The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.1ITEM 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 1, 2013 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN PATHWAYS ELEMENT MASTER PATH MAP AMENDMENT; FILE #175 -13 -IS -ND. FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner" APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director V RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Review, make comments, and forward a recommendation that, based on the Initial Study_ in Attachment #1, the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration in Attachment #2;` and 2-- . Forward - a recommendation- that --the City --Council---approve the requested --General -Plan- -Pathways Plan -Pathways Element, Master Path Map amendment, based on the Initial -Study and -Negative Declaration: DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The following discretionary actions, by the. City Council ar'e required for approval of the project: L. Adoption of the .Negative Declaration; and - 2. Approval of the General P1anPathways Element Master Path Map amendment. The Planning Commission's' actions are recommendations to the City Council. BACKGROUND On March 8, 2005, the City Council approved amendments to the 1981 off-road Master Path Map, which identifies existing and future off-road paths within the Towri: Because there was'a lack; of easements of some of the properties and the pathway was redundant to an adjacent fiiture path; the 2005 amended map shows the removal of a future path along the west side, of -Interstate 280 that connects Eastbrook Drive to El Monte' Road (Attachment 3). On :April. 22. 2013 the Pathways -Committee voted to,reinstate the off-road path connection (Attachment 5) for this area because previously missing segments of pathways easements have been dedicated and a Type IIB path has been built over parcel 336=42-026 with -the Nicholson Subdivision (File # 96-04=T1V1-IS- ND-GD, approved by the City Council on September 16, 2010). The location of the future off- road -paths -are along the northeast boundary of three properties (APNS: 339-25-045, 336-25-047, and 336-42-026). Staff Report to the Planning Commission General Plan Pathways Element Master Path Map Amendment July 1, 2013 Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS To date, staff has not received any comments from the public. CEQA STATUS In conformance with CEQA requirements, staff has prepared an Initial Study and Negative Declaration. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was published in the Town Crier on June 5, 2013. The notice was also submitted to the Santa Clara County Clerks Office for a 20 day public review period which began on June 14, 2013 and ends on July 5, 2013. ATTACHMENTS 1. Initial Study 2. Negative Declaration 3. 2005 Master Path Map -4.- -Proposed-Master Path -Plan Amendment 5. Minutes of the Pathways Committee Meeting dated April 22, 2013 INITIAL STUDY t Initial Study ,Checklist & References s... Ge neral.:Plan/Patfiways Element _... Master_ Path Map Project #175 -13 -IS -ND Town of Los Altos Hills -Planning Department 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element.2013 June 5, 2013 Page 2 of 25 In accordance with the policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, this document, combined with the attached supporting data, constitutes the initial study on the subject project. This initial study provides the basis for the determination of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If it is determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report .will be prepared which focuses on the area of concern identified by this initial study. If it is determined that.the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, it is eligible for a Negative Declaration. If it is determined that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, however, the significant effects of the project have been reduced to a less -than -significant level because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to be the project applicant, then the project would be eligible for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Environmental -Checklist --Form - - - - 1. Project Title: General Plan Pathways Element Master Path Map Amendment. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director (650)941-7222. 4. Initial Study prepared by: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner (650)941-7222 5. Project Location: The Town of Los Altos Hills is located in southwestern Santa Clara County. The location of the proposed future off-road pathway is between Eastbrook Drive and E1 Monte. Road along the west side of Interstate 280. Over three properties (APN's 336-25-045, 336-25-047, and 336-42-026) 6. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 7. General Plan Designation: R -Residential 8. Zoning: R -A (Residential -Agricultural) 10. Description of Project: The proposed project includes updating the 2005 Master Path Map to include the pathway easements dedicated with the Nicholson Subdivision (file #96 -04 -TM -IS -ND -GD) and reinstate the off road connection between Eastbrook Drive and El Monte Road along the west side of Interstate 280. CEQA Review: Negative Declaration Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 3 of 25 11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is located between Eastbrook Drive and El Monte Road along the west side of interstate 280. Surrounding land uses include one and two story single-family residences with minimum lot size of 1 acre. 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 4 of 25 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The following section includes the Environmental Evaluation checklist from the CEQA guidelines. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. It should be noted that an amendment to an existing General Plan relies on all of the General Plan policies already in place for its mitigation and the ordinances, laws, or adopted policies that would be implemented at the time of future development. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Noise ❑ ❑ Recreation ❑ ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic This Initial study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Information and conclusions in the Initial Study are based upon staff research and the Town's General Plan and Municipal Code. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find. that -the -proposed -project MAY have asignificant effect(s) on -the environment, but at ❑ least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there ❑ WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature: I Date: �Ic713 Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 5 of 25 �.i ,�y+ �5� ;t f' +��.au #r � � ,..L � 5 �nz3 vr�9 5� � .a.JN f r r�S S��s�t 3✓ ^ t'�a i + 'Yr$ " ��+'��. �, `� zf`S t4'�' .'�,ag`%�� ,'.,3°; �� ,�. ,.A -% �, x PotentlaIIyw Less Than ;y L 3 b y 3 E y '�iJ Y .h: YiYti 3i j �43�E' s ... i�6 ♦�Y,rf: Lti _ �IgnlllCant- R.F AL �' k - * r 4 4 �,S A. LL> 1• ti .. z.Y.1.L. }5'9+' AF fi4 t .: JE ✓ V i r ''£'; �i'✓" "pi.t '"` ''{r. Slgnlficant- S l h ��a'l y,''" Itlgal,♦ L„ Slgnlficant No Im �act Al a.^s ids f: s ,f'., d 2 a ?�l l : S �i GL" yt t 1,1 � (o. y 41, , +,*s.;n.v .. .. -,.. .>.. 4... 'i Via.?. ,...a, W"ti I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ Q outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ Q ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light ❑ 0 ❑ Q or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? DISCUSSION: The existing visual and aestheticcharacter of the Town of Los Altos Hills is of a rural low-density residential area. Much of the Town is dominated by hillsides, heavy native vegetation and canyons. The meandering streets are lined with native vegetation and there are no paved urban sidewalks in order to retain the rural atmosphere of.the Town. The proposed changes to the General Plan/Pathway Element and Master Pathway Plan would allow for a future off-road pathway. No construction or easement dedication would occur at this time. 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 3 Policy 3.8 states that Off-road paths shall be located along or as close to __ . .. property_ lines. as -possible..., • Pathway Element Goal 4 Policy 4.9 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 residences 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. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,5,6 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 6 of 25 "'y 'S"�y✓�ir K'^a� '�jk. :. J .0 i,R'�r..'�Skt9tik' Y+S}i;;-i'` 'i' S� j�. '.✓, 't'3 yf "Y T: 'Yy ^` sJ kl J^.q`•-`. vt {.tS.h° ih0' $ f Ar✓i.:E:.''vPa +`'?i3S- ` ��?� Y �,% Z �,, 5fgmficaptwith �� .�� .-�;�, �� x � � Stgn►ficant � '�'� fi �.� �� ,� S�gmGcant� � rto`impact �;h,q , � .�> �� `��'��`�> w�� } tr ;1. � j< ;✓ �, P { 5�nco�Qorat►o°ts>, �+ t 3 _ r -.`�r'aL, V ti'`PN" J fy 5, x L �o'. ¢, ^�`S�f 3yti '�` �� S f' r' V n✓:✓Awn ^� ! X d i ,s'',� i� .. K�:. 4'':z { yy.�yJ 't� Eid !6i nS J W t',i`i �q ' Y,L {i{!�¢.�q,,l `{ y+�, �, iV _YZJ i Y%��'•}.K*nln.'i<ai,R>-0 "t x. r['lr2 ''��}�E' 3 N q��`5 H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of . Statewide Importance (Farmland), . as shown on the ❑ maps prepared pursuant . to the Farmland _Mapping- and- Monitoring Program- of .the _ _... California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? DISCUSSION: . The proposed project will have no foreseeable impact on Agricultural Resources. The site is not used as. agricultural land. MITIGATION: None Source: Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 7 of 25 �j Y�Y ,. laxty"y yJ'"^,/.:� ✓yi4 k:^q� ,� a''�P�'tl t^< i j SCK u'�yk •�'al"'....AZm -�./>s7 ,L Xt vh.>A�l) ,_ \ 3 l - Yt>�4 {-: 3 '4,. .Y a3^i� ,fi )1 �5J',yv �jC v' �': •� .. 's '1' N J^>� a. L iy ~$ 3�✓,,Q^ p. t'i, ,. F#'h+h_ b 4S rl4,A Y{r Rhe 4 3 ., f"'?t._�a ,�,ZSet�''Wy... Kil*�"''y ',gE'w`4P. 4Me.5.SLan h� L ✓1 •�' ;�d._5 i �''.'a 1 •,. >�rLf�.Y!..g h t.:,+l ^*i {�3 { 'a'r'•a�ih 4.Y,3i3, #.fi Jf9t.F_1 .n. ✓� �' �T�`,L, jLIL +LQ$$ � fat y +.5 �k j>.4{'n.% -. .i ,w�,�3$-Y? xt`Y.Fv �'' � . k`" h�3 ;}a,.��" 4 l ;. �y (�«Eh>"�3�+Y�.«p4tp?y l7� �i�11WQ4a"' :UI�Q��`1L1CaQt :.>i''^"✓"*r�'�Jxl1'�{'1''°;', "3� kY-. ,>� � t" +iii tJ: ti rJ ^,,$$'' ✓<a�.,z.i3� f'✓{�vx r,,Ta'---;8 d'v Y>. t.}' 4?' { ✓ �a �. Y Y1 fF'>y S:"� iw.;k.`jQ' t kJa,.T.ii-✓`3f��(-�Y�Q `¢# aC W+, 's.'+'',i."'`'�*d a�` ..:P�'k ,�`.�,; x'''k �'y,�`.5' ,ryi4 -£ 9 �S' g+,jxYSf �'�'� �s d -L' 4 2v yi3� k� °' S � 2a +'�c,'S.✓5i3 iEKc0 ��y�'Y£ l�h # {- F'a > i S.' f" a� ✓/"rYt �i �,i $`> Qra.L1�Q'r. r a+.+ psi ?> ✓ - ' K S i l t� d Fwd �' N �. a� i• li' { aA' � t-9. .y .t, F ij ,yY'd F. �;. 3 �a � 33 "3'Si-6k��"{{��:r' h � SC9 Y.� S (n� F' >i 'SJ^ ''i' ✓ ;•� 'S Y J'" k` �';#;, aU .inn tom' �$ �.G�� -G project region is non -attainment under an III. AIR QUALITY — Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q the, applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ 0 ❑ Q standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ O ❑ Q substantial number of people? DISCUSSION: Santa Clara County is currently a non -attainment basin for ozone thresholds but achieves an attainment level for carbon monoxide emissions. The proposed project will not increase any emissions or contribute to substantial pollutant concentrations. MITIGATION: - . .. ..None Source:, 9 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 8 of 25 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, - gNge s regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by f x - or -U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?--- ervice?- _b) b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any �x r £ r y 3 ' x Totenhally v E+ ' Significant LessThanc , i c , y. �< { n� California Department of Fish and Game or tvih si igni S�cant ' ` NoI'mpact w 3 z yi u Y x o Impact c Mahgation Impact3 s T iJ'Y ; f , lt�„y / 1Y �' r Y ! Incorporation; pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, h ! 1 Syy f means? �� _ wildlife species or with established native --� �• .0 .. r ..iM 4 � .e. i. .._ �k �..D uxfi�',� ,..��;s-?,� ,iiv 'v'.y5i $aY, ��: ��, `-. ��. _ „Xk.',� E 1, .. ,vmi�a� IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 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?--- ervice?- _b) b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ❑ (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of 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 any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, ❑ such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ❑ Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 9 of 25 DISCUSSION: The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in the addition of one future off-road pathway to the Master Path Map. The off-road path would provide a connection .between the Eastbrook Drive and El Monte Road neighborhoods. A site-specific biological assessment would be required prior to .future construction of any off-road pathway. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,5,6,10,17 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 10 of 25 - Px?r i'Y* `%n4 -%i a j. \i d h % nr5'�•r�5'* 5 y�{ Lt z`' _ Y�. 5 cY ✓+ -. �� h t' af' �'%�n�,5 �� o`�' r ,yP ✓ ✓ �L r ��pb e�'+S f� �* �'�i�� E9� %'X0 .� May, %' Il.:} Y> 1 v 5�, k'� r. N.f '^e�'S'f ta+ k:. .' ,�'� iut r :i`YT. - J �a'rb{,� Ste'• { r N tZess ��. S►gmficant}w►Ii khan ky �t�;.�r��4 �'.'¢ s�l � � x _,.z � : tt ��r: � "S►gn►ficant � �,C ,l�To mpact �. �,s✓�a''��3��'7 s ,; :F i z� ": v a5�;.`'d�71��3 }t'+ron ✓Y ��,6�� tf��,� r,.a �.,r"ro'r ,'.$y� �%��, ��a}��+j c�" at►on�' gt,; ,r. ��z °+t��°�z �ncorporat►.on 3�, 7} Dk�;;Hf _,. �� ` =� �"�'��x{}-. s ��£ � �, .�;: �.{ ,, : � ��-�.r �3�,��+�.We ¢� �; �,�,�� } i$(y,��'S` d �d� � .s'�i� A J"J'�b' �+ 5 ,a5,•. .l f, � r� S i� Y {S4r � '7'a'[l �Yij.:'- fit;' l 1. Z �., Y �i+ � ps �,.��.�s �.CR{ � � v%..% �'�3' }� `V' d' i �ia:� ">! t K ;; y k' %: i.+' �}S} { { � R� "�� r'� ,y�� JIl �. .l±e 1"Y':'Y� �� ,.� >3%t�j F�' Si �5 i' K� � ✓ 1.'S'�{ 'Y yr. Y �ij� 3t'" i" W t"�3�� % (� �'�_%. rt rib .:G�✓ �& yy;; ., r,3 .;i},<1,4 �,r �; �,. ,.�..v �� .r� .�, �. -. Yv3: 1{si S?.�..,...'t�N�rv� � lr' }{} ... � T� ��'ti�fs,n 1 ....-'�,vi"$�.d... > j f +��+a��xNv' M,{ti �,i�iA.2'.+-�.. A.M�sA �`Lc�z.'o''. ✓{.?�£ Sr k> ',�'.[� �� .�.. ."� %Uy�-'�,"' s� �=_�L. �`.,�, .,��"+'..+ ,✓c !s, �'i,'s�'['� V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: . a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defmcd ❑ in'15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance -of-, an-- -archaeological -resource---- _._... __❑ pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ Q paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Q geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ ❑ Q those interred outside of formal cemeteries? DISCUSSION: The proposed future pathway alignment would not conflict with any cultural resources identified in the General Plan, and would not impact any resources above ground. The addition of the future off-road pathway would not have any impacts to cultural resources. MITIGATION: None Sources: 3,5,16 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 11 of 25 .... h � L 'Y � LF d �' fk3 �"� �, '_ .�' ,* �y hi{ a. 'moi y / 4� d 7i"ti�} : L ., i1' 4:.0 5 45 % :'F 1 ✓✓T. { {> Y,yx rr s _3� £v t€v`'.. g�'a vy' aY �, s ..x.,... C 1�7 i d'ti "w3 4L.4 J. �+/ �F�,'iv.,kj i.A. d Jr kfJN�,�,.'i'� x j,+7 i"M' i kt 5 �r %y} U�1`✓�� Er, 1F 4Nh� +K f s� '' :rt/ Y V% 1'{'{�'. f ^.{+�3Ti: 'itvi,,`yy � y �. ,+S Y d � # J'_ � I tk.1F j z; g {PoteQhaII �,'' # Ya ficantw,►thr aLess Than > f a �Yj M F YSi n�ficant �"Signuic nt Ncr7m act s r Mltgat�on z ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Tmpact rfiIncorporahou`k%'$' r act y Pr ❑ Yom. liquefaction? R • ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss .�}� ,?o,. i;.�'' ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects, including the risk ❑ Q of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo _ _. Earthquake Fault. Zoning Mat) issued_by__the_. State Geologist for 'the area or based on other ❑ ❑ substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 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 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ❑ ❑ property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal. systems ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? DISCUSSION: The addition of an off-road pathway to the Master Path Map would not have a geologic impact MITIGATION: None Sources: 12,17 ❑ Q Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ Q Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 12 of 25 '�^'j` v c � �' s3 r� � "i;: U.,;. � } t �t ; � �� i t t S ( F � � F ' �. � � y �� ' � � t�� 'z Y �` ✓�'�Y�4 £ t � ��. v✓ ?� tv �. -. " 7 } � F K `r��' t` r't t s �,;��' w"v i+ -:. t f�F � � �;� l r� d 3 t' t r y'�7[ ,�t � ��r� � �v'5�.� .+r b) Create a significant hazard to the public or a °>; t F x ' s IglilflC3IIt with c �F�� Slgnlficant ,, € X Slgmficant '� i �NoImQact i � ✓°' ' 5 y:_ s i�v? a s , { `� t r� ; ��,ItIgAt10II � �. r � < �� -�'� � t �: into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably _foreseeable upset_ and _accident conditions_ 0 _ _._ _0 _ _0_ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑ Q hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑ Q plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent ❑ ❑ ❑ Q to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 13 of 25 DISCUSSION: The proposed General Plan Amendment project does not produce a hazard or hazardous waste and will have no foreseeable impact related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The site is not located in an identified location according to CA Government Code 65962.5. MITIGATION: None Sources: 13 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 14 of 25 VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ .g j4 �X�/1 a 4i?. { Less Than f ht� } {77ww,4 $ t Potenttally .,415 Bess Than i1e�2 e�n� r" Y� , Sign�fcant S�gnificantwxth No Impact fi f ys P{ a iM�hgattoaIm S�gmficant ., ac'tt'; f S Impact r f P k _ Q _ -- existing nearby wells would drop to a level Incorporation' a }tt rh s i '�'"�ia fa which would not support existing land uses or �' `'?-�!5'�. f�� .e .a.��o� ,ebe v. ..Nt_ ✓.. ;,, h.. l2 Viz„ am :aa r.,r .'i �.. ...+,: ,} �i kF.'� ,..5e .. �,. VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ Q discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 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-. _ _ _ _ .❑ .- _--- .-- _ _ ❑ . - _ _ _ - _. --_❑ - _ Q _ -- 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 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation ori- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 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 exceed the capacity - of existing or planned ❑ ❑ ❑ Q stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ Q flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 15 of 25 DISCUSSION: Prior to any construction, the Town may require a Grading and Drainage Plan that would address any potential Hydrology and Water Quality impacts. MITIGATION: None Sources: 11,.14,17 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 16 of 25 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with . jurisdiction over the project (including, but - not limited- to -the-general-plan,- specific-plan,-- local pecific-plan,- local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q DISCUSSION: The project complies with the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan and all applicable Town Ordinances. Pursuant to the General Plan Pathways Element Goal 3, the Town shall "Develop and maintain a system of off-road paths that provide connections between neighborhoods and direct routes to schools and open space preserves." • Pathways Element Goal 3 Policy 3.1 states that "Off-road paths shall be located on private property on easements that have been dedicated to the Town, or over public lands. They shall provide connections between neighborhoods and provide direct routes to schools and open space. Cul-de-sacs should have off- road paths that connect the end of the street to adjoining neighborhoods whenever possible." MITIGATION: None Sources: 4,5,6 FC> Jd Ste+ T37�+� 1 3 4eSO Y� y� 3_ � f \ i }'F��"lv"� ✓ ,A"�'Ft i aK� W,3 f� yC i`t NY> 5`IJ J J};Z -.`4K b h5i i`� < l'•✓�; a Rvs✓r r."' K {� :42 J ^S 13 .SLiI z ° Ll��llCant wll:ilc `'J,Sigmticant } No Imlract I'm pac1,� g A y x IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with . jurisdiction over the project (including, but - not limited- to -the-general-plan,- specific-plan,-- local pecific-plan,- local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q DISCUSSION: The project complies with the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan and all applicable Town Ordinances. Pursuant to the General Plan Pathways Element Goal 3, the Town shall "Develop and maintain a system of off-road paths that provide connections between neighborhoods and direct routes to schools and open space preserves." • Pathways Element Goal 3 Policy 3.1 states that "Off-road paths shall be located on private property on easements that have been dedicated to the Town, or over public lands. They shall provide connections between neighborhoods and provide direct routes to schools and open space. Cul-de-sacs should have off- road paths that connect the end of the street to adjoining neighborhoods whenever possible." MITIGATION: None Sources: 4,5,6 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 17 of 25 ��`v' ir'�'sekY'+'�l,{i✓ Y,d� 4 Mfvd�,s�`{,M'k'��"`+. W Y,: GDaI�'4s ,mss >' '{; 3 2r'r +V•a'vyd�+^i :. 5 3t`rviFi ';..w i "". .5,�.�: wi �� K4� 5i y/5��.1>�,t�r iL ,i�1,iT M'-2 +ix..i,. �" '��^d' ,,g� �4,+'�y T4 *Ed. ,,.. �r.'�'-�-`,+� , sA' #-0Yr...]rEPfd d, y✓/ t ,l u' '4r r1ii$'.:y,`. 4, .yY+ j r' •#jj££ta,h 3 ��* t''_5 a �A� _,�;$4d :.r` 'x•"r '.•F3g . Vis. V-. �� L"3 �i� i'�dJ 2 _.rte '+��5 a' v� } 1�' F r'•i ,+ _ L -;z 3t' N,� $Ku�� .+5��i, ^�' ,'rs'`F I�y� �✓� W_�,�r'd�i es$`I'han��y,+v� l�^ 1 ti»s'xA� �M'.�, � �'' Y ii `� L^i i �Z�Y''�•' r * y tofenttalty For . ....,Rbig° r ..:� :4 r . yk• dicant w 7 ess'> haun t �'� ` N'dlm�aCF �i3%. �� `t'`��r# n••M K$ a ..��sv "'L'a ��': sz'.�"s '�' � r+` . a�' yL v ,� � �• � �' � �'� � � ri r' � .�>� � ,tr *� M x� ��, a Ts ,+ r ,*'�r�;k� � �,� ,� r a •,3 Impact,.: �..�•� t 'qx� €'}mss � � � aft a r�ri Siglll�lCant � � •� x ' � r r � x, 7, .�� `�� »,�� <.� #��,��•.+,��`� �'� . �� t� 3�� Y�SKi'�a W?-��d.iag'F'iY a7'd^iCS,, t•^ "i". xA �..� �5:. '�? # d*[7j dC,., r { �;y�� 3� �r;� - J a {.x 2 �4orparaf�ou �y�� } a ✓l 3a G K .'✓ wImgact� �; ..` �{ S � J v�3i.. F wad. P` �i a� �.'�.. ��"�i `9' $13. ,h'4k.5�.x.✓" #�. W�� rv'+t�9Gd �y�.: ��'� �: �'a�;....��" ��... tvr��:wx' ��&{�3'i�''Z'yfi�^t �dfihf br 3��z "S'fi �,"Z� �.P `�ti�?a;t`'�.,�v'. §�KX y� s'��fr.:. �,. _�S;;.ti{2�,a�`.a�,�.i ._ ., "IZ � 3.a•.c,-..�✓...:ct. �`°.,t��a.�i,3°: ,..�.:.u,.� �.:.. � se � �. s.,.�:i'�;�'',`k,�C��'.'.��`•�X•"��. ,�+.s.3r�h ,r,�'F,'�3.'3�._ .rrti X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ Q . site delineated on . -a local,general plan,_specific.___- plan or other land use plan? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources. The project is not located in an area known for valued minerals. MITIGATION: None Sources: 5,6,17 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 18 of 25 v ; r �; 1 � � � Ei � � � w.,,,F�2 ✓ '` -: r a � {•,.,fix z �5 �l 5� j; t h _, 1 t % va _ iw. n�� Y -. r 9 K ' 'is It J+ ' .. .ter 5 .r �>i'�' ✓ ,� � k .� � x {i _: f � �✓'� A � f a _ _ ❑ Than` t O' s sy x , > Potentially fess x > r Less Than Y r S�gmficant nth ❑ S < ; r fS�gnlfiCant z t3 'y Slgmficant vy allo Impact E sx t xI�t►gation. a {Incorporaiaon >T IMPAC 5t people residing or working in the project area � fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ residing or working in the project area to b. t.Y�S J, .,»_. ,.. zr... ., t ... ..r •.Y . , 4..;� .. ii .. .i�55� 4, �.i. ., e .n..�, ...n:. �.Sd.�e � ?..� r.. . ,., Y`t .u. ,., 1., �. .. SP v i�, . h. �. .J.i».�Y Y. h s r� XI. NOISE --Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ noise levels in excess of standards established ❑ in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ❑ b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ _. .. - .- excessive _ _ groundborne .. -_vibration _or _ _ ❑ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic 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 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? fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will have no long term noise generating activities. MITIGATION: None Sources: 5,6 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 19 of 25 x' t r r x ::� �' i• - .� i�T "i.'.{ .�R _ Y a v €# +_'• � 3 a s �a cl ,� �{� �, ✓'t�tG r i . �,/ atry ,�R 4 ro y �d ;2•+•'-1 t ,"' 3.�''N''q i+5. .it ,3 r K� �U�t h.i g5. ..Ni ,['£' an ThZqg n r 1 r Potentlall ° .ess { Less Than M Mlttga#ion �s � �t �, ,wi � d$yt !�u x �Y � ��y � � k .t� �s'S{� •^�e+y ��Z3'G �L Y ! �qiE +$�'�''.� 1'ir�fdy,�� j A,}5f'. t) �corp��+0��ratjQn y++�' {;.. { i :§ �v `y 'Y�l 1 hSNk'S.J 't; F„ it..:! XM'x W ,j 3'" ) 4i �Y'� k+i{ R"' u?.,vj 2ir .. SAy`a s+>f b X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ ❑ Q indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)- Dislace substantial-numbers--of-existing- housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ Q housing elsewhere? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will.not have a significant impact on population or housing. MITIGATION: None Sources: 3,5 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 20 of 25 5✓ .g � � #," %, } t P D - { arf d +. ,{F.FS r k d*� t 4, J n � "�'�� { # -:.� dvy i � `5-; { '�' ✓! i J ,✓ 7 J - ��- - t �x} �'i 7 U 1"� 1'w� .s� ✓ 3� l - 't Y'`,� 3t f t n3',r 3 ;� J -. ¢ b3 J �y f ,'+ S .1 Less Than 7 �z d '�;f5yy r:'� ✓if �3�� y# tief 2K J' wy y r 3 � ;� � f � .� sr � �� a✓ `'J Pgtenttall n J � Sigmfcant ❑ { # �, � , { � S� uifica t � ?�s tv�th'�� n �, 7 � t ��h �� 3�✓✓ ) M�hgatton 7` s �Y"ki iib Nt;�^yJJ'� %9F� sr �" ��t.NP ,L F i�+'L�"r�.r5�''X fy.�" a I' i '(�. {� _ h � llliC y J } 7. �,'�� #4 t „r `$' S . ? S � r F'J °� � b r{' ✓ ,� � w- � to "a"; �� y� `� �°�'y roi''#i;��Z'`3 RXtY '"ter$ F J J 5 ✓' J l�'4-ewy��M 1'�' j�q.� v�X� p! X 9 � n.. J, f;,+. ,. . ,.?rwn,..... ;li � �F��.fiksr .,,..� ,., \xa� - �� "ta., . � XM. PUBLIC SERVICES-- Would the project: a) Would the project 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Li ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have a foreseeable impact on any public service or facility. MITIGATION: None Sources: 3 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 21 of 25 y'' r. .sv y... SL' �. i k, { s % rxgw-�- q+',�� ✓},s�'.i �6',.. %,k' Y'�'4 ffk+e"" SY'rY.. r t; '��, a•r .�s t P 4j�3 IM "h i�fx, ": 3t_, .: % 5�,.�'' yh «+�' ,+ s('ys i`'�✓as,3F- ,j 4 &f"�+.i.lr' fi '4 ,r r z i% s .- -:.< k �"zxi (+^:'c£ P �.. µ'S •: - ial+�',•n. +''�:yi x/ x, : ate.k i3 ?3a ,✓�� 4.�-xi. II�°fi;*car �'..,vr 9✓,� ,,¢ 7 *,�`r,�'�4. ay �'Ni ,• d'r SES"9'fr.f {.�y :Sii. -Less Iliad ." .53.3` Yy ,oteutiaIIVY4 4i aw r. `<. W' k� u►f ,.. L/J Si' cant',S,ign►fieant�szthS� � � Impact nifieanit! 5; , o Im acts `'is" �',+ ♦�� i._: Y'rt i gYJy'!.� `TM'S �'3a,s�';1's� ''.� C�S3 „n^ta''`! i � `�Lw�L H �;�," 5 ��, !' .EN"''3h P i J.� ��9�.n^� sy ��,� � ':� �„a � .0 ,. ✓'.i i •. x ,�, ��y'�Y^` f. �','U q�Y.' '� "y� n �.��±'.y. ! (;' 3� '✓ Y f �Y „'a'�b 1 � ,s��*�{.�ai '��++`, 5`��'� �,,�{�. 3,$,��"�, {� +� i�� { ,” F y �,3 ;. : ., ✓a,.. y,3rE?.��..39 �3.."5' XIV. RECREATION -- Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ Q DISCUSSION: The proposed project will help provide a connection between the Eastbrook Drive and El Monte Raod neighborhoods. The proposal complies with the General Plan Pathways Element because it will "provide access to nearby destinations, provide a place to exercise, walk dogs, or ride horses." MITIGATION: Now Sources: 5,6 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 22 of 25 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic ❑ load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 3 �, ,✓.a �t e �.. {, r ^;: '� a itil�'` za y,.�sa" l u 2 it <s r y' '-X i Q ,'V .v' essThans� " < � 1 Si mficant with r 'No r �" � ' � ° � , � j � �- � � Sign►ficant � j�>zg � SigmficanE { Impact ❑ Impact , y, safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a , r, r ; te Xncorporahon s { r5 xx� e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ .. ...sXY �..F z�. .Y �n 2.._ .. xY ; ., .. .>:;, �{ .. �?*... .,. �, i_ �, xatt�� X 'Y:.A.,i 'F.n � F rn- ;' i ?.. '..� .ur3., ``# ..f... .l v. •+ XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ substantial in relation to the existing traffic ❑ load and capacity of the street system (i.e., Q result in a substantial increase in either the ❑ number of vehicle trips, the volume to ❑ capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at Q --intersections)?-- intersections)?- b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, b) a 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, 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 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? DISCUSSION: The project has no traffic impacts. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,3,5 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ Q Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 23 of 25 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 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? ❑ Q c) Require or result in the construction of new '.nY`. 3 Y ✓ -. j .. .! k n Gt},r>{J k JJ ` , ,�'N��Y $i ' t 'i JY x� x a G�esSThan Y r r 'Yptenhally { J .:tuKgg54Sigpificant ess TIaP �I L. "F` 4 , j Sl nllieant. �} ri✓J g s`a` • ..[.�i''.:H Ff ,�, Rei, .K�rtb a a S�gn�Ccant y5 n' No Impact Y h r ❑ Mit, anon �� , �ti� ,r } P x X " corporahbn p entitlements needed? ,' s { S e) Result in a determination by the wastewater •.s . ,,,+ � ...: ..... ,..... _.. ., .,, 3;..,. r,,, ....,3, .- . ,,. A ,, r..h_ ,i.�,d.td.,; .e ..�.. , ..... -.......\.., v...,A _> �. ...4..a�., XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 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? ❑ Q c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ Q existing facilities, the construction of which .could cause significant environmental effects? .d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements ❑ ❑ ❑ Q and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ Q serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ Q statutes and regulations related to solid waste? DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not have an impact on utility and service systems. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,3,15 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 24 of 25 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not result in a negative impact to the environment, wildlife, plant or historical resource. The project does not have any foreseeable cumulative or unmitigated impacts as defined in this Initial Study. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1-18 Y J5 E µ�J i _�' Vt..+� tl�! •�� i� Y - j H k ti'>{ !'y�' � � ✓ - A 4', .t YF "� .Jt. i'h Vs h y e! h 1 .}� �l. � � � ✓� �'ti. � � ' F w 3 h' rJE? t, ti.1 ✓r �' '"�'' # t'� JrLCSS Than+ M. ��,, z§` ' �� ;� ,� x r +' � �' � x � ��, �' �� ,impact 3� M�hgat►on ; � �� ✓ � I"nipacst''�,�� 4 � � � �' � {��t '; ` �. , 3_. �'� � ( h 1 ids %t EM S 'ki � A Y i � ? 'mak d Fb fr �j ti'.,. e3 � .. k�.:�.�?S. h�s'+, x',�`��Y'f t✓� ..,5'� 3 �v. �. �.�� k�� tid XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife 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? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q DISCUSSION: The proposed project will not result in a negative impact to the environment, wildlife, plant or historical resource. The project does not have any foreseeable cumulative or unmitigated impacts as defined in this Initial Study. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1-18 Town of Los Altos Hills Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2013 June 5, 2013 Page 25 of 25 Source List: 1. Field Inspection 2. Project Plans 3. Planner's Knowledge of the Area 4. Los Altos Hills Land Use and Zoning Map 5. Los Altos Hills General Plan 6. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 7. Assessor's Maps, Office of County Assessor, Santa Clara County, 2009-2010 8. State Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 9. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999 10. State Department Fish and Game CNDDB Map 11. Santa Clara Valley Water District Map 12. Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones Map of Los Altos Hills, Cotton Shires and Associates, December 2005 13. DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List, California Environmental Protection Agency - 14. Federal-Emer enc Management Agency,. -Flood. Insurance Rate Map; Los -Altos Hills -May-1 8 - - 2009 15. Sanitary Sewer Map, Town of Los Altos Hills Engineering Department 16. Santa Clara County Municipal Code Chapter H Indian Burial Grounds (Title B Division B-6) 17. CEQA Guidelines, 2010 18. Google Earth Exhibit List: 1. Master Path Plan ATTACHMENT 2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: General Plan/Pathways Element Master Path Map Amendment PREPARED BY: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR: Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 LOCATION OF PROJECT: The Town of Los Altos Hills is located in southwestern Santa Clara County. The location of the proposed future off-road pathway is between Eastbrook Drive and El Monte Road, d-, * along the west side of InterstdW -280. PROJEC 80. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project inup44ting'thq 2005 Master Path Mdp'td fficlude*the' pathway easements dedicated with 'the Nicholson Subdivisio'n'(Aie!496-04- TM-ISND7GD) and reinstate the off road connection between Eastbrook Drive and El Monte Road -along- the west side of Interstate 280. CEQA Review: Negative Declaration FINDING: The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of the i proposed project, and on the basis of the attached Initial, Study, has Aetermined that the project, project will not have a significant effect upon the environrient MITIGATION MEASURES, IF ANY, -INCLUDED -IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: & 2 b ec tanticipated - the 'e"ny"ironment d er fore,no uia on os Hills `has` completed a re omple ed_re le .0f thepr Initial Study, has determined.. that ,the_prpj�ectwill not have a,simii,fic,arit. effect upon -the environment for the. following sspecified'* the attached Initial Study (Exhibit"A'.) �-thf does a. For the reason in r not h, . .....I. .... , (Exhibit _ 2. project -to degrade the quality of the environment substantially*' no . Ave th& potential stahtially reduce the -habitat of a fish or Wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop b-.e-Iow�),'.,s'blf s,u,stainifig t e.aten to eliminate avlint or animal co;n17ift7fty' 7 reduce the number' "or restrict. the -range "of 'a' rare or ehdafik6rdd'plant '6r aniffidt species-, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or .—Pre7his Pr -i -77I" -'T- b. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. c. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. d. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Date Circulated on: June 5, 2013. Adopted on: now aaM t/w u.w It1II M1q rip aM1 Is 1n110 o1M nIw 'will sow will am sm am 1111101 gw Wow am111010 aMI SOW MMI will Ilia, w» Iwl aIn law IMM mm aM/ aMI twt aw aI101 wM , ww ♦ ♦ ♦ nn1 III1r Mw t/w tM11 I Ma am : ♦ �. IMM liMII Iw1 low law wM1 ►II1F ♦ MIM �r I will ♦ � 11w Iamm a/1 Ia+n ♦ ♦ aw owl 1tM1 411513 low ►wr I>!II t■!I aMI 11M Iml 1110 1t1oM aIM awl ♦♦ sow ♦♦ 111010 - save P saa, awe 106101 flw 10NM 10Mw atlf ♦♦ >tw DOM �n1 M 10.w � ♦ 10Mr 10n10 104M Ilw ♦ ♦ ♦ 10M1010 I>0■ 101Itld 10wI Iwf NIM 101 ♦ ♦ ,11010� f- MINI t— low ■ ■ ,aw 10110110 DIMI 10tH• 110111 l.Iw ,NM I 1— .�.. sMM 010 1 l �Iw kMM 1,10110 /M►I 1101 1M'I owl 1MN 11w /�7,14111 1"m71110 SOW t11M1 1"m'MM 10110110 r.. .. 11111 ,MN 1>!fp IMM low �i ' i sting IIIY IMM ►NY ININIIII l .,... ...� I..w, IMI LEGEND- EYJIF"NO PATH WITH EA9EMENTB FUTURE PATH - RECOMMENDED TO RETAIN (CURRENTLY MOWN ON THE 1061 M"TER PA THWAY PLAN) FUTURE PATH - PROPOSED TO ADD (NOT SHOWN ON THE 1061 MASTER PATHWAY MAN) FUTURE PATH ■ PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE 1981 MASTER PATHWAY PIAN 2005 Master Path Plan LEGEND: E9(1STIN0 PATH V4THI EASEMENTS FUTURE PATH • RECOMMENDED TO RETAIN (CU RRENTLY+ SHOWN ON THE 1061 MASTER PATHWAY PLAN) FUTURE PATH • PROPOSED TO ADD (NOT SHOWN ON THE 1091 MASTE R PA1T11WAY PLM) FUTURE PATH - PROIMSED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE 1401 MASTER PATHWAY PLAN Proposed Master Path Plan Amendment glrt Lim WIN uta qw ,o ISM YiM a11N sarw 1010 Ilr� aua. .11p aew son » am IM ar, p� IM law 23w gtL'I IMM laps wn .flp aw taaM »111 100 Iao .I/M gllt law w w� uw. • • • • • too loan mw IBM 4wtlwl ' 110111 M - law IIIM INI u: ,, wr nip pa■ ♦ • • Ulu ism wl t>'l11 pl/l IMS no Iter i1.1/ glrl 11411 1110, will qIM ♦* 1t,q 1011E irm ,oM 20M /aaM . rOYNF qYN ♦�. 111A �� iMM i�Nl 101.M ♦ NOW 111�T1 �1♦ so0 aaw ala10 al.p _ - ta.p1 fNw � 4wfly 11""s "� alrl >I�IT app .1M J 7111! oNM+ i,SHOWtoot IMM Ism 1 'q� � - . aaM .lw ilk 11� t MM owl tlO ,�Na tilt lowto1M1 alq 11401 awlslowrd 11.1. two • /law / A 1l / Ina oa10, momH top i � �4' - trap 1101 1110 11100 10111 .1010 tool LEGEND: E9(1STIN0 PATH V4THI EASEMENTS FUTURE PATH • RECOMMENDED TO RETAIN (CU RRENTLY+ SHOWN ON THE 1061 MASTER PATHWAY PLAN) FUTURE PATH • PROPOSED TO ADD (NOT SHOWN ON THE 1091 MASTE R PA1T11WAY PLM) FUTURE PATH - PROIMSED FOR REMOVAL FROM THE 1401 MASTER PATHWAY PLAN Proposed Master Path Plan Amendment ATTACHMENT 5 homeowner noted that the south frontage on the "arm" of Esperanza slopes up steeply fr the road and has trees and shrubs that would have to be removed if a path is installed. Weegie Cou n moved that the wn ask the owners of 26304 to construct a IIB pathway in the road right -of --w along Esperanza on west frontage. Sue Welch seconded. The vote was 6 in favor, 3 opposed , ND, BK favored paths both street frontages). D. 26390 An a Drive Lands of Sunshine Hills LLQ. The reason for pathway r .ew is construction of an addition. The veloper (Sonia Chou) was present. The developer requested a ge in the location of the driveway and w old to consult the Planning Department for that issue. The roperiy is located at the intersection of Ana a Drive and Ascencion and has frontage on both stre (both streets are public). The Ascencion frontage wide flat area adjacent to the road that appears t e used for pedestrians and parking along most of its gth. Most of the Anacapa frontage above th veway is also relatively flat and could accommodate a p way. However, the property is vegetate d slopes up steeply from the road at the intersection and constru n of a path off the road surface wou require a retaining wall. The road is quite wide here and could be mar d with a stripe to improve safe or pedestrians. The exact location of the road right of way is not known; garage is within the setba (i.e., it is a legal non -conforming structure). A roadside path exists on adjacent property on capa and on other properties further up that street. Ann Duwe moved that the wn require the de v opers of 26390 Anacapa Drive to E. construct a IIB pathway around all stre rontages the corner where the property slopes up st ly and pavement is very wide, allow the path to run the hillside. Breene Kerr seconded. The vote was fa remodel. The developer was not present. The pro intersection with Fremont Road and has frontage on acapa and Ascencion in the road ROW. At wo d require a retaining wall and where the p ement, if possible, rather than cut into the v r, 2 opposed (JK and WC). e reason for pathway review is an addition and on the east side of Seven Acres Lane at the treets. Seven Acres is a cul-de-sac that serves five homes; no off-road paths exit from it. The p on the emont frontage was recently upgraded as part of the Safe Routes to School project. Breene K r moved th the Town request a pathway in -lieu free from the owners of 14085 Seven Acres Lan Ann Duwe sec ded. The vote was 8 in favor and 1 abstention (ND, because he did not see th site). F. 25765 Bassett Lane (Lands of Nieh). The ason for pathway revie is construction of an addition. The homeowner was not present. The prope is on the west side of Bass Lane, which is a private cul-de-sac off Rhus Ridge Road that serves three omes. Off-road pathways exit Bassett on the east side of 25700 Rhus Ridge Road and the eas ide of 11511 Bassett. The road, al ugh narrow, has reasonable sight distance and little traffic and oadside path is probably not needed. ene Kerr moved that the Town ask for a pedestrian easeil ent to confer public access in the road o assett Lane in front of this property. Ann Duwe seco ed. The vote was unanimously in favor. G. 12401 Hilltop Drive Lands o 2401 Hillto Drive LLQ. The reason for pathwa eview is construction of a new residence. The develo r was not present. The property is a vacant lot on the rth side of Hilltop Drive, which is a heavily eled public road. A pathway exists on the opposite side the road further up Hilltop. Breene Kerr m ed that the Town ask the developer of 12401 Hilltop Driv o construct a IIB path along Hillto rontage in the road right-of-way. Ann Duwe seconded. The v e was unanimously in favo and H. 26478 Ascencion D e s of Munshi . The reason for pathway review is construction o ew residence. The dev oper was not present. The property is a vacant lot on the east side of Ascen ' n, between Anacap d Viscaino, This is a heavily traveled public road. Pathways exist on the adja nt properties on b sides of this lot. An off-road pathway runs along a public utility easement along southeast bor r of the adjacent parcel (26450 Ascencion) and this path may cross the southeast corn of the property der review. Breene Kerr moved that the Town ask the developer s of 26478 Ascend Drive to struct a IIB path along the Ascencion frontage and to give an easement including the public utility easement in the southeast corner of the property so it can continue to be used for the existing off-road pathway. Ann Duwe seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. NFV NEW BUSINESS A. Update Hale Creek Area on General Plan Map. The part of the route adjacent to the freeway was removed from the Master Path Plan map and needs to be put back. The Town holds all the necessary easements. The PWC formally approved this revision and Chair Eileen Gibbons will request that the Planning Commission DraftPWC_Min_13-0418 6/25/13 2 5. C. accept them. Eileen Gibbons moved that the Master Path Plan map be corrected to re-establish the off-road routes along the freeway in and adjacent to the Nicholson subdivision. Nick Dunckel seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. Review of Updated of General Plan Circulation Element. A joint meeting with E onmental Initiatives Co ittee to discuss the proposed text of the Circulation element of the LAE neral Plan was held April 3, 2 The EIC did not have a quorum and the PWC members requested th the issues be formally reviewe the regular PWC meeting tonight. The PWC recommended the lowing changes: Page C-4. y 1.1. Remove "to motor vehicles" and replace with "ve lar through traffic". Page C-7. 117. move last sentence and add "and equestrians" to the enultimate sentence (i.e., " This includes bicyclists, ldren, motorists, pedestrians, users of public the/ seniors, AND EQUESTRIANS. Page C-11. 124. The las o sentences referring to pathway of bikeways should be moved to a different location. Pa eg C-12. JK asked that the d tion Page C-13. Program 6.1 (For co ' ee exactly what is meant. It is not clear as an alternative placing signs at major Page C-13. Program 6.4 (For committee because of the cost; because roads are g because they are not consistentwith the Page_C-15. Policy 8.3 Add text addre as a parking lot for users of open spa of Sharrows be r owed because we don't want them. discussion). P C objects to marking bikeways unless we know t the word' , "clearly signed bike designations" means. Suggest e ances own that say, "Share the Road". di on). PWC unanimously objects to placement of sharrows ene ore narrow than recommended for sharrows (14 f); and c er of Town roads. g proble 'th parking on Town roadways, such as use of Tepa Page C-17. Changes to Bikeways ap (Map C-5) ---Remove multipurpose tonne g routes (off-road path \ss e to Robleda and route up Central/Sherlock to Mood ourt). These routes includen private property and in some cases Town does not even ho a easements to allow public oad paths on private property are primarily for use of al residents and should not be shs. --- Add the bike pa n Foothill College campus ---Remove the " eway" at the north end of Elena. The rft is off-road path and is shown as a "major b' ay". ---Change ignation of Paseo del Roble from "major bikcal bike " ---Show d Page Mill Road Consider Eliminating Roadside Pathways May from General Plan Pathway Element. On MaN, 2013, Chair Eileen Gibbons will ask the Planning Commission to remove from the Pathways Element the requirement for a map of the roadside pathways and instead rely on Policy 2.1 as a guide. The off-road pathway map will be retained. The PWC reviewed Policies 2.1 and 4.1 and discussed the value of such maps (e.g., predictability in planning, guidance for PWC and staff), past problems with updating the maps at reasonable intervals. The general consensus was that routine updates and better support from City Council would help address some of the problems. Policy 2.1. Roadside paths shall be located within or immediately adjacent to the right-of-way of Town streets and on separate pathway easements adjacent to or over private streets. Roadside paths shall be separated from the roadway pavement by landscape buffering and shall meander, where possible. Policy 4.1 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 and type of construction shall be made 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. The book of street maps shall also show the status of roadside paths for cul-de-sacs and private streets, in accordance with Policies 2.4 and 2.5. Report from Tim Warner on ZIP Bikes. Postponed until next meeting. Chair gibbons reported that Tim presented his proposal to the Youth Commission, which was very supportive. Pathway Run. PWC members were encouraged to support this annual event to be held at West Wind Barn on May 11. Several members will help with registration. Paths Needing Repairs. Repairs requested to the Mary Stutz path have been completed. The path up to Central Drive in Byrne Preserve was repaired for the Pathways Run. The bridge near the riding arena that is DraftPWC Min 13-0418 6/25/13 3