderately well Zamora clay loam 0-2% None Moderate Good Los Gatos pyavelly loam 30-50% Hi h Hi Good Los Gatos clay loam 15-30% Moderate High Good _N/_a Los Gatos & Maymen soils 50-75% N/a High Madonna loam 5-30% Moderate Moderate Good Maymen fine sandy loam 15-50% High Low Moderately Excessive Maymen rocky fine sandy loam 50-75% Very High Low Somewhat Excessive Permanente stony loam 50-75% Very High Low Somewhat Excessive Seismicity The Uniform Building Code designates the entire South Bay as Seismic Activity Zone 4, the most seismically active zone in the United States. The faults in the region are capable of generating earthquakes of at least 7.0 in magnitude, therefore, it can be expected that earthquakes could produce very strong ground shaking during the life of the proposed pathways. The nearest and most active fault to the Town is the San Andreas Fault, which runs in a north/south direction to the west of the western boundary of the Town, adjacent to Skyline Boulevard. An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the San Francisco Bay Region could cause considerable ground shaking within the project area. The degree of shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the event, the distance to its zone of rupture and local geologic conditions. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the areas of Los Altos Hills closest to Interstate 280 are most affected by earthquake hazards. These areas generally have a moderate potential for shaking amplification, although there are small areas with high potential. Much of Moody Road shows a moderate to moderately high shaking amplification potential. The rest of the higher elevations display low to very low potential, with some small areas with high potential. Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as that imposed by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained sands. According to the ABAG, the liquefaction potential in Los Altos Hills is generally low. Most of the housing areas in the Town are in areas of very low liquefaction potential, General an AmendmentTathways Element 25 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 however, the areas immediately surrounding EI Monte/Moody/Page Mill Roads and Magdalena Road have a moderate to high potential for liquefaction. Impacts: Due to the geologic conditions of the proposed site, there is a potential to expose people and structures to significant geologic hazards. Although the project area is not located on an earthquake fault, it is within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area, and moderate to severe ground shaking is probable during the useful life of the pathways proposed as part of the 2005 Master Plan. The project would be subject to existing General Plan policies and programmed mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potentially significant geologic impacts of constructing additional pathways to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project) Mitizafion and Avoidance: General Plan Policies The Town will ensure that the pathway design and construction will conform to the following existing General Plan policies and programmed mitigation measures, which will avoid or reduce potentially significant geologic impacts to a less than significant level: • Pathway Element Policy B7 states that off-road paths shall be maintained in as natural a state as possible, except that installed surfaces may be acceptable when paths serve as connectors to schools or neighborhoods, or where special use or topography make it necessary. • Pathway Element Implementation Action #8 states that site development authorities shall be sensitive to path location and design. This is especially the case for the off-road paths. The location shall be sensitive to the privacy of future residents whenever a parcel is subdivided or a lot is developed. All paths shall be located and designed to preserve the beauty and natural character of the area and to safeguard the user. Particular care shall be given to retaining trees and vegetative cover and to minimize grading and erosion. • Open Space Element, Principle 99 states that unstable terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, and other areas determined hazardous to public welfare and safety or necessary for storm drainage should be kept as open space unless unobtrusive corrective measures can assure public safety and meet public need. • Open Space Element, Principle 910 states conservation easements, open space zoning, and other Ind use regulations should be used to prohibit development on unstable terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas determined hazardous to public welfare and safety. • Conservation Element, Objective #1 is to develop and implement programs by which the natural environmental features of the planning area can be conserved to the maximum extent feasible and by which areas already unduly disturbed by man can be returned to a more natural condition. • Conservation Element, Principle #1 states that all public and private projects that may have significant impact on the Los Altos Hills environment should be professionally reviewed. The results of such review should be analyzed and, where necessary, appropriate public action taken to ensure against irreversible damage. General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element 26 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 • Conservation Element, Principle 94 states that an overriding consideration in the design of any land development project should be conservation of the natural slope, and preserving existing native vegetation, and also conservation of natural drainage channels and swales since they serve in place of artificial storm drainage systems. Programmed Mitigation Measures The Zoning and Site Development Ordinances will be used to provide additional mitigation measures regarding natural hazard regulations and trail construction. Municipal Code Section 10-2.602 includes the following: c) Pathways shall be sited and improved in a manner that creates minimal disturbance to the natural environment. h) Pathways shall be designed and maintained to prevent erosion, to prevent injury from landslides or other soil movements, and to assure proper drainage of the path. 1) Slopes in excess of fifteen (15%) percent adjacent to a pathway shall contain soil retentive landscaping, rockery, netting, or other devices approved by the Town Engineer to reduce potential damage to the path or injury to the users of the path from landslide, soil creep, or erosion. Findin : Adherence to existing General Plan policies and to the Town's Zoning and Site Development Ordinances and Municipal Code would avoid or reduce potential geologic impacts to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project) General Pan Amen en a ways E ement 27 bitial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 IMPACT s ss n l I ISOURCE PMentiaM sib Less Than Sgnifir_aM wM sp",rwaJ„ NO Im��aG �3 Wkiabon Ing Inmmwate0 a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the U N U U 1 January 2005 environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1 hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 114 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list ❑ ❑ E ❑ 1 of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1 plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1,2 with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ E ❑ 1 risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires including where midlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: The proposed project is the addition and removal of pathway alignments from the Master Path Plan of the Pathway Element of the Town of Los Altos Hill's General Plan. The removal of pathway alignments would not result in hazardous materials impacts The addition of off-road pathways would require the construction of trails on lands that previously were undeveloped. There have never been any industrial uses within the Town; therefore, there is no potential for hazardous materials associated with industrial uses to affect the additional roadside or off-road pathways. General Pan Amendment/Pathmays Element 28 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 The addition of off-road pathways to connect existing neighborhoods and the serve the residents of Los Altos Hills, and the removal from the Plan of off-road pathway alignments that have not been built, would not expose people or structures to a significant increased risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impacts: The likelihood of impacts to occur associated with the use of agricultural pesticides on most of the areas proposed for off-road pathways is low. The future implementation of the revised pathways Plan will be subject to General Plan policies and programmed mitigation that will reduce potential impacts associated with hazardous materials contamination to a less than significant level. No impacts associated with emergency fire access or the fighting of wildland fires would occur as a result of amending the pathways Plan. (Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Measures Included in the Project) Mitigation and Avoidance: General Plan Policies The Town will ensure that future project design and construction will conform to the following General Plan policies, which would avoid or reduce future potential hazardous materials impacts on the site to a less than significant level: • Conservation Element, Principle 910 states that the use of pesticides should be strictly controlled to ensure that deleterious materials will not find their way into local streams or cause other forms of contamination. • Circulation Element, Emergency Vehicle Access Policy #-0 states that all emergency access roads shall be made available for neighborhoods at high risk of being cut off during major disasters. • Circulation Element, Emergency Vehicle Access Policy 95 states that all emergency access roads shall, to the greatest extent feasible, be made readily accessible to neighboring residents and pedestrians during major disasters. Conclusion: The proposed project is unlikely to result in significant impacts associated with encountering hazardous materials during pathway construction. Adherence to the General Plan policies described above would avoid or reduce any potential impacts. (Less than Significant Impact With Mitigation Measure Included in the Project) General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element29 Inma m y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACT WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Less TM1an SOURCE Poreneanv s-okaW Lcu mann Si nifice�R win al nnifim No lmcatl Impact Q_n M�ra In mrooraletl a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ E 1 discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1 interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ E ❑ 1,2 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stomnvater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ E ❑ 1 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ E 6 area as mapped on a federal Flood Haurd Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hoard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ E 6 structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ E 6 risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ E 1 mudflow? Discussion: The major creeks within the Town include Adobe Creek, Hale Creek, Matadero Creek, Barron Creek, and Deer Creek. The removal of pathways from the Master Path Plan would not affect any of these creeks or any of their tributaries. The water quality of the creeks located within the Town of Los Altos is directly affected by pollutants contained in stormwater runoff from a variety of urban and non -urban uses. To reduce contamination of storm water runoff from future development, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for storm water discharges associated with General _pla, Amen enUPa ways Element 30 ramal Sway Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 construction activity was established. The Nonpoint Source Program was developed in accordance with the requirements of the 1986 San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan. A construction permit may be required for future pathways construction, which will require the use of structural and non-structural stomtwater control measures, including filtration of runoff, flow attention, storm water retention or detention, oil/water separation, and the use of porous pavement. None of the additional pathways to be constructed are located within the 100 -year floodplain of any of the creeks within the Town. Impacts: The removal of off-road pathways from the Master Path Plan would not result in impacts to stormwater quality. The construction of additional pathways may result in stormwater runoff in the short-term that may contain sediments, oil, and/or grease associated with the construction process. The proposed pathways would be constructed of pervious materials to increase the amount of stormwater runoff absorbed into the groundwater, rather than flowing to the stormdmin system. Therefore, in the long-temt, the construction of off-road pathways would not be expected to result in significant amounts of runoff. (Less than Significant Impact) Mitigation and Avoidance: General Plan Policies Hydrological impacts are expected to be less than significant with adherence to the following General Plan goals and policies, and Programmed Mitigation: • Conservation Element, Principle 42 states that in the planning, environmental impact review, and completion of all land development or land alteration projects, particular attention should be directed toward protection of the natural water regime. • Conservation EIement, Principle 94 states that an overriding consideration in the design of any land development project should be conservation of the natural slope, and preserving existing native vegetation, and also conservation of natural drainage channels and swales since they serve in place of artificial storm drain systems. • Conservation Element, Principle 410 states that the use of pesticides should be strictly controlled to ensure that deleterious materials will not find their way into local streams or cause other forms of contamination. • Open Space Element, Principle 410 states conservation easements, open space zoning, and other land use regulations should be used to prohibit development on unstable terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas determined hazardous to public welfare and safety. Programmed Mitigation Measures Based on existing laws and regulations, the following mitigation measures would be incorporated into future construction of pathways: • Applicants for construction projects would file a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to commencing construction. The S WPPP must address mitigation for both the construction and post construction periods. The S WPPP would include erosion and sediment control measures, General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element 31 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 waste disposal controls, post construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non -storm water management controls. • Prior to construction on the site, the Town of Los Altos Hills may be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The SWPPP shall include control measures during the construction period for: • Soil stabilization practices • Sediment control practices • Sediment tracking control practices • Wind erosion control practices and • Non -storm water management and waste management and disposal control practices. • The project would also include provisions for post -construction structural controls in the project design where feasible, and would include Best Management Practices (BMP) for reducing contamination in storm water runoff as permanent features of the project. These features could include, for example, regular sweeping of streets and driveways, installation of inlet features or similar control in storm water catch basins, vegetated swales, and stenciling on-site catch basins to discourage illegal dumping. Finding: With adherence to existing General Plan policies and programmed mitigation measures, hydrological impacts associated with construction of the proposed pathways would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact) General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element 32 lnma to y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Les PMenlall sI I s I I ISOURCE 5ng Pia, Less Than fic nt a No lm aQ Ira ct MNnanm Ira lnmmorateC a)- Physically divide an established community? ❑ U L9 U 1,2 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,2 policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or irrigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ M ❑ 1.2 conservation plan or natural community Discussion: The proposed General Plan Amendment would add off-road pathways and would remove off-road pathways from the 1981 Master Path Plan. Overall, approximately 3.9 fewer miles of pathways could be built as a result of the proposed project. The off-road pathways to be removed from the Plan were located along property lines between residential properties, which were visible from homes. Land uses within the Town of Los Altos Hills include only low-density residential uses with a minimum lot size of one acre, open space, recreational, and institutional uses. The Town is coral in nature, with fairly rugged hillsides located along its western boundary. Local streets meander along the natural topography and pathways are located along many of these streets, serving as sidewalks. Many objectives and policies of the General Plan are intended to protect of the rural atmosphere of the Town. Open Space and Recreational areas are located within and near the Town, primarily within the hillside areas of the western and southern portions of the Town and include the Byme Preserve, Rancho San Antonio County Park, Hidden Villa, and the Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District. Other areas are located along Interstate 280 and Foothill Expressway. These areas include the Los Altos Golf Course, Bicentennial Park, and the Little League Fields on Purissima Road. Impacts: Impacts associated with land use conflicts are primarily related to placing land uses that are incompatible next to each other. Proposed new trail alignments are either adjacent to roadways, or are proposed along parcel lines where required building setbacks will minimize potential impacts to residents of existing or planned houses. The General Plan specifically encourages the location of trails along the types of alignments (next to vehicular access or on parcel lines) proposed. The project does not conflict with relevant land use policies for locating pathways. (Less Than Significant Impact) While the land uses within the project area may experience construction -related air quality and noise impacts associated with the project, these impacts would be temporary. General Plan policies and programmed mitigation measures would be included as part of the project at the time of development, as described in the Air Quality and Noise sections of this report, to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. General Pan Arnendment/Parlitways hlement 33 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Mitigation and Avoidance: General Plan Policies The Town will ensure that all future pathway design and construction will conform to existing General Plan policies, including the following: • Pathway Element Implementation Action #8 states that site development authorities shall be sensitive to path location and design. This is especially the case for the off-road paths. The location shall be sensitive to the privacy of future residents whenever a parcel is subdivided or a lot is developed. All paths shall be located and designed to preserve the beauty and natural character of the area and to safeguard the user. Particular care shall be given to retaining trees and vegetative cover and to minimize grading and erosion. • Pathway Element Implementation Action #8 states that typically, off-road paths shall be located along property lines, when topography permits. Fencing along paths may sometimes be appropriate to protect privacy, so long as it does not intrude into easements or right-of-way. • Pathway Element Implementation Action #20 states that trails and paths shall be permitted uses in open space and conservation easements. These trails shall be constructed and maintained to minimize the environmental impact upon the area. Programmed Mitigation Measures The following actions will be pursued in a coordinated manner to ensure maximum effectiveness in environmental protection: • The Zoning Ordinance will be used to provide additional mitigation measures regarding natural hazard regulations, privacy, access, and safe trail construction. Municipal Code Section 10-2.602 includes the following General Policies: a) Pathways shall be sited and improved in a manner that creates minimal disturbance to the natural environment. b) Pathways shall be designed and maintained to minimize their impact on adjacent properties. Conclusion: Adherence to existing General Plan policies and to the Town's Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code would avoid or reduce potential land use conflicts to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project) General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element 34 Initial Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 YES NO SOURCE py a}�nha� rases Less Tl�,an N SvynRra�l nlfi. W, MM Inwrroratc4 onlfiram Imnatl Imoaa a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation LI a L u of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation ❑ ❑ ID ❑ t of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,2 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1,2 increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ ® t plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ ® t airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Several factors influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, including the actual level of sound, the periods of exposure to the sound, the frequencies involved, and fluctuations in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a "decibel" scale (dB), which serves as an index of loudness. Because the human ear can not hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the "A -weighted" decibel or dBA. Within the Town of Los Altos Hills, noise is produced primarily by transportation facilities, including Foothill Expressway and Interstate 280. Other sources within the Town include airplane flyovers, construction activity, leisure activity (stereos, home improvement tools), outdoor activity such as power mowers, leaf blowers, chainsaws, and refuse collection. The Noise Element of the General Plan is directed at minimizing effects of objectionable noise sources and ensuring that potential disruptive effects of noise are considered in all future land uses proposals. According to the General Plan, interior community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) with windows closed, attributable to exterior sources, should not exceed an annual CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. Currently, these thresholds maybe exceeded in the homes adjacent to Interstate 280, depending upon attenuation measures (windows, installation, etc.) used. Impacts: Noise produced by the proposed project would be related to noise produced by users of the pathways and by pathway construction. Pathways to be removed from the Master Path Plan would not result in either types of noise. General Pan Amen en a ways E ement 35 Initial Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Construction noise associated with the construction of pathways, including the installation of retaining walls, would be noticeable and perhaps annoying to surrounding residential land uses, however, these impacts would be short-term. Adherence to General Plan policies and the City's noise ordinance will mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project) While persons using the pathway might be audible to nearby residents, the noise would not cause an exceedance of Town standards at any residence. The proposed revisions to the pathway Plan are not expected to result in long-term significant noise impacts. (Less than Significant Impact) Miti¢ation and Avoidance: General Plan Policies The Town will ensure the future design and construction of the proposed pathways would conform to existing General Plan policies and programmed mitigation, including the following: • Noise Principle #2o states that in planning and development of any new major transportation facility or improvement of fan existing facility, all reasonable measures for mitigation of impact of noise should be provided. • Noise Principle #5o states that noise generated from construction equipment should be attenuated to the maximum extent possible. • Noise Principle Ob states that hours of construction activity should be regulated, as much as reasonably possible, to ensure minimum impact of noise on surrounding residential properties. Programmed Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures in conformance with General Plan policies and the Town's Noise Ordinance will avoid or further reduce construction noise impacts: • Limit all construction -related activities to weekdays between 8:00 AM and 5:30 PM. • Require that all construction equipment is properly muffled and maintained. • Notify adjacent residents of the construction schedule within 48 hours of the commencement of construction activities. Conclusion: Adherence to the above-described General Plan policies, would reduce potential noise impacts to the proposed pathway construction to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Included in the Project) enem Pan Amen wt/Pa ways E ement 36 tt� m Y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 K. POPULATION AND HOUSING IMPACT SOURCE WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO I.asma Less Than No s'wn�cam $I ^I�fi� Impact u✓� M� Izoroorale0 �n'�fiC4_ant Imrecl a) Induce substantial growth in an area, either ® ❑ t , 2, 8 directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other b) infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1 housing, necessitating the construction of c) replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: The proposed project is the addition and removal of pathway alignments as designated in the Pathway Element of the General Plan for the Town of Los Altos Hills. The proposed project would not result in the displacement of housing or people, or in substantial growth within the town. Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts on population and housing within the project area or regionally. No mitigation measures are required or proposed. (Less than Significant Impact) Genera P an Amen enL a ways ement 37 Iniba to y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 L. PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACT SOURCE WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO Less roan ini&ant Poten fall Less Tha" SianlficaM WM 5'ni� NO Imm1 Imvact Imoad Mgation Incomotaletl a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,2 ii) Police Protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 iii) School facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1 Discussion: Fire protection to the Town of Los Altos Hills is provided by the Los Altos Fire Protection District, from three fire stations. Two stations are located within the City of Los Altos and one is located in Los Altos Hills. No new facilities would be needed as a result of the proposed project. The proposed General Plan amendment would allow the construction of additional pathways and the removal of some pathways from the Master Plan. As described in Section III. G., Hazardous Materials, no emergency access roads would be affected by the proposed project. All emergency access roads are located along existing pathways, which will not be removed as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project would not impact schools, parks, or other public facilities, as it would not result in an increase in population within the Town, or the need for new or additional public services. Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts on the physical environment as a result of an increased demand for public services. Therefore, no mitigation measures are proposed or required. (Less than Significant Impact) General Plan Amendment/Pathways Element 38 -1rubal Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 M. RECREATION IMPACT SOURCE WOULD THE PROJECT: YES NO nin ficaM Potentially;;i I..rsz man nifi an[ WO Sim N I},� lr or. I." MNogon a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,2 regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1 construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The proposed project would not result in the substantial deterioration of neighborhood recreational facilities. Additional planned pathways are intended to enhance existing recreational opportunities. Reports by the Town Public Works Department indicate that existing pathways in Town are not subject to overcrowding or overuse resulting in deterioration of facilities. Therefore, the elimination of certain future path routes will not impact existing pathway facilities. The proposed loss of pathways would not result in an increase in demand for other recreational facilities, such as parks. No linkages would be lost between recreational or open space areas. It should also be noted that the pathways within the Town are not only intended for recreational uses; they are also part of the circulation system, providing connections between neighborhoods and local or nearby destinations. Conclusion: The project would not result in adverse impacts to recreational facilities. No mitigation measures are required or proposed. (Less than Significant Impact) General Pan Amendmenul'alliways Element 39 iha Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Discussion: The major thoroughfares of Page Mill Road, Arastmdero Road, and EI Monte/Moody Road, provide for primary movement within the Town. These routes also connect the planning area with Interstate 280, Foothill Expressway, and Highway 101. The circulation system within the Town is generally organized so as to minimize the intrusion of the automobile. Thus the roads tend to be designed to provide access to properties, even if circuitous, in order to discourage through traffic. In contrast, the trails and paths are designed to facilitate easy access throughout the Town. In essence, the Town is meant to be largely impermeable to cars but permeable to equestrians, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Impacts: The proposed project proposes a reduction in the overall number of future off-road paths. However, the project will also result in the addition of more off-road pathways that are feasible to concoct and practical to traverse. (Less than Significant Impact) Traffic could increase incrementally and temporarily on streets within the project area during construction of the individual proposed pathways. The pathways would not be constructed concurrently or consecutively, so the construction traffic would be widely dispersed geographically and over time. This traffic would also be temporary and would not significantly affect AM or PM peak hour traffic within the project area. All trucks and construction equipment would be parked within the street and/or pathway rights-of-way during project construction. For these reasons, the project would not result in significant traffic or circulation impacts. (Less than Significant Impact) As previously described, the project would not result in any impacts to existing emergency access routes within the Town. The emergency access routes are located along existing pathways, which would not be removed as a part of the proposed project. (Less than Significant Impact) General Pan Amendment/Pa ways E ement 40 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 5ie"ifta Polentialiv , me, NOM act Senn, W#`iSoniho MS e� tmoe t a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is ❑ ❑ ❑ ® 1.2 substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio, or b) congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a ❑ ❑ ❑ M 1 level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ M 1 including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ❑ ❑ ❑ M 1 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm e) equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ M ❑ 1 0 g) Result in inadequate parking capacity/.+ Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ [] M ❑ ❑ 1 1.2 programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion: The major thoroughfares of Page Mill Road, Arastmdero Road, and EI Monte/Moody Road, provide for primary movement within the Town. These routes also connect the planning area with Interstate 280, Foothill Expressway, and Highway 101. The circulation system within the Town is generally organized so as to minimize the intrusion of the automobile. Thus the roads tend to be designed to provide access to properties, even if circuitous, in order to discourage through traffic. In contrast, the trails and paths are designed to facilitate easy access throughout the Town. In essence, the Town is meant to be largely impermeable to cars but permeable to equestrians, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Impacts: The proposed project proposes a reduction in the overall number of future off-road paths. However, the project will also result in the addition of more off-road pathways that are feasible to concoct and practical to traverse. (Less than Significant Impact) Traffic could increase incrementally and temporarily on streets within the project area during construction of the individual proposed pathways. The pathways would not be constructed concurrently or consecutively, so the construction traffic would be widely dispersed geographically and over time. This traffic would also be temporary and would not significantly affect AM or PM peak hour traffic within the project area. All trucks and construction equipment would be parked within the street and/or pathway rights-of-way during project construction. For these reasons, the project would not result in significant traffic or circulation impacts. (Less than Significant Impact) As previously described, the project would not result in any impacts to existing emergency access routes within the Town. The emergency access routes are located along existing pathways, which would not be removed as a part of the proposed project. (Less than Significant Impact) General Pan Amendment/Pa ways E ement 40 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 Mitigation and Avoidance: General Plan Policies Adherence to the following General Plan policies would avoid or reduce any potential transportation impacts: Pathway Element Policy B/ states that off-road paths shall be located on private property on easements which have been dedicated to the Town, or over public lands. They provide connections between neighborhoods and provide direct routes to schools and open space. Cul-de-sacs should have off-road paths which connect the end of the street to adjoining neighborhoods. Conclusion: The proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts either in the long- term or during construction. Adherence to the General Plan policies described above would avoid or further reduce any potential transportation impacts. (Less than Significant Impact) Genen an Amen en a ways ement 41 OivaT-S-tuily Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 O. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? f) Not be able to be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted rapacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Be in non-compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? YES NO Less The,ISOURCE Potentially $gnow1 LesS Than Significant M Skin� NO I� Imoad Mit OJw� Imwct Inc 3sxMM ❑ ❑ ❑ ® i ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,2 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: All pathways to be constructed within the Town would be constructed of pervious surfaces; therefore, stormwater runoff would be minimal. Finding: The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to utilities and service systems. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required or proposed. (Less than Significant Impact) General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element 42 1nitial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 P. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE I WOULD THE PROJECT: I YES I NO I C) the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildfde species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, bud cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Lessman SOURCE Po mall alb LL^ ,Than S np ificanl We sli'mont N IMP Mg ImSaEt fMAM.W 9,10 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 1,2,9 ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10,13 Discussion: The proposed project is a General Plan amendment that would both add and remove specific pathway alignments from the 1981 Master Path Plan of the Pathway Element. The proposed General Plan amendment does not include actual pathway construction; it only changes the number and alignment of pathways that can be constructed. A site specific environmental analysis may be required at the time that the actual construction of certain pathways is proposed. Ceneral Pan Amendment/Paithways Element 43 Initial Study Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES 1. Collective judgment of the Town Pathway Committee and expertise of the planner who prepared this document based upon a review of the project location and surrounding conditions, as well as a review of the project plan.. 2. Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan (1975, with revisions to the Pathways Element in 1996 and to the Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element in 1997). 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, December, 1999. 4. Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map, 2000. 5. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soils of Santa Clara County, 1968. 6. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, County of Santa Clara. 7. California Environmental Quality Act, 2003 CEQA Guidelines. 8. Carl Cahill, Planning Director of Los Altos Hills. 9. Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. 10. California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of the San Francisco -San Jose Quadrangle, 1990. 11. Dave Ross, Town of Los Altos Hills Public Works Director. 12. Town of Los Altos Hills Website. 13. Town of Los Altos Hills Geologic Hazard Map and Safety Element General an AmendmentPathways E ement 44 Iron Stu y Town of Los Altos Hills January 2005 V. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Guidelines, December, 1999. California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines, 2003. California Department of Conservation, Geologic Map of the San Francisco -San Jose Quadrangle, 1990. California Department of Conservation, Santa Clara County Important Farmlands Map 2000, June 2001. Town of Los Altos Hills Planning and Engineering Department Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map. Town of Los Altos Hills, General Plan, 1975, revised in 1996 and 1997). Town of Los Altos Hills, Municipal Code. Town of Los Altos Hills Website. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soils of Santa Clara County, 1968. United State Geological Survey, 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle. General Pan Amendment/Pathways Element 45 initial Study Tow of Los Altos Hills January 2005 m F ' � � o O � m a� 0 o= m I-4a� y � o - o ca � � o n`cO5 > A 3 E m q r a � n3 c c E c 9 4 4 C G E E 0 o u m W En r n C- N p r U o d e o V rov d R 9 fij ✓'� y ar n e o 3 0 B o c 4 `e up F39 °3w a cc e o QF a d Fv G A A A m m 0 p m m O n m y m e 5 c R A c W N c c 3 0 �'ma A F A c 3o�'mn � FQui W Q h 1-o6a W D h o = g n e a o c"a 092 C o gas o�g A j Y N c m z c $ c E v _ _ V v n V �= e➢ O "1` = O W 'O �� U �.o QEc '3 _oco� W � A%n A tioop E 4 y U'= V'.. 0 � � m o+m y > o ❑ t4p .0 = 3 C O =m O> tb - ODUU W -p O N v O y o a v 6 m a C o c g m E'er s a' > Doe Cl � 'c.?.4 .. �y me • m a�'��� wy'� a3°c°y ° t30'oc Od � TS'.md 6 G m R m o o� o= FQaOrn v� ti � ti H6wq 2 o C d O C m v 0 � v o c A ` v g - y o� v o� E.0 v Eb ti d E .5 c a° c o h U m o p y y¢ fA v w v " u c s 3 m O y CP ad. .. 4E d NT O O_ O V[ =o m 5_ c.m _FE c v m m y m y V P U O v4 m O°'a a ate°. � 6y "'off QnSa m F E yPV-. O4 tV \ t G - E" 'O of F= U m R d m O h R H VAi A V] N VAi A FQ dp v� h y h ti 5 0 5 o a 3 0 = o EP 2 pp y NT m N N 00 � R A N N � A m w a J vi > Q s c j o cy " Ta °j m O u � 0 'O C m tOi C�� � •U ° O ^ A tgA O A'S o a i ?5. a °, y > OE t y ac A D y'a N Vc .5 W a A N d J L V = t°.o = d o c F E 5 d" 0, `o o a a o F oC0 ay°v QFC a3 c�oC>; �•�c:o y �o c� 3 VWr'� ujj> q m r V o L C F m E .E O v 'J 9 G O d W O O_ 'E Rn R d C O rn m rn m rn m O vi n �+ O p — R H6wty ac�F � y h F6 W Q n c o c o a o c a o c 0 � 0 o o m S OZ'n y h ti qsk h a � G s :> O Lam. � OY 00 S C T p y O a O O U L � y m E w 'o E e d en m Sam Ca �O y� Tm.f p p p p > y p a7o .tl mEW p y OC 0 2 43 m n y 5 F 3 v =' s v4 e y° c c_. s Smcv `5 v a a o > v 2 F.5 c CO�'U W m v 6 0.0 a°a.5 Fc Ern u t m A m m O O w m h n o = o = c F6W❑ f -°¢a c o c o - 0 q " V '46K.0 vi n s u z m m L tJ F C v c c o 0 S m ]k f0 6 o � U U U N i C A O C 9 O N O A acid.?o�`c 5da e c p m c'o =.ted.. yoitlov � E =03 5 ci7, � a �ccb o p A S o o f a io °° 'w .a :E o o d E E 6 m F fi :a o_ F 3 3 o v 7 E a u g ti v v K c w c r ; Sc 46 to23 o c c K w.3 m° m if mE 45. K=m q A o > Y ?q` �� yaco3c gsa m'O v°�v�rn3z a m A � � m m = 00 = O O h m rn m 00 y a o c e o 5= m n F6P. W A F 61ci=10 iU y y = o 0 0 Sod ao� p vti� - o �9v n T T o � m c o� y u w o. �a V o 4 f Q W o A v r Y = o 0 o F 7 p? C V 0 N w q# �_ E NC O y N V N � ] - _- !! -2 i ; \ \ ! ! \ ! j _ \}\\\ \ zz -- - - - {§§!; � 2/( t§§ mo z ATTACHMEPR 3 GENERAL PLAN OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAY ELEMENT (Adopted by City Council on March 20, 1996) BACKGROUND The Town's Pathways System serves three basic and important functions -- circulation, recreation, and preservation of the open character of the Town. The pathway system is designed to complement the Town's roadway system and to enhance non -motorized circulation by providing connections between neighborhoods and local or nearby destinations. In this way, the Pathway Element is an integral part of the Town's Circulation Element, one of the basic General Plan elements required by State law. For the purposes of this discussion, the terms "path" and "trail" are used interchangeably, although a "trail" generally refers to a pathway in a more natural condition or setting. The Town's pathway system is composed of roadside paths and off-road paths. Roadside paths are located within or adjacent to the road right-of-way. The road right of way is generally planned to have the needed width to accommodate both the paved road as well as a separated path. Roadside paths provide safe routes for pedestrians and equestrians in the Town, much as sidewalks function in more urban communities. Roadside paths separate the car and the pedestrian or other non -vehicular user, and allow each a safer movement. The hills of the Town result in streets which often have steep sections or blind curves, which make pedestrian separation more important than with a grid street system. Off-road paths provide links between adjacent neighborhoods and schools for pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. Off-road paths, which connect to roadside paths or open space lands, are generally located on dedicated easements on private property (usually along property lines), through public lands, or through privately owned conservationlopen space easements. The Town's street system is designed to minimize the intrusion of the car into and through the Town, and cul-de-sacs are therefore common. This configuration can make it difficult to travel to nearby neighborhoods using Town roads. Off-road paths overcome this limitation by connecting neighborhoods for pedestrians and other pathway users. In addition to providing access to nearby destinations, paths provide a place to exercise, to walk dogs, or to ride horses. The primary users and beneficiaries of most of these paths are local residents. Unlike larger communities, the Town does not maintain a park system with "active" recreational uses, and instead relies primarily on the pathway network to fulfill that function. Path -related recreational activities (such as walking, jogging, hiking, bicycling and horseback riding) are among the most popular and rapidly growing forms of outdoor Pathway Element Page 2 recreation as the public is becoming increasingly more health and fitness conscious. Pathways are frequently designed of pervious materials to maintain the Town's open and rural setting, and to further enhance the recreational experience. Both the recreational and circulation functions of the paths will become even more important as population continues to grow and as demand increases. The pathway system began to be developed with the incorporation of the Town in 1956. Early off-road paths were developed primarily for equestrian and pedestrian use. Throughout the years as each new subdivision developed and each new residence was built, the use and need for roadside and off-road paths increased. The paths have expanded incrementally along with the new developments and increased population. Each new development that adds potential new users of the system contributes to the pathway system by dedication of easements and/or construction of paths or the payment of in-heu fees which are used by the Town for improvements of the pathway system. The system remains incomplete. Implementation of a Town -wide path system and the individual paths within it is a long term process that will take many years to accomplish. The pathway system will literally be a gift that one generation of Town residents provides to the next. It takes a long time to complete a pathway network because paths are generally implemented one segment at a time as opportunities arise. The Town is not ever likely to have all the money that might be required to purchase all of the easements needed to develop all of the desired paths. Consequently, obtaining pathway easements and construction of pathways will continue to rely on a variety of processes, on a case-by-case basis, as opportunities arise and resources are available. Piecing together a Town -wide path system, one small segment at a time, is a difficult, time-consuming, and fragile process. Failure to obtain a few critical links in a desired pathway can disrupt the continuity of the path and thus delay, and possibly even prevent, its eventual completion. The fragility of this piecemeal process makes it all the more critical that opportunities be taken advantage of as they arise for they may not arise again for many years, if ever. GOALS GI All residents of the Town shall have immediate access adjacent to or across the street from their residence to a pathway or pathways, for safe and convenient pedestrian and other non -vehicular travel along Town roads and to schools and community facilities, and for recreational enjoyment of the natural amenities of the community. G2 Pathways shall also serve to provide access to and from neighborhoods in the event of an emergency. Pathway Element Page 3 G3 Pathways shall be separated from the roadway pavement and should meander, wherever possible. G4 All paths shall be located and designed to preserve the beauty and natural character of the area and to safeguard the user. G5 Except for connections to regional trail and bikeway networks, Town paths shall be designed primarily for local circulation and recreational use. Pathway Element Page 4 POLICIES A. ROADSIDE PATHS Al Roadside paths shall be located within or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way of Town streets and on separate path easements adjacent to or over private streets. Roadside paths shall be separated from the roadway pavement by landscape buffering and shall meander, where possible. A2 The Town Council shall adopt a list of those streets or segments of those streets that shall be planned for paths on both sides of the street. A3 A roadside path shall be maintained on only one side of the street unless the street is included on the list adopted pursuant to Policy A2. The path may be located on alternating sides of the street, however, depending on factors such as available easements, topography, or proximity to schools or other facilities. A4 A roadside path shall not be maintained on a cul-de-sac that serves or could serve six or fewer lots. The traffic on such streets is deemed so minor that pedestrians can safely use the paved surface as a walkway. A roadside path along a cul-de-sac may be required by the Planning Commission or Council, however, for topographic or for safety reasons, and shall be required where it would connect to an off-road path. A5 The Planning Commission or City Council may require that an easement separate from a private street be dedicated, or that a pathway easement over the paved roadway be granted (if feasible), when the width of a private street easement of right-of-way will not accommodate both the paved surface and a separate path. A6 Dedication of pathway easements outside of required road rights-of-way shall not affect the computation of the net area, LUF (lot unit factor), NIDA (maximum development area) or WA (maximum floor area) for a lot. B. OFF-ROAD PATHS Bl Off-road paths shall be located on private property on easements which have been dedicated to the Town, or over public lands. They provide connections between neighborhoods and provide direct routes to schools and open space. Cul-de-sacs should have off-road paths which connect the end of the street to adjoining neighborhoods. B2 There are three classes of Off -Road Paths: Class 1 -- Off-road paths for which easements have been granted to the Town for a completed route, on which a path has been developed or pathway use has been established, and which is maintained by the Town and is open for public use. Pathway Element Page 5 Class 2 -- Off-road paths for which easements have been granted to the Town for less than a completed route, or where the pathway easement exists but the path has not been constructed or maintained and is not open for public use. Such paths remain to be completed in the future. Class 3 -- A planned future off-road path, as shown in the Master Path Plan. These paths may need dedication of easements over a single large parcel of land, or may require easements over a number of smaller parcels. B3 Off-road paths are a permitted use in a conservation and open space easement, and should be reflected as such in the language of the easement, at the time of dedication. B4 An emergency road easement shall also include dedication of an off-road path easement. B5 The design of new subdivisions - especially those with cul-de-sac streets - shall incorporate pathway connections to nearby neighborhoods or community facilities, such as schools, and to open space areas. B6 Dedication of off-road pathway easements shall not affect the computation of the net area, LUF (lot unit factor), MDA (maximum development area) or MFA (maximum floor area) for a lot. B7 Off-road paths shall be maintained in as natural a state as possible, except that installed surfaces may be acceptable when paths serve as connectors to schools or neighborhoods, or where special use or topography make it necessary. 138 Off-road paths shall be located along or as close to property lines as possible. C. REGIONAL CONNECTIONS The pathway system of the Town is intended primarily for the use of Town residents but it should be connected to the path and trail systems of neighboring jurisdictions. The Town and Palo Alto paths along Arastradero Road provide links from the Town to Arastra Preserve, to Esther Clark Park via Fremont Road, Old Trace Lane, and Aric Lane trails, and to Gunn High School via Palo Alto trails. It would be very desirable if Foothill Park (City of Palo Alto) trails were also accessible from Town paths along Page Mill Road, also allowing for connection to the Skyline Trail. Future planned access from and to Shoup Park and Redwood Grove in Los Altos, along Adobe Creek to O'Keefe Lane and the Town's path system, and a link between Fremont Road and Redwood Grove would improve pedestrian access for both cities. Pathway Element Page 6 The western boundary of the Town meets Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. This Preserve has an extensive trail system that attracts large numbers of visitors. The primary entrance to the Preserve, where extensive parking is available, is at Rancho San Antonio County Park at the end of Cristo Del Rey Drive in Cupertino. Connections into the Preserve from the Town are intended for local residents and have very limited parking (Ravensbury Avenue, Stonebrook Avenue, La Loma Drive, Rhus Ridge Road, Francemont Avenue, Hidden Villa). Access to Open Space lands should also be pursued from Olive Tree Lane. The DeAnza trail, which Congress has designated as a national historic trail, passes through Town and should be designated on the Town's master path plan. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PATHWAY SYSTEM A. THE MASTER PATH PLAN The Master Path Plan shall consist of all of the following: A book of street maps of the Town showing streets with paths planned on both sides of the street, after adoption by the City Council (see Policy A2). A book of street maps of the Town showing the side of each street on which a roadside path is planned. Determination of which side of a street the path should be located will be made incrementally by the Planning Commission, with the advice of the Pathways Committee and the City Engineer, at the time of subdivision approval or site development approval. A determination may also be made by the Pathways Committee upon the request of the City Manager or his designee, for construction or maintenance purposes. The book of street maps shall also show the status of roadside paths for cul-de-sacs and private streets, in accordance with Policies A4 and A5. 3. A book of street maps of the Town showing the location of Class 1 off-road paths. 4. A book of street maps of the Town showing the location of Class 2 off-road paths. The Pathways Committee will review from time to time these paths to determine the status of their development and to recommend actions to convert Class 2 paths to Class 1 paths. 5. A map to be developed by the Pathways Committee and approved by the City Council showing future needed off-road paths. Such a map, upon adoption, will identify Class 3 paths. Off-road paths shown on the Master Path Plan of 1981 shall remain in effect until the City Council adopts the new map, but all future paths designated by the 1981 Plan, without existing easements, shall be critically evaluated relative to function, slope, and other constraints prior to adoption of the new map. Pathway Element Page 7 In addition to or in lieu of the documents required by I through 5, the Town may display the Master Path Plan through other mapping or computer data bases for public and staff use. B. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS Development of paths shall occur incrementally as Town funds permit and as development generates increased demand and use of the system, based on resultant increases in population. Either at the time of subdivision or site development, property owners shall be required to dedicate easements and/or construct paths on their property. Owners of property on which no path is needed shall contribute by the payment of a pathway fee. The pathway fee shall be established at an amount roughly proportionate to the cost of pathway construction on the subject lot, if a pathway were required. 2. All new development which is expected to result in an increased demand for use of pathways shall comply with requirements for non -vehicular access, including dedication of easements and/or construction of paths, or payment of pathway fees, as follows: a. All subdivision development (except for lot line adjustments) shall be required to comply with pathway requirements, as the project would result in an increase in the number of homes (and residents) in the Town. b. All proposals for new main residences and/or secondary dwellings shall be required to comply with pathway requirements, as the project would result in an increase in the number of residents in the Town. C. A "cumulative' development of 900 square feet of "habitable" floor area or greater shall be required to comply with pathway requirements, as 900 square feet is considered a "major addition" requiring Planning Commission discretionary review; is generally the size of a large master bedroom and bathroom suite or three smaller bedrooms, based on typical submittals to the Town; and is roughly equivalent to the average area of floor space per Town resident, resulting in an increase (presently or in the future) in the number of residents in the Town. d. Development of a barn or stables in excess of 900 square feet shall be required to comply with pathway requirements, as the project would generate additional stable capacity and place an increased burden on the equestrian use of pathways. Other types of development proposals, such as conditional use permits or variances, would require a specific justification of the "nexus" for pathway requirements for that particular project. 3. Where pathway installation is required for a project, construction of the path shall occur concurrent with development of the project, unless the Planning Pathway Element Page 8 Commission or Council determine that the path would serve no useful purpose in the near future, due to the incompleteness of the pathway segment. 4. A lot that contributed a pathway fee at the time of subdivision shall not be required to contribute again at the time of site development. 5. Pathway fees shall be deposited in a designated fund and used only for pathway projects. 6. The incremental development of the path system sometimes results in gaps in both the roadside and off-road pathways. Public funds available to the Town, including the pathway fees, shall be used on projects that will complete the gaps in the system. 7. Pathway standards shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council, to address roadside and off-road pathway design. 8. Site development authorities shall be sensitive to path location and design. This is especially the case for the off-road paths. The location shall be sensitive to the privacy of future residents whenever a parcel is subdivided or a lot is developed. All paths shall be located and designed to preserve the beauty and natural character of the area and to safeguard the user. Particular care shall be given to retaining trees and vegetative cover and to minimize grading and erosion. 9. Typically, off-road paths shall be located along property lines, when topography permits. Fencing along paths may sometimes be appropriate to protect privacy, so long as it does not intrude into easements or right-of-way. 10. Street trees along the roadside path system should be promoted to enhance the pathway experience, but shall be located to avoid conflict with path use. 11. Pathway maps showing interesting neighborhood walks should be made available so as to encourage greater use by residents. 12. Property owners who damage paths on their property shall be required to repair them. Damage can occur by landscaping planted too close to the path, sprinklers near the path, slippery driveway surfaces across a path, or disking too close to the path. 13. Class 1 off-road paths shall have sign posts at their entrance to help residents locate them and feel free to use them. 14. Major off-road paths should be named as a way to encourage their use and to recognize historical entities associated with the Town or to honor Town residents who have contributed to the development of the system. Pathway Element Page 9 15. The Town shall accept offers of dedication of pathway easements made at the time of development and record them so that the future pathway tight -of -way is identified. 16. The Town should seek donations of path easements needed to complete gaps in the system. The Town shall assume the legal and engineering costs involved with the preparation of easement donations unrelated to development and should inform residents of possible tax advantages from easement dedication. 17. A Pathways Committee of residents interested in the pathway system shall be appointed by the Council. A major responsibility of the Committee shall be to suggest priorities for the Council and the City Manager regarding those paths most in need of maintenance or development. The Committee shall also be responsible for the maintenance and development of the Master Path Plan. 18. Property owners shall not block pathways or otherwise impede pathway use through the placement of fences, landscaping, irrigation, mailboxes, or any other means. 19. Provision for pathway crossings or bridges shall be made at appropriate locations, such as across creeks, and all roadway vehicular bridges shall be designed to incorporate pathway crossings. 20. Trails and paths shall be permitted uses in open space and conservation easements. These trails shall be constructed and maintained to minimize the environmental impact upon the area. 21. When a pathway crosses a driveway or walkway, the pathway surface shall take precedence. Where a paved surface is required, the crossing must be acceptable as a pathway, e.g., roughened. 3/20/96 ATTACHMENT q § 102.607 LOS ALTOS HIT I S MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.702 Town, for any site development permit for a main residence, a secondary dwelling, an addition in a structure of at least nine hundred (900) square feet of "habitable" floor area (including cumulative additions of nine hundred (900) or more square feet of habitable floor area), or of a barn or stable of at least nine hundred (900) square feet in floor area. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985; § 5, Ord. 381, eff. April 19, 1996) Sec 10-2.608. Pathway fee. A site development permit for a lot on which no path is needed and on which is to be constructed a main residence, a secondary dwelling, an addition to a structure of at least nine hundred (900) square feet of "habit- able" floor area (including cumulative additions of nine hundred (900) or more square feet of habitable floor area), or a barn or stable of at least nine hundred (900) square feel in floor area shall be assessed a pathway fee, the amount of which shall be fixed by Council resolution. Pathway fees collected shall be deposited in the Town's Pathway Fund. No fee shall be assessed if the lot has been assessed and has paid a fee pursuant to Section 9-1.1112 of the Subdivision Ordinance. (§ 6, Ord. 381, eff. April 19, 1996) Article 7. Building Siting, View Protection, Ridgeline Preservation, Creek Protection Sec. 10-2.701. Purposes. The purposes of this article are to insure that the site, location and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from off-site; that scenic views are retained; that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape; that ridgelines and hilltops are preserved; and that the siting of structures is consistent with other provisions of this chapter concerning grading, drainage, and erosion control. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. 30-2.702. Siting. (a) Alternative locations. The location of buildings and structures shall be selected so as to minimira run-off from the sit, the volume of off- site drainage created, the destruction or alteration of natural vegetation, and the impairment of scenic views from off the site. (b) Preservation of ridgelines, hilltops,, and highly visible lots. Ridgelines, hilltops, and highly visible lots shall be preserved by the siting (Los Altos Hills 10-15-97) 1055 § 10.2.604 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.607 Sec. 10-2.604. Drainage. Drainage facilities on private properties adjoining pathways shall be designed and maintained so that stormwater runoff from those properties does not drain onto the pathways. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. 10-2.605. Driveway surfaces. The surfacing or resurfacing of a driveway at its intersection with a path shall be accomplished with material and methods acceptable to the City Engineer to reduce the danger of slipping by users of the pathway. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. 10-2.606. Dedication of pathway easements. Whenever a site development permit is requested for a main residence, a secondary dwelling, an addition to a structure of at least nine hundred (900) square feet of "habitable" floor area (including cumulative additions of nine hundred (900) or more square feet of habitable floor area), or a barn or stable of at least nine hundred (900) square feet in floor area, on a property which is designated on the Master Path Plan for an off-road pathway or for a roadside pathway, but where all or a portion of such roadside path cannot feasibly be located within the existing public or private right-of-way, the Site Development Authority may require the dedication of an easement for public use as part of the Town's pathway system according to the guidelines contained in the Pathway Element of the General Plan. Pathway easements shall be required within emergency road easements. In addition, the following guidelines apply: (a) An easement should generally be located along the boundary of a property; (b) The easement shall be located so as to connect to existing or - future pathway segments at the boundaries of a property; and (c) The easement shall not be located on terrain that cannot be safely or conveniently traversed by pedestrians or equestrians. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985; § 4, Ord. 381, eff. April 19, 1996) Sec. 10.2.607. Construction of pathways. The Site Development Authority may require the construction of pathway improvements within dedicated easements or public rights-of-way for public use as part of the Town's pathway system as shown on the Master Pathway Plan, and according to the engineering standards of the 1054 (Las Altos Hills 10-15-97) § 10-2.602 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.603 Sec. 10-2.602. General policies. (a) Each property shall have direct access to a pathway or indirect access via a vehicular right-of-way. (b) Undeveloped properties along designated pathways and bicycle routes may be required to dedicate an easement for the extension of the pathway as a condition of site development approval (c) Pathways shall be sited and improved in a manner that creates minimal disturbance to the natural environment. (d) Equestrian and pedestrian paths should generally be separated from roadways. (e) Pathways shall be of sufficient width to provide a safe corridor for travel and pathway maintenance. (f) Except for designated regional trails and bikeways, paths shall be designed primarily for local use by Town residents. (g) Intersections of paths and vehicular rights-of-way shall be kept clear of vegetation which might obscure the view of users. (h) Pathways shall be designed and maintained to prevent erosion, to prevent injury from landslides or other soil movements, and to assure proper drainage of the path. (1) Slopes in excess of fifteen (15%) percent adjacent to a pathway shall contain soil retentive landscaping, rockery, netting, or other devices approved by the City Engineer to reduce potential damage to the path or injury to users of the path from landslide, soil creep, or erosion. (i) Pathways shall be designed and maintained to minimize their impact on adjacent properties. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. 10-2.603. Construction activities near pathways. Construction activities and tilling undertaken near a pathway shall create minimal disturbance to the pathway. Appropriate measures shall be undertaken to assure that landslides or soil movement do not occur on pathways. Temporary drainage facilities or plantings may be required by the City Engineer during construction to insure that pathways are not eroded or damaged from stormwater runoff. Any damage to a pathway resulting from private activities shall be repaired by the responsible party at their expense. In the event damage creates an irreparable break in the pathway, the responsible party may be required by the Town to provide or acquire an alternate easement for the pathway. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) 1053 (Los Altos Hllls 3-6-871 § 10-2.601 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.601 Town residents; to implement the Master Pathway Plan of the General Plan of the Town of Los Altos Hills; and to prevent damage to the Town's pathways from activities that occur on private property. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) (Los Altos Hills 10-15-97) 1052-1 § 10-2.503 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.601 Sec. 10-2.503. Drainage facilities standards. The City Engineer shall consider the following in making recommenda- tions to the Site Development Authority regarding the adequacy of proposed drainage facilities: (a) The design and location of any terraces in cut and fill slopes, including the distance between terraces, the gradient of any swales or ditches in the terraces, and the tributary area from which water is dis- charged into a Swale or ditch. (b) The capacity of proposed subsurface drainage on cut and fill slopes to carry run-off from the site, based on the amount of impervious surfaces, the absorption characteristics of the soil, the proposed discharge point of subsurface drainage, and effects of vegetative cover in absorbing water. (c) The location(s) and type(s) of devices, such as downdmins, used to prevent erosion in the area of discharge. (d) The extent to which proposed drainage facilities prevent standing water or other localized conditions of soil saturation on a site. (e) The extent to which proposed drainage facilities decrease the velocity and concentration of water run-off to reduce the potential for soil erosion. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. 10-2.504. Drainage easements. Whenever a site development permit is requested for an activity which may affect natural drainage patterns or rates, the Planning Director or Planning Commission may, upon recommendation of the City Engineer, require the dedication of an easement sufficient to accommodate natural or installed drainage systems. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985; § 5, Ord. 384, eff. October 18, 1996) Article 6. Pathway Dedication, Maintenance, and Improvement Sec 10-2.601. Purposes. The purposes of this article are to insure that provision is made for public pathways to provide pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle access for (Los Altos Hills I(M5-97) 1052 ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE Pete and Jeannette Foley 13124 Byrd Ln. Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 650-948-2049(h) 650-814-7710 (c) petena.thefolevs. com Carl Cahill Planning Director 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Cc: Chris Vargas, Pathways Committee Chairman 1/27/'05 Dear Carl and Chris, We would like to comment on the proposed pathways map currently on the town website as it affects Lands of Foley on 13124 Byrd Ln. Weare dismayed to see pathways now shown along three sides of our property which were removed in the proposed 2002 master pathways map, but is now labeled as "Future path — recommended to retain". There is associated with this proposed pathway a comment #B2.11. We strenuously object to this significant addition of pathways on our property for the following reasons: 1) Unfavorable Topography—too Stee The average slope over our entire lot is 34 degrees. The proposed leg straight down the hill between 13124 and 13100 (from Byrd Lane down to a seasonal creek at the bottom of the property) is down the steepest part of the lot and must beat least 45-50 degrees. Not only is it dangerously steep, but we have serious concerns about erosion with such a steep pathway component on our property. Foley Pathways Comment 2) Privacy Loss and Loss of Quality of Life Because the cul-de-sac organization and the steep slope of the majority of the property, the house is situated very close to the "top" of the lot near Byrd Ln where there is perhaps '/< acre that is less steeply sloped. Hence the proposed pathway would pass through a significant part of the property that is somewhat level, pass close to the house, quite close to our children's play area and play structure, through my wife's garden, and "through" a large valley oak located on the edge of the property. Our garden is located in about the only reasonably flat sunny part of the lot, into which we have invested a lot of time, and the loss of that area to a pathway would represent a significant quality of life issue for us. 3) Unfair Burden The new proposal would put pathways on 4 sides of our 5 sided property, totaling some 70% of our —3 acre perimeter. We feel this is obtrusive, burdensome, and unfair. 4) Liability Concerns We feel there is a significant liability issue with pathways — particularly since the proposed pathway addition would have a significant slope to it, and that the town must indemnify property owners from any liability associated with pathway use before requiring property owners to install new pathways. 5) Reduction in Property Value And lastly, we believe that such a significant pathway burden on our property can only reduce our property value. Regards, Pete' Foley Pathways Comment Lani Smith From: swemling@mmcast.net Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 8:39 PM To: Ismith@losaltoshills.ca.gov Subject: Hidden Villa letter of opposition Dear Lani, This is the letter from Beth Ross, the current director of Hidden Villa - written in opposition to the Murietta Ridge trail. It was written to the Pathway committee in October of last year - but unfortunately, their response was a re -affirmation their support of the path. would you please copy this to the Planning Commission members and to the Town Planner? (Chris Vargas was already given this letter at their meetings - so does not need another.) I very much appreciate you doing this - I know your schedule is full - and I thank you for taking the time to pass this on! Kind regards, Shari Ending representative - Murietta Lane Homeowner's Association October 25, 2009 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 99022 Dear Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee Members, As the new Executive Director of Hidden Villa, I am writing to restate Hidden Villa's opposition to any new City of Los Altos Hills pathways that would connect to Hidden Villa property (other than to the main entrance on Moody Road). The former Executive Director, Judith Steiner articulated our position and reasons in her letter dated August 19, 2002. From what I understand, the proposed trail behind the Murietta Lane houses, would dead-end at Hidden Villa, far from any of our existing trails. we have consciously decided not to increase our trail system as we do not have funds to hire staff to patrol and maintain the trails appropriately. Volunteers are our sole source of trail maintenance. In addition, the soil along the hillside where the trail would end is very unstable and not suitable for trails. Our trials serve as a teaching ground - our outdoor educational campus. Hidden Villa's Environmental Education Program and Summer Camp both offer children a wilderness experience where they are able to enjoy the beauty of the natural world without a great deal of interruption from outside sources. If the trails of Hidden Villa were connected to the Los Altos Hills Pathways system, public access would be increased and our programs would be compromised. A child's ability to experience peaceful solitude in nature would be diminished. Another concern is that Hidden Villa is also closed to the public during the summer camp season and on Mondays through the rest of the year. This decision was made due to the distraction and safety risk that large numbers of visitors pose to the children. Creating further public access to our trail system would increase the safety concerns we have for children and visitors of Hidden Villa. Hidden Villa enjoys being a part of the Los Altos Hills community providing a beautiful space where people learn from and enjoy nature. Please take our position into account as you consider any new pathway proposals. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Beth Ross Executive Director 650-999-8659 Lani Smith From: swemling@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 1:18 PM To: ismith@losaltoshills.ca.gov Subject: please put in Planning Commission packets FROM: Shari Emling 11893 Murietta Lane Los Altos Hills, California 99022 January 26th, 2005 TO: Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Re: Sector 3 of the 2009 Pathways map - additional pathways recommended Dear Planning Commissioners, Our Murietta Lane Homeowners Association would like to call your attention to a pathway that has been recommended by the 2009 Pathways Committee which would seriously and adversely impact the residents of Murietta Lane, Adobe Creek Lodge Lane, and Hidden Villa. This proposed future pathway can be seen as a broken green line in Sector 3 of the 2009 Proposed Trails Map - extending from Adobe Creek Lodge Lane, running horizontally along the mountain up above the Wayman property, extending behind the entire Murietta Lane subdivision to Hidden Villa land and then looping back to retrace the mountian to the original starting point. I have found NO OTHER "trails to nowhere" being proposed on your current map - and find it impossible to believe there is a positive reason for proposing this once again. This same trail was abandoned in 1979 (when the Murietta Lane subdivision was established) as it was considered invasive, and the easement was therefore eliminated. When Blayne Dauber was mayor, this area again became an issue because a member of the Pathways Committee decided - on his own, without authorization - to clear the original abandoned trail. Ed and I (as representatives of the Murietta Lane Homeowners Association) met with Mayor Dauber, Councilman Bob Johnson, the Town Manager, and Les Earnest (the Pathways member who attempted to clear the abandoned trail) in a special session in the Council Chambers. It was clearly demonstrated that the trail had brought quite dangerous elements into play on the mountain, as follows: 1. The fire department had been called out on three documented occasions when fires were set above our homes on the mountain. Some were set by teenagers looking for a place to "party" and some were set as part of camping by persons unknown. - 2. The sheriff was called on four documented occasions when there was evidence of people living on or near the abandoned trail. This evidence consisted of night fires, objects thrown onto Murietta Lane properties from up the mountain, liquor bottles left in great numbers at temporary "campsites", people walking down the mountain and onto our properties looking for a way out, and noisy shouting and arguing emanating from the mountain by persons unknown. 3. The Sheriff recommended we meet with the Town at the time, and have any access to this area chained off as "When you have a trail that leads nowhere, you get people that are going nowhere." Therefore, our meeting was held. The attempted trail was deemed a dangerous liability and the staff was directed to "chain off" any access to this trail so it could once again grow over and be unavailable to anyone. Mr. Earnest was then given a letter by the Town Manager, indicating that he had seriously overstepped his authority in attempting to negotiate with the Openspace District and Hidden Villa, was prohibited from doing so in the future and was also directed to stay off the Ridge. Since then, in our opinion, he has had a fixation with putting a trail on Murietta Ridge, and continues to advocate for it. The trail was abandoned in 1979, but was attempted two more times - only to be eliminated from consideration EACH TIME with the assurance (obviously false) that it would not be brought up again. Now, it is 2005 and we enter attempt #9 in this fiasco. Even with this trail abandoned, there have been isolated incidences of people up above the Wayman and Murietta property, and the authorities were called for fires and illegal activity on the mountain within the past two years. we lay some of the blame on the fact that the promised "chain barrier" was never erected, even though we repeatedly requested it, and highschool kids seem to see this ridge as a private place to party - using fires for warmth and animal deterrent. Now, we get this new map with the same trail proposed ONCE AGAIN. Isn't there some limitation on how many times the same fight must be fought? For clarity, let me review: 1. This trail is dangerous, and has significant impact on the safety of the residents in the area, for all the reasons listed in the above narrative. 2. It is impossible to screen, as the trail is up the mountain and therefore gives a perfect and unrestricted view onto all our properties, seriously compromising residents' privacy. 3. The trail does NOT serve as a connection to any neighborhood. The pathway dead-ends (merely loops around upon itself) where Hidden Villa property begins, and does not facilitate off-road use. 9. The steep terrain would be difficult to maintain, and unsafe to traverse (except for those looking for an isolated place to "party" or camp). This proposed pathway would cross seasonal streams which pour down the mountain in the rainy season, causing treacherous soils and increasing the liability to the homeowners as well as the Town. 5. The accountability and burden to the town would be tremendous because of probable and predictable recurring fires, campers, people looking for places to "party", and any damage to or invasion of privacy of the homeowners directly affected by this re-proposed trail to nowhere. 6. The LAH Open Space Initiative was to finally put an end to this. It permanently re-designated Murietta Ridge as "open space preserve" intending it to be a "wildlife habitat, which though inhospitable to humans, is an important wildlife corridor." We have coyotes, mountain lion, bobcat, deer, and a multitude of small fauna making their home on Murietta Ridge. 7. Hidden Villa, though an advocate of trails, is against this trail as it facilitates people entering Hidden Villa property through an unsupervised and unregulated "back door" - an obvious negative and dangerous situation. Judith Steiner wrote a strong letter to this effect when the trail was last attempted in 2002 - which I have, if it cannot be found in your records. The new Hidden Villa director has also written a letter indicating strong opposition to this pathway. We have given this information to the Pathway Committee and met with them on two separate dates, but they continue to advocate for this invasive "pathway to nowhere". I cannot stress strongly enough that the Murietta Lane residents have a loud and clear 1008 member vote AGAINST this trail. Adobe Creek Lodge Lane residents are 1008 in opposition, as is Hidden Villa. Because of privacy, safety, liability concerns, steepness, and lack of continuity, this re-proposed trail fails to meet ANY of your criteria, and we are frankly baffled why it is continually attempted. Please consider this a formal request to remove this trail from your "recommended pathways" list, and (this time), please remove it permanently. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 991-7710 or email me at swemling@comcast.net. We sincerely appreciate your time and consideration.. Kind regards, Shari Emling Representative Murietta Lane Homeowners Association Members: Sollars Family, Yang family, Dan Maydan, Burns Family, Helft Family, Benjamin Family, Baenziger Family, Fred Gibbons, Young Family, Finney Family, Emling Family Associate Members: Wayman Family D U X B U R Y A R C H I T E C T S RECEIVED January 31, 2005 FEB 0 2 2005 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Chris Vargas Pathway Committee Chairmen Subject: Path at 13643 Wildcrest Drive marked by C2.Ila and C2.11b Dear Chris: 1. My client Lynn Szekely at 13643 Wildcrest asked me to review and comment on the "future path" recommended to be retained. Shown as Blue and noted C2.11b. 2. It appears that this path is to supercede an alternate path marked in Red, noted C2.12b to connect Robleda and La Paloma. It was noted that this path would be abandoned due to "terrain difficult, intrusive" The proposed path adjacent to 13643 Wildcrest C2.11b at the very least would be described the same but more appropriately _ "terrain very difficult and very intrusive." 3. I personally walked and photographed the proposed route from 13643 Wildcrest to Robleda. I have enclosed a series of photographs. This route is proposed along a major natural drainage Swale and natural oak woodland. This Swale has physical properties that I believe would be unfeasible to construct a path. It took me over 30 minutes just to walk to this route and at times I felt I would not be able to even manage this trek without hurting myself. Please note the following observations: a. The path is proposed along a major drainage Swale that is wet during the rainy season and equally unstable in the dry season. b. The banks vary in slope from 30 degrees to 45 degrees on both sides. The soils are wet clay, unstable and is not a suitable foundation or underlayment to construct a safe or feasible path. c. This is area is a natural oak woodland that should not be compromised. It is a natural drainage basin and habitat to many oaks, shrubs and wildlife; that does not seem appropriate for a safe pedestrian path. Cc: Lynn Szekely File: January 31, 2005 d. Any path constructed on this line would require a path to have a foundation and retaining walls. The path will have to be moved anywhere from 10 to 30 feet off the proposed centerline of trail. This would result an encroachment on any number of properties adjacent to the proposed path. A suitable and safe path would need to be constructed with retaining walls and drainage that would disrupt the oak woodland, drainage basin and animal and plant habitat. 4. On behalf of my client Lynn Szekely, I would like the Pathway Committee and Engineering department at the Town of Los Altos Hills to reevaluate the appropriateness of this pathway. The construction of a pathway in this location seems unfeasible, inappropriate and an unwanted development feature in a Town that discourages disruptions to the natural environment. If you have any questions or need any first hand input of the appropriateness of this pathway proposal please call me. Ve Truly Yo , Peter H. Dwcb ,AIA, CARB Cc: Lynn Sz kdy File Al . IF � sN v wv tand � I ,1 "I 1 � I1 i f (ca,n�Fruci�n �� _ l @ ! 3fa�3 CUi 1e1c�5�' R*VA, mw &A�¢ 4 C2. tla +b 30, ems s88 2 6 2 6 6 6 2 2 i B 8 g b 8 2 0 E 8 8 8 0 a s88 W 5 2 6 2 6 6 6 2 2 i B u' g b 8 2 0 E 8 8 8 0 a B {y Nry ..j ry ry ry ry ry ry {may 1Ay ,�j �NNj <N_N ry S W 5 2 6 2 6 6 6 2 2 i u' g b 8 2 0 E 8 8 8 0 a {y Nry ..j ry ry ry ry ry ry {may 1Ay ,�j �NNj <N_N ry � Looking up path at Robleda-the best 10% of path, most passable. i E 1 J �. •1 oVNI � rP, �r 1 I , i F f i% '. ✓ f �,`, ..,a r � • t y., Y' yy '� p of o aro r• t r` ,a r L` ,. January 30, 2005 Chairman William Kerns and Planning Commissioners Mayor Mike O'Malley and City Council Members c/o City Clerk of Los Altos Hills Town Hall 26379 Fremont Road _ Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: 2005 Off -Road Pathway Plan 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive Dear Chairman William Kems, Planning Commissioners, Mayor O'Malley and City Council Members: We are the owners of the residence at 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive in Los Altos Hills. We have had the pleasure of owning our home at this location since 1981. While we are generally supportive of having pathways within the Town of Los Altos Hills, we hope that you will agree with us that the pathways should never create an unfair burden on any homeowner. Sadly, for a number of significant reasons, we must object to that portion of the 2005 OFF-ROAD PATH PLAN that is proposed as it will completely surround our one -acre property on all three sides. We invite you to view our property, at your earliest opportunity, in order to appreciate the negative impact that the proposed plan will have upon our property. After reviewing the map showing the 2005 OFF-ROAD PATH PLAN, and our property, we ask that you agree with our objections and make appropriate modifications. Last year we attended a meeting at LAH Town Hall and spoke before the Planning Commission to address our concerns about changes the Pathways Committee were considering to the 1981 Master Pathway Plan. It was at this time that we, along with our neighbor, Sue and Armin Hanafy of 14305 Saddle Mountain Drive, requested that the possible path, marked A1.2 on the 2005 map, be totally eliminated. Our reasons then and as well as now are the following: (a) there would be a huge negative impact and loss of privacy because a path is this location would allow complete strangers pass very close to the right side of our house (near bedrooms and family room in particular); (b) a danger and loss of security with strangers, not just neighbors, being able to walk past our home, not just in front of it, but also close to the right side of the house (exposing any use of our decks, bedrooms and family room since we prefer minimal window covering); (c) the area is very steep and there is a real danger to someone falling and hurting themselves while trying to walk that area; (d) we fear that we, along with the Town of Los Altos Hills, together with other neighbors would be open to being sued if there was any kind of an accident, (e) we have frequent visits and danger from a bobcat, fox, and more recently a coyote who attacked our dog near our downstairs bedroom, which live nearby; and (f) it is not necessary, and would create a redundancy, since use of our area is already available to the public via paths along public roads such as Stirrup and Saddle Mountain as well existing paths through the open space area across the road from our house and the Fran Stevenson Path connecting Saddle Mountain to Elena. The combination of pre-existing paths and the newly proposed path marked A1.2 would effectively create a public moat around our house. Instead of removing this proposed path, as we were given the impression would be the result, the new 2005 map shows it still existing as well as the creation of another new path, marked A1.3b, on the left side of our home. Not only that, a pre- existing path marked A1.3a is marked to be eliminated except for that portion which borders the third side of our house. The result of these three paths circumnavigating our property is to cause us to have to shoulder the entire burden alone rather than fairly among 3 parcels as before (14414, 14321, and 14313 Saddle Mountain). our parcel is not large at all, and is mostly of steep and downhill terrain. We have always enjoyed the feeling of openness in the area. However, if three pathways are to exist that circle our property, we will have to install new fencing which would be necessary in order to protect our guests and ourselves from strangers, which of course is the opposite of the very reason why we moved to Los Altos Hills. We have always enjoyed the solitude of the area. Finally, there is also one more specific reason to remove the proposed path: our driveway currently blocks the area on the left side of our lot where the new path is being proposed. The object of the pathway committee is not to have strangers traverse our driveway, but to install a new path outside the improvements already constructed. The builder of our home had the driveway installed very close to the leftmost comer of the boundary line of our lot, leaving very little area for landscaping let alone a pathway. Although shown on our property, the open pathway area would necessarily spill upon the neighbors' property, though that does not appear to be clearly shown in the map of the 2005 OFF-ROAD PATH PLAN. It is grossly unfair to encumber us in such an extreme way on all three sides and make our home bear all the inconvenience and loss of land value. This loss of security, safety, and the possibility of future litigation are not necessary because access to our area already exists. Additions to the Pathway Plan such as the ones being proposed to be placed on us are not necessary. All of us will all of us who live off of Stirrup Drive will be negatively affected in the future. To say that we are dismayed would be a huge understatement. We are extremely upset over this issue. We recognize that you may initially think that our comments are merely objections along the line of "not in my back yard." In fact, two of the three sides of our property are already encumbered, so we already have some of the issues in our back yard. However, in our opinion, it is not just our property: no property should have to have a proposed pathway on all three sides. Thank you for your re-consideration of the proposed plan. We look forward to speaking to you about the issues at your earliest convenience. Please give your support by signing our petition. Very truly yours, Terrie Masuda Ed Masuda TO: Chairman William Kerns and Planning Commissioners Mayor Mike O'Malley and City Council Members We, the undersigned, have reviewed the January 30, 2005 letter from Terrie and Ed Masuda, and agree with the opinions expressed therein. We join Terrie and Ed in asking that the possible paths, marked A1.2, A1.3b,,and A1.1 on the 2005 OFF-ROAD PATH PLAN be eliminated. Dated: 01 r30/LS G%�ANI� till 7�P1AS �Di Address: (4321 SAMLE �YTOP LOSAt77Y H14(5,CA944Z2 Dated: =z'`- -.20.2-,,row /�l� . R. Address: -Z75_f0 ({/tr�.-r, PIC (J Dated: "� Address: Dated: J k Address: Dated: Vpv�30 Address: Dated: Dated:A �7 Address: Dated:'--4--QqV5 Address: /cc,? el �:�2"P l,4A fi" Z_ 1 t l lyses ,fgv I�?_ � ,t Aolls C1i Dated: 1"-1-a�.=Q Address: cu,.� Se€ /, t`% Al-thm February 10, 2005 Bill Kerns, Chairman & Planning Commissioners Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremond Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RECEIVED FEB 0 12005 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Re: Petition against B1.8 Easement on the proposed Phase I of Offroad Pathway Recommendations Dear Chairman Kerns and Planning Commissioners: The Pathway Committee has proposed B 1.8 Easement to complete circular connection around our homes. This makes no sense for us, would members of the committee want people to walk through their backyards to invade their privacy and safety? The value of these six home sites would be reduced substantially related to being required to share their backyards with the public. We see no benefit for the public at all. The detrimental impact to the environment is severe and very costly. This route is extremely difficult for anyone to access or construct and the grading involved will require removal of several larger trees on the upper end of B 1.8 and Al. I of Fenwick's easement (at least 50% grades). Al.I was not shown either on 1981 Master Path Plan or on 1994 Pathway Map, but it is mistakenly shown on the proposed map as `BLUE' line. We do not believe this Al.I was ever approved in any legal or formal way. It will not only destroy the biology of this mini tree forest, but also it will destroy the existing natural storm sheeting coming from Fenwick property that will heavily involve State Water Board agencies. Our experience working with State agencies for this scale of construction will easily cost any owners at least $300,000 to just re-route all the storm water away from the proposed pathway by installing large storm pipes that are over 1000 linear feet from Fenwick's property to our property. After two years of hard work, we just completed a highly engineered and expensive storm drainage system that meets both the State and City requirements. As result of all the extra actual work from our effort, the Fenwick's storm drainage problems are now resolved. Any changes on what was already been improved and approved by the Town would make all of our work worthless. The frontage of the property is surrounded by the freeway 280 and Arastradero road. We already built over 1,000 feet of on -road pathway on Arastradero road for the public use, including the segment adjacent to the newly built cul -de -sec that cost us over $50,000 on our land as part of the agreement with the Town. As result of subdivision requirements, we were required to pay pathway fees for two lots. The purpose of these fees were to mitigate the pathway requirements. The other four lots have already been improved with a pathway in front of each lot at our expense during the subdivision process. This completed pathway accomplished the same goal as the 1981 Master Plan and the proposed B1.8 easement is redundant for this neighborhood. However, we are very surprised about the recommendations made by the Committee. Especially after we kept our promises to pay the Town for the Pathway fees and constructing a long pathway at our expense for the benefit of the public. We have spent hundreds of hours and large amount of money based on agreements made with the Town. And we believe that the Town will continue to honor those agreements or being willing to refund the pathway fees and construction cost of the completed pathway and pay the damages that will occur for the subdivision as result of implementation of proposed B 1.8 easement. We expect that the Town will act honorably and honestly to the fairness of all residents. Please do no fail us after so many years of public hearings and especially when the Town government twice decided not to require B1.8 Easement and in fact required that we build the sewer facility in a location that blocked that pathway segment. We have already fulfilled our agreements made with the Town and expect the Town to do the same. As mentioned during the open public hearings that the proposed location of the path on or near our property is not warranted for the following reasons: The Town's pathway policies call for consideration of impacts of off-road pathways on residents' privacy and safety. Lot 6 is an unusually shaped and narrow lot, as result a 10 foot easement for the pathway would result in people walking on the easement be able to touch the existing occupied home also the second dwelling unit that was built over 40 years ago. This would create serious safety and privacy issues having very negative consequences for the owners of this property that is in violation of existing Town's pathway guidelines. 2. We strongly oppose connecting B 1.8 to the County's De Anza National Historic trail route, because it will significantly increase the number of people outside of our community that may use this path, particulary when this pathway will be promoted and advertised on the internet. This will further destroy the ability of a home owner to enjoy any privacy or to feel secure in their own home. The basic property ownership right of quiet enjoyment can not be met with B 1.8. 3. Based on the location of the home on Lot 6, construction of a pathway is extremely difficult. A fill of 4-6 feet and a culvert or a bridge will be needed to connect from Arastradero Road pathway across the drainage channel to Lot 6. There is virtually no room for the pathway to then negotiate its way around the Subdivision Sewer Pump Station and all the utility facilities on that property. 4. During Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the subdivision in 2001, a request for a 10 foot pathway easement along Lot 6 was discussed extensively. At the June 7, 2001 City Council meeting, the Council agreed that such a pathway would be intrusive and unnecessary. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council further denied the B 1.8 segment during the approval of subdivision on November 7 & 21, 2002 and during the Pathway Council meeting on October 17, 2002. Both the Tentative Map and Final Map were approved and will not allow for imposition of additional conditions. The subdivision conditions, however, required construction of a pathway and payment of pathway fees, both of which were made to the satisfaction of the Town. 5. The proposed map is incorrect for this route because the proposed segment for Fenwick Al.1 was neither planned nor shown on the 1981 original approved legal Map, nor on the 1994 Pathway Map of Town of Los Altos Hills. Therefore, the "Blue" line on Fenwick's property should be corrected. 6. This proposed easement runs through the Town's required facility and there is no way to route around it on Lot 6 that has an occupied home. The private Sewer Pump Station is approximately 100 foot long that includes an extensive 70 foot long of the drainage swale in the middle of this proposed segment was required and approved by the Town. 7. The private driveway to Lot 6 in the middle of this proposed easement was also required and approved by the Town in 2002. It was completed with asphalt and curbs and inspected by the Town in 2004. As result of proposed B 1.8, this driveway will need to be relocated. However, there is no place to relocate it. 8. Three large sewer Main Holes, two large transformers from PG&E, and many of the utility boxes are located along Lot 6 home. These systems cannot be tempered with by any unauthorized persons and the public is restricted from Lot 6. 9. Surrounding neighbors also oppose this route around and through their backyards and our home sites. See attached Petition List for B1.8 and the Petition List submitted jointly by the Mamda, Priasmoro, & Hanafy for A1.3b, A1.2 & Al.1. 10. This route will probably not even be used unless the party using it wants to take the most difficult route that is on the highest ridge of our backyards to get to where they are going. They must be in excellent physical condition. Or they simply enjoy looking at other people yards and as a result destroying all of our privacy. We therefore request that the Planning Commission exclude the proposed pathway segment B1.8 on Lot 6 from the 2005 Off -Road Path Plan dated 1/11/2005. Particularly since the Planning Commission and the Council previously excluded B 1.8 twice already. We have lived through all the scrutiny over four years with all the government agencies and have done everything we were asked to. We believe such an action would protect the privacy and public safety of all the six homes and would avoid the redundant effort as there are already two existing pathways on Purissima and along I-280 that connect to Arastradero that meet the original intent of the 1981 Master Plan. It also would eliminate a potential major liability problem for the owners and the Town. We have invested four and half years of hard work and diligent attention to state and local statues and regulations, and we have spent over $2 million for the approval of our six home sites. In order for the Planning Commission to be consistent, it roust exclude segment B1.8 for the same reasons B1.8 was excluded before. Unfortunately, if B1.8 is not deleted from the revised map, we will be obligated to obtain legal assistance to protect the major investment that we have made in this property. We have chosen Los Altos Bills to be our home and where our children are going to school. We expect to be community members for a long time. Please assist us in this endeavor. Sincerely, and Sophia Huang 27580 Arastradero Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 650-948-8988 c.c. Bill Kerns: bill@billkems.com Eric Clow: eclow@hinagroup.com Carl Cottrell: carljcottr@aol.com Ray Collins: raykcol@yahoo.00m Bart Carey: bcarey@carevvision.com FEB 0 3 2005 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Petition List for AIR Adiaeent Neighbors that oomse Lot 6 B1.8 1. 27580 Arastradero Road (Lot 1, 2, 3, 5 homes): Paul Yen -Son Huang & SophiaHuauanng paauullhuangnnhotmail.com . 2�Arastradero Road (Lot 6 home): Younan Lu & Lijian Du: paradise618.yahoo.com ] �u. 3. 27520 o Road 4 home): Feng Yang & May Ip: may@fortemediia..`ccomm 4. 27690 Arastradero Road, Kishore Kagolano: 925-351-1184 5. 14313 Saddle Mountain hive, Eddie & Terrie Masuda: territ,@terriemasuda.com 6. 14321 Saddle Mamt, �IhiA�n�ddrree`wPrriasmoro: 650-941-J,02] r�///l��'/!'O"'��I�SO�OS �cU�.112t151ti.�{ Com ,ghiD2EW (�2tRsdyo2p 7. 14305 Saddle Mountain Drive, ,A m f n Han 4 650-917-9608 -7 K�SHOG 1,4tioLAuv a7610 �G9easTRflo ko Los 41,r'o_s 141u -s> cA 94o�a s(vw 027, a2oo 4 /{OA) 0kA6Lfi Conn ITF66 1'1E1146<5 i ow n) o Go s 911-Tos 111/-1-5 " R i-rl V R6- fA Y)y THAI -4R� Pk�Pos�D �o� �a�vAc, �Ro•v ��a �Asre� PA T k w A y ©LAN ' Fu4Tke lyt)"i CorIN!l l & To A, .a lac une �al�? a�w, KaC e P7 .lz tr oCo i 6 kk,m�� �IsKVRF �AIVM,vv 9.25 3s, -lle4