HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.3Item 4.3
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 7, 2011
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GENERAL PLAN
PATHWAYS ELEMENT MASTER PATH MAP AMENDMENT (LA LOMA
DRIVE); #84-11-MISC.
FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner
APPROVED BY: 'Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning DiIrector--DP
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
Attachments #2; and
2. Forward a recommendation that the City Council approve the requested General Plan
Pathways Element, Master Path Map amendment, based. on the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration based on Exhibit A.
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The following discretionary actions by the City Council are required for approval of the
proj ect: .
1. Adoption of the Negative Declaration and
2. Approval of the General. Plan Pathways Element Master Path Map amendment.
The Planning Commission's actions are recommendations to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On June 2, 2011 the Planning Commission discussed the proposed project for a future
pathway connecting. La Loma Drive to Rhus Ridge Road. Pathways Committee Chair
Eileen Gibbons stated that the Committee supports the La Loma/Rhus Ridge off-road
path connection and recommends approval of the project. Resident Richard Herzog
(25265 La Loma) spoke against the project stating that an informal pathway currently
runs through the middle of his property and he feels that if the future path is in this
current location it could damage his property values and limit the construction footprint
potential on his property. In addition he feels that the Initial Study did not specifically
address, the issues related to the physical environment. Mr. Herzog submitted an email
with his concerns (Attachment #3).
On June 16, 2011 staff met with Mr. and Mrs. Herzog and Mr. Devich to walk their
adjacent property line. The property line is not marked by any fence although there is a
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
General Plan Pathways Element Master Path Map Amendment
June 2, 2011
Page 2 of 3
wire fence that is located to the south of the actual property line. The property line is
closer to the Redwood trees and the accessory structure located on the Devich property.
On June 30, 2011 staff received an email (Attachment # 4) from Roger and Elizabeth
Spreen stating their willingness to voluntarily donate an easement over their parcel to
facilitate the connection from Rhus Ridge to La Loma Drive.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes amending the General Plan/Pathways Element Master Path
Plan to add a future off-road pathway connecting La Loma Drive to Rhus Ridge Road.
The Town's Pathways System serves three basic and important functions — circulation,
recreation, and preservation of the open character of the Town.
The Town is able to require dedication of pathways at the time of new development
because new development creates an increased demand on the use of pathways within the
Town.
• The General Plan Pathways Element Goal 4 Policy 4.3 states that 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.
When a future project is submitted to the Town any new pathway would be located along
the property line or as close to it as possible. While there are several Redwood, Oak trees
and large shrubs in the general vicinity of the property line, a pathway could be
constructed to meander around the trees. A pathway through the middle of the property
would not be considered. The General Plan gives guidance to the Pathways Committee
as follows:
• The General Plan 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.
• The General Plan 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.
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
General Plan Pathways Element Master Path Map Amendment
June 2, 2011
Page 3 of 3
• The General Plan, Pathways Element, Goal 3 Policy 3.8 states that Off-road paths
shall be located along or as close to property lines as possible.
New pathways dedication and construction may only be triggered by a subdivision,
construction of a new main residence or secondary dwelling, cumulative development of
900 square feet of habitable floor area or a barn greater than 900 square feet (see General
Plan Pathway Element Goal 4.2 and 4.3). When each future project comes before the
Town, the application will be forwarded to the Pathways Committee for determination of
the exact location of the pathway/easement.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
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 General Plan
Pathway Element and the development standards found in Town Site Development
Ordinance. 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.
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 15, 2011. The notice was also submitted to the Santa Clara
County Clerks Office for a 20 day public review period which began on June 16, 2011
and ends on July 7, 2011.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed General Plan Pathways Element Master Path
Map Amendment based on:
1. The project is consistent with the Town's General Plan Pathways Element.
2. The neighborhood has been recently annexed into the Town and easement dedication
or construction is not required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Initial Study
2. Negative Declaration
3. Master Path Plan Amendment Exhibit A
4. Email from Dick and Chris Herzog dated June 16, 2011
5. Email from Roger and Elizabeth Spreen dated June 30, 2011
6. Minutes of the Pathways Committee Meeting, February 28, 2011
7. Staff report without attachments 6-2-11
.I
Attachment 1
INITIAL STUDY
Initial Study Checklist & References
General Plan/Pathways Element
Master Path Map Amendment
Town of Los Altos Hills -Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Project #84-11 Misc
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
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: Cynthia Richardson, Consulting 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 easement is
along a private road right-of-way (APN 336-32-042 Devich, off of La Loma Drive)
accessing four homes and thru the property at (APN 336-32-040, Herzog) 25265 La
Loma Drive and then thru property at (APN 336-31-005&021, Spreen) 11970 Rhus
Ridge connecting to Rhus Ridge Road.
6. The proposed future off-road pathway is located over an existing informal path
along a private right-of-way (off of La Loma Drive) accessing four homes then
continuing along the eastern and northern property, lines of 25265 La Loma Drive
then thru 11970 Rhus Ridge Road. The neighborhood consisting of 13 properties on
12.79 acres of land that was annexed into the Town of Los Altos Hills in October,
2009.
7. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont
Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022
8. General Plan Designation: R -Residential
9. Zoning: R -A (Residential -Agricultural)
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 3 of 25
10. Description of Project: The proposed project includes amending the General
Plan/Pathway Element and Master Path Plan to add a future off-road pathway
connecting La Loma Drive to Rhus Ridge Road. The off-road path currently exists
informally along a private road right-of-way serving four residences and continues
thru the property at 25265 La Loma Drive then thru 11970 Rhus Ridge Road then
connecting to Rhus Ridge Road. The property was recently annexed into the Town
of Los Altos Hills.
11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is located in the south end of
the Town of Los Altos Hills near La Loma Drive in an area that was recently
annexed into the Town. 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 2011
July 7, 2011
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
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
❑
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
❑
Geology /Soils
❑
Hazards & Hazardous
❑
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
Materials
❑
Mineral Resources
❑
Noise
❑
Population / Housing
❑
Public Services
❑
Recreation
❑
Transportation/Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
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 a significant 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:Date:
Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 5 of 25
t;ti�,�tp `�'h'�"�l S 4 ;. 1.*Y fr cs ftJ� 7 7t47 .e a ,1t 7"�y✓ { Y F
��. t 4,. ,iN - i 4,�krf
zt' t.rr' :. =ate '� ��t
yy� rr"aj.).: i
� }�£. „hl ,�:1'r !� ,,fd
`fix
4
tipj::
t 4 94i t i
+5.�+ t'.hrr KYz Wa
t C
T�,�}
15 q`�Y t3P't'
Y
1j p� K is T fA 4S ASGy`3
tart' -i: iU'ssi
t��iY'�{it 49 �.�:a iv,�
-
i ,,(� 1.
:LQ.�.S-Than {k'?
,
1, �l�r� hNP {(�F:%'t'J
F �ar4°'k4�1
�t a i13. rd W >
t'i
,J���
}JY S + �+, .Rlr�
h-} k , ,2 , {, , 4
Potentially
I'.ij�}��'L
i �.. i t".. ,!
= 4+ 4
1 y.
Less Thant
_" tA.
y
t
k rs i
r;S�gmficant{with
Significant
}
r
,, s> <
z�) E 1'kLf
1..:.t{1 .fit �, t 4�i
L r {�, 2 4f4
--Mih a£ion A , 4 f{
Si mficant
g
�'.-
. leo Imt
PM
r"#4
F 1•
x { 4r ? r�
r
Pr `
r . g h+j 'Y�e lw
Im ac "ff t
P
f,�
h r H S7 d
+Al"t
t
tr F ,
I 5
y Incorporation {
7 'F t 1 IK
FvFt
.ka ,. "firy.. J}. Sit . y:� r. .-w: b., rir. k., -y.
f 'tJr�. {�f.;5, rr•.. ., e
Yi
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
or 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. 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 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 6 of 25
11. 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 E3 E3 U
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or L1
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:
8
ih
Potentially en
Less Than F �
ia
W
Impact
Impact,
Incorporation,
�X
V
11. 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 E3 E3 U
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or L1
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:
8
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 7 of 25
J`) 11 { E P
i?il �` fah v 41J]t Sw f
l i'u� Y' 1) ti..if31A'i\ /f.�4
S bN yE ! •✓;-
I ? 1� 5 t
�JJ
t.a91hs i f t 5 H?�h ✓Ai k�i SYx.,.ti
3
[�' 1W�..` EKY\ 1 t✓'
,
i,+,
Yk£ file{k Y ]3 ^F
E'1 1 w - S!Y
l
�S i(.i lil �lLY fif,.]
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
°
!�'
Less Than , s {,;
}dY
r }
c
substantially to an existing or projected air
Potenhall s t
r
Y ess Than
quality violation?
, ;
t x 1
S�gn►ficant ;� 4
n
S� mficant
No Im act
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
'{';S�r < +k. n'.j✓'"k' 14ti .moi TSD i�"'M1}i 4 i . I t J,4 �i._!
{}A {� J F 3
IncoC oration
p
aImpacti
c K 1=
l 3 {ib 4f tl r ' fi
z .r
i:]
+
�� 3
J .f Gl't'�,t`�
tib {^;x'�",i.:��rs,�.tiiM,':.'+tsfi�
Ms 7t x
f ik� YY
❑
standard (including releasing emissions which
u?'�..i:n+,t.iyFiFiK
✓r..,:...uxl7t.44..is;",.,'�:
:i�r,�;�3.lth�..".` .i't'.Krt
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
❑
❑
❑
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
❑
❑
❑
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
n
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 8 of 25
�;
4(t
any species identified as a candidate,
❑
❑
❑
Q
t 4 z x
a
Potenttally
at
Less Than
{ 4 x,
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
i; r } s�
Significant
.Sign►ficant w�th� sr
-
.y d
Significant
'., �s� �,kz ,.>
No'Impact �r 1'
the California Department of Fish and Game
Im ct+k
a
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Incorporation 1, r
p
tt! � f 7- (' �� 3 � i •�. 5
i �
f5f�3i t� a.�f, f
a!r'
,� rr
1[t ""
J t trl<P
-
',r3
'. s �4i c-
,r� ,� F ✓,�:. ii t�1 ,�
� r.:�
4 ii � i i,
) /^; i �.K�:
community identified in local or regional
❑
❑
❑
Q
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,
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
(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
❑
❑
❑
Q
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,
❑
❑
❑
Q
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
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 La Loma and Rhus Ridge
neighborhoods. The pathway would not be constructed nor easements granted at this time and therefore no
impacts would occur.
While a site-specific biological assessment would be required prior to construction of any off-road
pathway, biological impacts could include impacts to nesting raptors in the trees during construction.
Surveys conducted by a qualified biologist will be required prior to project design to determine the
alignments that would minimize impacts to raptors.
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:
1,5,6,10,17
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 10 of 25
Y�'c-J'.-r{ P J i.: s^� ya+t h'e' t t c y t 1 :t hS"F9
ti.� 'V��8i
'� F
.y.vgc.,ro 2'-,•` h
'�3 ',f a wfi
{ 3+, wt
ff M` 5 s
a.s t ,'t S�,,rr $�,tt. ,; v, �. 1� +. 7 ;..r"
;R:.rr7J d� rFy£`;��"-_?ay to �1''.'.'k ,5�7.l.s..t
',}{
Y.'', t> RwEFf F� t1 '. • ,5 c' .'ii'.
�'
fr.,
,4•l 14K1 n�
yx>s''tl: ;. it3ri`4�t�c�`J __ F,rS �4 �..jf' 4 X ,t 3+ft
c rr 5 a H
;
,t.� � r RFR:
s x f d x
Potent�all:,.
r k. ,: e x
Significant
Fess
Q
$ r 3
i
,,. ., � ,-= ,y
S�gn�ficant
with{ x
��
Sigmhcant �,
No Impact x
? 3 F
... t tfi rr G.,3 �q f:f yx� k .z t�
f � �
Im .� �,�:��
Mitigation ��
�
.fig �fii 4
-,{ � r . � °• � �°i�- � s,qq�.�E ff ��,,, x� _ , �,, � ry ria
act a �.�
xiIncorporation�
S,rx� � �.�w �� 7 _
❑
a
'f=.%` :,y7"'t4Yx� Y,LaM1` ,-1i:.p#_$ tie ..r`U,p-. 1,•{4t.QPi A.{.�}Ykb75
4,<u:,4.d i•'n?.:y?'
�.r
t.3�.�.. a( .<.:$,F.
YJV'h.? h
E:.�E1 i➢, v6Y
4 4. `lyy�g..- .E'l
2.k�rtf;f..
ZZ, .:'-3F(j?��,
t �•FPi3i.�.`"�. f�7i:�Y, Z`.Fi.4ni:'li'i�}i ,:FteF. ".�Fx''t�iY.n?'F':iY.il�.*S met
-
}'AdF. v r i...�`1.1V`7J,xc..ria.6Lde.x
ii'f"�
YJ •La,y,F-f,+inr ?s;..
Q
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES —
Would "the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
❑
❑
❑
Q
in ' 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological. resource
❑
❑
❑
Q
pursuant to '15064.59
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
❑
❑
❑
Q
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
❑
❑
❑
Q
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed future pathway alignment would not conflict with any cultural resources identified in the
General Plan, and would not impact any resources above ground. The addition of the future off-road
pathway would not have any impacts to cultural resources.
MITIGATION:
None
Sources:
3,5,16
0 k
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 11 of 25
4%`S"5 ti=sib kiy,�'ur ]]�� �_: 'i;�+s'
tta:tn'y r i �4f r �''�hP....yy,
-S'14
x i#�J.�Y .�� Yw5'sy;
trc f:; } a{ 4.,�}p?^ s �f
>i' Jn
r t,, is �"K,s�E W,.;S"•
Y 'i� >yF
j"F6 k€ A
Y8Ni
4i.:.Y� 'iJ${ : fg, r
cc.fj
�.f�s`ik
�em.,b C t' _ . —�#•4S i fi'
s" Siff 4�"}i't,�
( p'3i� }.
p
$'*
;. ,
i. F 2 N
I }!a
�xRU� ! r
Less Than " 4
i
9 k f
}aa
F'
t .t„St
Tfichaannt
.�.
4T
K , r�
k
a�t, '+rs
4zsj'
Y *yy ,
fctiitcatr»
r?:f�rh
nfti 4a k .
�,`..:S. ig.m..rlts
SL�egsms
` Nr
out
Imr
r,, yFlr t'J.s
s�,,�z 4
aFll�n7y ,u
'
eU s, _a
mtiganon ;
�5
oi
pr; a
ktif
wr3-.�'.-{�r;�a•t.EY�,# ��
(t�z ,
,yP`SI}�m►ogVt�p':nean�, �,
+,„:�
rr
.a:��
Impact0=„..
?tc
.f,'t•,.
,. t SY ' - i FSI� tpC {Z '�X� E -: � of 3$ :ii fi � } Y4-;d� `i{ t,4'4Lt�4f
i S v u..�: Y Y t'i n
�r i.,�tt'x >✓ : �+1 S s✓ ^ •if
t k. ::' ,
j/ti`s'"H �';<�
f � t�G Efa U
Fly.{,{
`ONh4LZyt.
�^s%wCf, `i,>
d��x4t4
',xlt�
u;s,;,
,9. , �,*u.:�> ..a
:rt'
a'
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
❑
❑
❑
Q
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
❑
❑
Q
❑
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
Q
❑
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including
❑
❑
❑
Q
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
Q
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
❑
❑
❑
Q
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
❑
❑
❑
Q
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
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 12 of 25
Y ' (wi . `. `{y,"tEt,! 7 'vt l p .{.. f:QF ^ 1 tt i `� y 3'.'i ,1'
3ikiniFtif. @@ 'f17� {�:.'., f ��((7y �qr'%.*� f 41 P lf.'r'4J,C� k .,..�fi
,F...:'Y" y; 'f i
-f, Yr -:.
}k5 1a+s'�':;�' �':,5f( 1. iin' S 1 "u'�r�
?.EM1 .,$f,l yti t:a:7R� T r�
{h{°, 7`9' -Pht3 9 ,."
r
<E4gen'4;� 1... if �. nrt 5�K
-. n }ssS8 - a"
"lf'';i, ' 4 f1i tdt 1�
r;x..,'.@..._Y:.�
1:. i.4 } a Nl L.'?�F f k
6 .?'
�':�✓ezm .zk(1 x�y'ii $'"
.5. �'. "K 4d1 .. �r�1 CW
-t i DIIY r{ w ,
Cf -, Std Nq,; 'f'.SP.
'£
{r,"xy.;
INA,
4 '�} ni
...
ria '0'fy" ri•i
3 € 4
;;Significant wYths
L"ess Thant sF.
f
kSx �a s`
n Y t
{ '
Significant t tn,a
aF.F ,c
$igmficant
,No Impact jt»;.n
4
r ``r�,
�t s, x,ri�rx �?� z
mpact
};IncorpoTatYonT 1 J,
,a ��r
y t1x ; r
4' S
Y;;+.n
r xt
Y Qi
€,��+ i
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
_nl� ,'L
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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?
0 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 2011
July 7, 2011
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 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 14 of 25
f i J iyi '1l�lt ]
aYI li
{ Y I -0L l �i {'yjt�
Q
❑
f�Y04i
4, Xdo t
��S �T
'�, i n Y'i ZS19
}
r,.. N��P.0
❑
❑
ry):.
x z t k c
Q
Less Than,
❑
❑
` r' LL r, , t n
Potentially t ,�
x
:Less Than e
w
,
5 } a
fi { sr It
L ,
Si nificant
g
Siniiicant with
g a "
Significant
s
No Impact'
�';
L� SY
Mittgation z
� * '
k r t
o Impact
Impact
L
VIII HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
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-
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
manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- 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
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
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
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
flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Q
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
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 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 16 of 25
,Ng{4. 11. t, jr4lr (; rR Py4j 7t;,J "Fi }, {�'. yt hi'
{
V}ry",�1}7f 4iJrt- k
1'F ii9
�,
/
i.'.
.c� s, 1, iRr t ) -Y fTrt,�+Ge c Li} i �rY lU r ;
..
zYtl�, {% is V �r
i 4 7Rl t
if - ''4
! k, Wi4 r• Y'
Less
i-kµk�l1i.,9 `�
z,"
Potentially
i,"ess•Th
e' ,� �i�#. 4" ur
Y; `�
A}S�gn�ficant with: }G
Mitigation
.� f
� {
Impact t it
Impact r
� h Y —t
[tee'
Incorporation ,.,r
!
7 r t z
�A `�.�
'� i S 1 r< ., F
4 3
! 5A.
tt �.,{• 4
P -
"j
}.3 � .
;
}
r
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING --
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
conservation plan?
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 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 17 of 25
{I
�.. e-yb 1�
f
1'1 vi. t 5.3,E - tt
ti.'h `t _a,, Y}
Cao Lett ark
{NPfi't�lle
.�"t�s.#
vl
h;Less, F�°.. IC }.r.t4
Than
ax,. ,ti4'ti
t
k5'Jt -0f''$?•
r,
E i,f zx
x Potentially "
T ,. T
Significant w�tk
Less,Than 5
rY '.
« i E135s.
r S�gmficant;a
E ,�
Significant
r No Impact°
ss f
p
;M�t�gat�on �
4
p
x �x k
1 0.`•K i4
t k
Incor oration,
p:: "r,`;
s 1 7 E7
4 C
_, ✓' i fid' �tf .d ;y1�. ^-,F. d" �.4'
� s m :t4 a rnk
s, < 1
;z r
.
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 ❑ 0 ❑ 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 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 18 of 25
i '' u��
�'�S. kt+ t
a fi 1.: 4 zSw �.
5Y"'
3' tM - ,� fl
;Y0 11 :gyp �t -`
.�
Q
.x
❑
F r?
❑
excessive groundborne vibration or
'q'
l+
Less Tuan
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
❑
Less Than .
fi R§.Jt
,a x = M"
r s
ter.xi r t z r
S�gcant a
z S�gn�ficant with r�
s x
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Mitigation', "s
S�gmficant
No Impact
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
y a
y € ,1� t
Impact i,
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
airstrip, would the project expose people
❑
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
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
Q
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?
0 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
❑ ❑ Q
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 19 of 25
;, '4,
:• i� .1 x+Lt rS 'ir9,f C+,{.T"inv t�a.r
.Y�ts � • �
P����� vy,�5
t' q;kE
l�r#€. ;:x.
N „��.. ,,.� �€ � '�
�;,
.w1E+,'=.Ftif:..IP'
�ti ��'
$ ��:
� � � r
„k �'';*� �i�'>�Sl�1� r4 ��ii
'i'c�ri
n�++..., �,i� , ti`
�.
:�h'rY.?l-rl}.F-f€ � , .,t .
w
i
,.Less Than �..t Lies }
,., -; .>3„ vu j.;5 t r*
, ,..�z�. x .��,. � � 5�
�`f,.itk{+. } t�'I.k1rt st 1
k t w N
Less,�'han � �
.-;,
�w ,Pi#:"y€}
t
z �.
y? 3".-g , l �aY
S� mficant
g
7 r, i n
�"a�yr��
S�gmficagt ,
- ,-, k,
No.Impact Tr x.
u§>tr <��'�s6," t���g�=3��.T>rcri!T�'1'�`-e
tcMrt�
act'1.5-
atlbn w
.y,;4
F.,ery fr.,.}R�:a..... `i.-++}}X.1�,�j�?,lrSS!rY'.a��`tar, L�'rta.t':k�5�✓}r::.vr.+�.u}.�,',�b,':..1j�F;f���Incornoration�,!��g��r.3�;�);QPM{.�.�5,;,�,x..�,.Ca,,�a�}a�?b�tu�r��;
yJ. i.Yn K.>'� t .I-' R ��yyh.l yAE ��h:3,� f"�,?
4. {�tf}rA�ak�?'(fxt;�i C}�i.�4
4'rn+ 4 bek i�y,
�1n ..,..i . 5
� '•b .. T .�aid+i
S1�32 ,�"i;1�S f0(., �„,q
y e .. f ti PST ;� •'k �l 1 yy dh
, r�;1�: y' S m.� +lF 1 1.•"e , M �'Yfi3 �
l.1.'.rC.y!.--e�
y..�
t-�`i!n51+art�
l4 2:tr
.nV �, gyp
�1
,��¢>,��
1�.
,-��1. t}F-ry4E}ri��. �t..i.i'1j
,Y�
XII. 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) Displace 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
_J
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 20 of 25
t +t'kstti. `r'S � Ott }rK`a'^ .?i �+1 r?'a.+et�`.ts-s`="c,-1�
:. S „ .r r
_lfy: i '� $i, :}"`�^ a t i
�" u.'rs5r PP
i t, a S `n
w"+. ry ., n
tx, x 'F"
w
T
Q
he 'JMfi"t,.�t3}}$i4.}t�>"�.�i�w'
F e{{� }
i'N'q/
£
;
(, Y44FT''AFL
iC `f }S,S� f
,€
Jt }'! ,•*t} Z^ 5.
r �,. yy
Z. i53 Jas �It 7'11# '!n_.a,i5 „4ir
`
'i .ova" TIR
"� 3
9" }.3'f
4 �}..�.� -R"V
+."
Potentially -x 1._.
I:ess',t`,T an \Yeti Aid+
l ffaM }."N'S' S'"5`',
Yr f . _�
~. j rd..P:i*'-� }"
£ t.i
Less Thain
.5,.4 t� ^.�'kE4 �k Y
1Y LL ,� 't�. Y. s.
f r
Parks?
� �.r.
,S�gnificant u f
rS►gndiicant with, a....:...
s.,r , : 4. w �F c x x
1VLhgat�on ? �
€ S�gmficant
No lmpacl ars
i _�� t ,..r . �5:a{'.'v', x k ,
�u ra^ } n „y , , . ,r a�
f
FImpact� k` r
t, „ �� ih
��ti
e M,. r#�
4 -)�ncor. oration;,
Px
z 4
Impacts
fi:tf
yl r`4ss3 4 s
Ttix
y� qw ,�
ti':.
i:.
f si'��i iS.;-
P;
XIII. 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Police protection?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Schools?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Parks?
❑
❑
❑
Q
Other public facilities?
❑
❑
❑
Q
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will not have a foreseeable impact on any public service or facility.
• Noise Element Goal I Policy 1.1 states that noise levels shall be compatible with the Town's semi -
rural atmosphere and consistent with Town Standards.
MITIGATION:
None
Sources:
3
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 21 of 25
S'sl 4 iR..'ri NfJ 1:y e: F �2pJ Vii^:. 1.}4 F F` *�'3 ,fi ,5,:, aW: dtx ,Wiry
1574 Lt dWS]%..- &�?'''.3
yR
J^ w•?�y'nidi tl Y`. W, N
RS'1
c<
✓ ,. uk's y kYn "-j,• ,{
,.i'F4s2
i:.s`k.Y
y _. N' i'/
....
a�1.1
WI `jihl
{r`� .�#f.4y`k
s'. R$ cA.:�U'
;uKF l�ti ;,.5 i
j' p
S+x.-tom{Y3 .h. ..ky fit
�.... ,�;f
Z°twA."� tri-,R�'L:
raw,
i &. xr'x'?i:.Y k
,+;Less Than
/ !f : t'..
gn�ficant with
�
-Imp
;tIm acti,
R' '
i ,'F'iFt R. �t ;.: �fi i i{ � �t�f*x3,�!'ii �{§--..T-�9
)
�-$"�.i.'4F3 Y<: `S4y
:'"'3^ 6•` ' �}F
�'
''�3'}'�f� n _ �.r
'�� �; +�u����S'i � ,1. �.-F.
y.�
rf:.5" ,�'�, , y.;�:. ��,Ryt #� �,}' N � x'st d��'�� 45 '� :� Tom" $� ��i3'-� �>�.r's.: �?!n�C'S
'h ^ii �^�j1S`'�5 : 3 d��
J� L x-k��; �� :��) �'� kS�'�S t
t. , ry-4{ �,.i.:MS � --.,
a;.s•.,' ,ir 5t , t }'� au'�
XIV. RECREATION -- Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
DISCUSSION:
The proposed project will not have a foreseeable impact on recreation facilities and will help provide a connection
between the La Loma and Rhus Ridge 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:
None
Sources:
5,6
V X
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
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.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
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?
0 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
❑
k
❑
Q
❑
[• 'c4 b1
1 t a"
t 'T� �E'V
1
! ^fis S.,
f
5
R y �' $ C':
E G
t (. iy 4."5 k `n
} s-
{
R}L -F t k �'. rTv 4 d
tf = d 3�
li-i _ f!
j{
Y'4
Less Than X
S" 3
1ti
�.r. �>
`Y k'+MfC
si Iii k5 Ss"
>, t
Pofent�all ,
x #`
Less Than
k t s }
g nificant
�, } tt , z
S�gmficant
u r
Significant
No Impact�rt`
h v t�
<M►t►gation nz
r
Nfr3
u
Ihon�-
�ncorpora
iR$
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.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
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?
0 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
y
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 23 of 25
f-1, :- 4$ y dii.;
❑
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
❑
Control Board?
.ntri,"'u,'#..
}5'S
'^r
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
k
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?
n4 a
serve the project from existing entitlements
1VIItWtion n, Snf x�
r,
Impacts
f i
i
,t x
oration
�,
4
:�C 1 � 3t{. -t1 � 5k �. � (;Ci $ }>r;.�a61.1 'j�Y
� �j�i� -t, 3 i�1
-. �Y J r.- �•� 10 3y t'
''1 }. JYIy�v y,E�ki��7
Pt F{ j.4}1� °¢ 2..-�'
T
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
❑
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
❑
Control Board?
Q
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?
e) 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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
❑
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
❑
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
❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ Q
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
Q
Town of Los Altos Hills
Initial Study General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 24 of 25
}�2 x d+�t.� �.'r
+'4r s'"r? t3.r - a zr
'.V
C, j,p,>F •.; 'ftit-,a
1 �,> �`S 's *k{
.fir r t't g.l ? -
7F
k7f
id
Than
- f, z
ti ,
> Less A } t
"
t`Potentially
Y,sf
, r �� ti
s ,�_
Signmcant with
,rLess Than4;
s
Significant 4
as?
r
S�gmficant
No Impact,
ry
Impact s
,
F r x4cex
M
z {4t,�
Incorporation
m
rIpact
rrt xi r#`
i i
�,
rX.. -.
�yl� i�}� SAY` 3 t F L f
'.�F I ,,�,�-fkY }� �r ht�._s
�f
�f t
i .�. �`` .�_
, Jr
rF .._
. v {r. lir. n�'�
�;rt'. r�.�.La •'7i
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
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 2011
July 7, 2011
Page 25 of 25
Source List:
I. 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 Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Altos Hills, May 18,
2009
15. Sanitary Sewer Map, Town of Los Altos Hills Engineering Department
16. Santa Clara County Municipal Code Chapter II 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: Cynthia Richardson, Consulting 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 easement is along a private
road right-of-way (APN 336-32-042 Devich, off of La Loma Drive) accessing four homes and
thru the property at (APN 336-32-040, Herzog) 25265 La Loma Drive and then thru property at
(APN 336-31-005&021, Spreen) 11970 Rhus Ridge connecting to Rhus Ridge Road. The
neighborhood consisting of 13 properties on 12.79 acres of land was annexed into the Town of Los
Altos Hills in October, 2009.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project includes amending the General
Plan/Pathway Element and Master Path Plan to add a future off-road pathway connecting La
Loma Drive to Rhus Ridge Road. The off-road path currently exists informally along a private
right-of-way serving four residences and continues along the eastern and northern property lines
of 25265 La Loma Drive and then thru 11970 Rhus Ridge Road connecting to Rhus Ridge Road.
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.
MITIGATION MEASURES, IF ANY, INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS:
The project is not anticipated to have any potentially significant effects on the environment
and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed. 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 will not have a significant effect upon the environment for the
following reasons:
a. For the reasons specified in the attached Initial Study (Exhibit "A"), the project does
not 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
Mitigation Measures
General Plan Amendment/Pathway Element 2011
June 16, 2011
Page 2
species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
pre -history.
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.
JLA&JEt 6, zo I l
Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director Date
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Circulated on: June 16, 2011 Adopted on:
28016
'D\ 2481
28000 1
28080
Legends: 1 r
----.-------- PROPOSED FUTURE OFF-ROAD PATH LA LOMA DRIVE40
EXISTING PATH WITH EASEMENTS
FUTURE PATH - RETAINED (MARCH 8, 2005)
FUTURE PATH - REMOVED FROM THE 1981 MASTER PATHWAY PLAN (MARCH 8, 2005)
_ ;0
1202
25070
12250
%X19
12040
25525
OA
25555 y 11470
12113
12051
25567 X10
12175
12200
12111
MOOD
25625
25640
O� 25090
25051
12155
1200
P NO
25552 25100
12145
493
O.�
25605
12120
24b
24911
12200
12005
Od
25564
25091
12025
O
25750
25578
25071
12119
12100
25550
25600 25121 25111
12101
24941
1200
�
25586
12000
25616
POG
25119
25111
25594 11450
25947
u�
11511
25041
y
25725
11510 11460
12002
11500
25055
�pp0
�J`O
PO
25955
25745
11490 Qp
w
12005 z
3
�'yMiT
25031
LL
12006
11523 WOOD
24965
11910
11935
11275 25031
12009
25765
25044
24915
11800
25111
11860
25700
25026
(O�q
11499 25201 25080
24905
25209
C O
Z
11920
S 25785
25179
25010
-s
N
�y�0
25263 25136
25090 4990 24960
24900
m 11885
11870
11950
25215
24930
25223
11930
25182
25100
24920
11880
25265
11970
r-24910
2 3 25124
5259
25386
D
25225 25228
119
25394
2524525274
25320
25396
25362
11972
25346
25255 530
11989
5398
2
25275
11888
25400
28008
12001 25295
25333
25285
8012
25325
25299
25317
25309 25313
Nk
2
28016
'D\ 2481
28000 1
28080
Legends: 1 r
----.-------- PROPOSED FUTURE OFF-ROAD PATH LA LOMA DRIVE40
EXISTING PATH WITH EASEMENTS
FUTURE PATH - RETAINED (MARCH 8, 2005)
FUTURE PATH - REMOVED FROM THE 1981 MASTER PATHWAY PLAN (MARCH 8, 2005)
_ ;0
Attachment 4
Cynthia Richardson
From: zog666@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:09 PM
To: Cynthia Richardson
Cc: devichsa@earthlink.net
Subject: Proposed addition to pathways map between 25275 and 25263 la loma to rhus ridge
As I pointed out at the planning meeting and would like to reiterate my neighbor Steve Devich
and I both strongly oppose adding the property between our lots to the future trailways map.
The first problem is that the proposed negative dec must be for some designated proposed
use. If it is for the property between our two lots, at the least environmental issues related to
the trees, oleanders etc. and their use by various forms of wildlife, soils erosion, and drainage
issues would need to be addressed. Second there are at least two practical reasons this
might be reconsidered. First is the trade off, if the pathways committee wishes to and does
proceed I will remove my current consent for neighbors to cross my property for recreational
use. In addition my neighbor and I will have to seriously consider the open access that has
been provided on about 200yds of the private road the two of us own. Additionally even if
some act might occur in the future allowing the town to try and get an easement, that would,
because of the location of the boundary -part way exclusively through my property and then
through the Devich's property and finally across about 60 feet of another residents property, be
extremely difficult to obtain, even assuming the required legal nexus to any construction( which
could trigger a requested easement) did exist. Given all these considerations we would hope
the pathways committee would reconsider and withdraw this proposal.. I personally would
certainly prefer the current status where we have allowed recreational users to walk across
our lot. Dick and Chris Herzog
6/23/2011
Attachment 5
Cynthia Richardson
From:
Roger Spreen [roger@spreen.com]
Sent:
Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:20 AM
To:
Cynthia Richardson
Cc:
Eileen Gibbons
Subject:
Proposed Pathway from Rhus Ridge to LaLoma
Cynthia:
Unfortunately I will be out of town on July 7th for the meeting concerning the proposed
pathway crossing from Rhus Ridge Road over to La Loma, via the Herzog and/or Devich
parcels, so I thought I'd offer you my thoughts via email.
As you know, we own a strange, tiny, triangular parcel, APN 336-31-021, which is clearly
an artifact of the road construction from the original development, and which that sits
along the edge of Rhus Ridge Road, separating the road from the proposed future path that
would run along the Herzog or Devich property line. I am writing this to tell you that my
wife and I as owners of this parcel *completely support* the effort to create a permanent,
legal pathway through our parcel, along the proposed route.
Because our house sits right at the cul-de-sac where the current unofficial pathway is
(and our thanks to the property owner for allowing that access), and because we've lived
here for 15 years now, we have a good sense of the very limited amount of foot traffic
that uses it, so I don't believe there'd be any issue of inordinate traffic. It's
probably due to the fact that walking up Rhus Ridge Road takes quite a bit of effort, and
more importantly, this is not a route that a casual walker from outside the neighborhood
would ever need to use.
We have used it many times just as a way to walk around the neighborhood, and I can
honestly say I've never once come across anyone else whenever I was on it. Also, our kids
use this to visit friends' houses within a short radius of our house. My feeling is that
this path is a very positive feature for both neighborhoods, and is a good example of what
the pathway system is about - making it possible for the local residents to easily move
around their neighborhoods.
We would be happy to voluntarily donate whatever easement is needed over our parcel (since
it's not big enough to develop, it would never be able to trigger an "easement as a
condition of development"). I also am familiar with what a low impact a naturally -
constructed path can be, so that it would be in character with the neighborhood, and have
virtually no impact on the existing trees.
Please let me know what I can do to facilitate this process!
Cheers,
Roger
Roger & Elizabeth Spreen
11970 Rhus Ridge Rd
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
650-948-4505 (home)
Attachment 6
Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee DRAFT1
Minutes of Meeting February 28, 2011
1. ADMINISTRATIVE
Chairman Eileen Gibbons called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM
Members present: Courtenay Corrigan, Nick Dunckel, Eileen Gibbons, Breene Kerr,
Bob Stutz, Sue Welch, Denise Williams
Members absent: Ann Duwe, Tim Warner
LAH Council Members present: Breene Kerr, Ginger Summit
Members of the public present: Eli Attia, architect was present representing 13818 Page Mill Road
The agenda was approved as published.
2. Communications from the floor.
None
3. Property Reviews. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations:
a) 13818 Page Mill Road (Lands of Thrun, Sebastian, and Petra) The reason for pathway review is
construction of a new residence. The architect, Eli Attia, was present representing the
homeowners. The 9 -acre property has a Page Mill address, but is actually on the south side of
Moon Lane. Moon Lane is a cul-de-sac; it is a private after 13816, but Chairman Gibbons reported
that the Town holds an easement that confers right-of-way for the public. Easement maps show
an in -road easement the full length of Moon Lane (connecting to the off-road path) and a planned
roadside path with easement on 13826 and 13818 Page Mill. An established off-road path (on a
gravel/ grass fire road) exits from the eastern end of Moon Lane and connects to Saddle
Mountain Drive. It is unclear how many residences Moon serves. The PWC visited the site on
February 26, 2011 and walked the fire road, and spoke with the homeowner, who said he had no
objections to a path along Moon Lane. Sue Welch moved that the owners of 13818 Page Mill
Road be asked to pay a pathway in -lieu fee. Breene Kerr seconded and amended the motion to
ask that staff confirm that the Town holds an easement conferring public access all along on
Moon Lane. Eileen Gibbons seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor.
4. Reports from Other Meetings
Breen Kerr distributed information from the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
a) Info on a bicycle and pedestrian workshop to solicit feedback from cyclists on rural roads in the
area that are heavily used and potentially in need of improvements (Popular Bicycle Rides on
Country Roads, March 9, 2011)
b) Santa Clara County project priority list update showing projects to be funded (or not) by the
Roads and Airports Department. Addition of roadside paths to Moody Road between Hidden
Villa and Canyon Road is on the list but will not be funded. BK suggested that involvement of the
PWC help the Town get funding.
5. Old Business
a) Addition of La Loma Annex Off -Road Pathway to Master Path Plan (MPP). Eileen Gibbons met
with Richard Chiu and Debbie Pedro to review he procedure for adding segments to the MPP.
She will put the request for amendment of the MPP before City Council for approval on February
DraftlPWC_Minl l-0228 3/18/11
4 IL
17, 2011. Environmental review will be done in April and the amendment will go to Planning
Commission in May and City Council (public hearing) again in June. This route will not be added
to the Public Walking Map.
The PWC discussed the route. EG moved that the City Council approve amendment of the MPP
to include the off-road path in the newly annexed La Loma area to run along the NE border of
25245 and 25225 La Loma, the N and NE borders of 25265 La Loma to connect to Rhus Ridge
Road. Bob Stutz seconded. The vote was 6 in favor 1 opposed.
b) Fremont Bike Path Update. Funds have been awarded and preliminary plans are available. PWC
has been assured that the width of pathways will not be reduced. EG will ask Town engineering
to stake out the proposed boundaries at the potentially problematic areas (e.g., the S -curves and
the area close to the bridge where Fremont meets Arastradero). PWC will have an opportunity to
view the survey stakes and provide feedback.
c) Lands of Nicholson Pathway Easement Encroachment. This subdivision was reviewed on 27 Nov
2006 and 28 Sep 2009. The owner of this subdivision has requested that the proposed off-road
pathway that comes down from Dawson to the sewer easement be routed for about 30 feet on the
neighbor's property (12131 Oak Park Court) close to where it meets the sewer easement. This will
allow the path to run around the long wall that runs along the south border of the sewer
easement and drop gradually down to the sewer easement. Bob Stutz moved that the letter be
sent to the neighbor requesting this pathway on their property. EG seconded. The vote was
unanimously in favor.
d) Proposed Crosswalks. Town staff provided provisional plans from Fehr and Peers for crosswalks
at four locations, as recommended by the PWC (i.e., Elena Road at Black Mountain off-road path
terminus; Elena Road at Packard Path terminus; Moody Road at Artemis Ginzton Trail terminus;
intersection of Moody Road and Elena Road). Pros and cons of the proposed crosswalk
configurations (e.g., flashing lights, striping, multiple road signs) were discussed. It was
suggested that one crosswalk (i.e., the one at Moody Road at Artemis Ginzton Trail terminus)
using a simple configuration without lights be installed first to gauge response.
e) Road barrier at Taaffe. THe owner of the house at the corner of Taaffe and Elena has requested
that the Town install a guardrail. This was deemed an issue for Town engineering staff, not the
PWC.
f) Mary Davey Memorial Path. At the 18 Nov 2010, City Council meeting, Council voted to name
the Moody Road -EL Monte path the "Mary Davey Path" in honor of Mary Davey, LAH resident
and environmental activist who died late last year. Council allocated up to $7500 for landscaping
and bench. PWC visited the site on Sat Feb 26 and did not find a suitable spot for a memorial
bench. Sue Welch suggested that instead of a bench on the Moody Path, a memorial plaque or
tree in Byrne Preserve may be appropriate, given Mary's instrumental role (as Mayor of LAH in
1968) in the purchase and dedication of Byrne Preserve as an open space preserve for the Town.
SW offered to bring this to the Open Space Committee and report back to PWC. EG moved that
the Open Space Committee identify an appropriate spot in Byrne Preserve for a memorial to
Mary Davey. SW seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor.
g) Request for update maps. Courtenay Corrigan request that PWC members be provided with
updated maps at the next meeting EG will follow-up on this.
h) Request for Clarification of Policy Regarding Absences. Courtenay Corrigan requested that this
policy be clarified. Apparently Town policy is not well defined regarding number of meeting
meetings members can miss.
6. Approval of Minutes
DraftlPWC_Minl l-0228 3/18/11 2
� i w
The minutes of the 23 Jan 2008 meeting were approved as amended. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30
PM.
7. Next Scheduled Meetings
Next pathway walk: Saturday, March 26, 2011 at 8:30 AM at Town Hall
Next regular meeting: Monday, March 28, 2009 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Welch
March 12, 2011
DraftlPWC_Minll-0228 3/18/11
Attachment 7
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 2, 2011
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: GENERAL PLAN PATHWAYS ELEMENT MASTER PATH PLAN AMENDMENT
LA LOMA DRIVE; #84-11-MISC.
FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
1. Review, make comments, and forward a recommendation that, based on the Initial
Study (Attachment #1), the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration in
Attachments #2; and
2. Forward a recommendation that the City Council approve the requested General 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 are required for approval of the
project:
1. Adoption of the Negative Declaration and
2. Approval of the General Plan Pathways Element Master Path Map amendment.
The Planning Commission's actions are recommendations to the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On March 8, 2005, the City Council adopted the off-road Master Path Plan, since that
time the La Loma neighborhood pocket has been annexed into the Town. The Pathways
Committee recognized the need to connect La Loma Drive to Rhus Ridge Road where a
pathway informally exists along the shared driveway accessing four homes and along the
northern property line of 25265 La Loma Drive. The Pathways Committee held a
neighborhood meeting on February 28, 2011 to discuss the potential of adding the La
Loma pathway in the newly annexed area. No residents raised objections to the proposal
and the Committee voted to recommend adding the off-road path to the Town's Master
Master Path Plan. Minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment #4.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes amending the General Plan/Pathway Element Master Path
Plan to add a future off-road pathway connecting La Loma Drive to Rhus Ridge Road.
The off-road path exists informally along the private right-of-way serving four residences.
v U K ,4
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
General Plan Pathways Element Master Path Map Amendment
June 2, 2011
Page 2 of 2
The neighborhood, consisting of 13 properties on 12.79 acres of land, was annexed into
the Town of Los Altos Hills in October 2009. No easement dedication or construction is
planned with this General Plan Master Pathway Plan amendment.
The Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10.2.602a states that each property
shall have direct access to a pathway or indirect access via a vehicular right-of-way. This
General Plan Pathways Map amendment will achieve this goal sometime in the future for
the newly annexed La Loma neighborhood. A future Pathway as indicated on the Master
Pathway Plan gives guidance to the Pathways Committee when reviewing future projects.
New pathway dedication and construction may only be triggered by a subdivision,
construction of a new main residence or secondary dwelling, cumulative development of
900 square feet of habitable floor area or a barn greater than 900 square feet (see General
Plan Pathway Element Goal 4.2 and 4.3).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
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 May 25, 2011. The notice was also submitted to the Santa Clara
County Clerks Office for a 20 day public review period which began on May 25, 2011
and ends on June 16, 2011.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed General Plan Pathways Element Master Path
Map Amendment based on:
1. The project is consistent with the Town's General Plan Pathways Element.
2. The neighborhood has been recently annexed into the Town and easement dedication
or construction is not required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Initial Study
2. Negative Declaration
3. Master Path Plan Amendment Exhibit
4. Minutes of the Pathways Committee Meeting, February 28, 2011