INTRODUCTION This document responds to issues raised by Sarah H. Sigman of the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, in a letter to the Town of Los Altos Hills dated January 20, 2016 regarding the “Stirling Subdivision Mitigated Negative Declaration” (“Shute Letter”). The Shute Letter was submitted on behalf of the Friends of Upper Matadero Creek whose members are not identified in the letter. The environmental document to which the Shute Letter refers is the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Stirling Subdivision (EMC Planning Group, September 2015) (“IS/MND” or “IS”), which was prepared for the Town of Los Altos Hills as the lead agency. The responses included in this letter are organized and numbered to correspond to those included in the Shute Letter. This document also responds to issues raised by Sue Welch, whose comments are included in a letter dated January 22, 2016 regarding 28030 Natoma Road (“Welch Letter”) Both letters were submitted after the close of the 30-day public review period for the IS/MND. The letters are included as Attachments A and B, respectively. This document contains information that supplements and refines analysis and mitigation measures already included in the IS/MND pursuant to issues raised in the above-referenced comment letters. II.A Footbridge Description The commenter states that the IS/MND’s description of the footbridge across the Matadero Creek is not described with sufficient detail to allow an informed analysis of its impacts under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15146, Degree of Specificity, notes that the degree of specificity required in an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15071, Contents, states that a Negative Declaration shall include a brief description of the project. At the time the IS/MND was prepared, detailed information about the pedestrian footbridge design was not available. Consequently, information included in the project description about the footbridge was brief, but sufficient to allow an informed analysis of its potential impacts. Sheet 3 of the Tentative Map included in Attachment C of the IS/MND identified the approximate location of the proposed footbridge. Furthermore, as part of the project description, the planned footbridge is shown across Matadero Creek (p. 14). Since publication of the IS/MND, additional detail has been provided about the footbridge (described below), however this supplemental information does not change the analysis, mitigations, or conclusions in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of constructing the footbridge are identified throughout the IS/MND, including potential impacts on biological resources and water quality as described below. Thus, there is no basis for the commenter to conclude that the analysis of the footbridge’s impacts is inadequate under CEQA. Level of Detail. CEQA requires an MND to include the location of the project, preferably shown on a map, the proposed findings, a copy of the IS/MND documenting the reasons supporting the findings, and mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects. The location of the proposed footbridge and its approximate size are identified and disclosed to the public in the IS/MND. Furthermore, the potential impacts of constructing the 1 STIRLING SUBDIVISION – SHUTE/WELCH RESPONSE LETTERS footbridge over Matadero Creek to riparian habitat and wildlife are adequately anticipated and described in the IS/MND. Construction and operational impacts on Matadero Creek (a jurisdictional waterway) and on riparian habitat were conservatively assumed to be potentially significant as described in the IS/MND (p. 51). Mitigation measure BIO-7 is included in order to mitigate the potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measure BIO-7 describes bridge design conditions that would trigger significant impacts and includes specific performance standards that must be met to reduce the impacts to less than significant. The IS/MND thus adequately describes the size and location of the footbridge and proposes mitigation to avoid any potentially significant impacts. Water Quality Impacts. Water quality in Matadero Creek could be adversely affected by footbridge construction activities if erosion control and other water quality protection measures are not taken. As described in the IS/MND (pp. 68-70), all construction activities within the site would be regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) requirements of the California Water Quality Control Board. Best management practices (which could include timing of construction, erosion protection and sediment control, solid waste management, etc.) must be employed during bridge construction to protect water quality, and will be defined in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”). The adequacy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be evaluated by the Town Engineer subject to consistency with defined regulatory performance standards. This issue is discussed in more detail in the discussion of water quality issues in Section IV.C.2 below. Best management practices to protect water quality during construction of the footbridge, as well as the entire project, must be employed regardless of the detailed bridge design. Wildlife Impacts. The IS/MND also discloses the effects of the proposed project on special- status wildlife (pp. 41-50). As stated at the bottom of page 41, “If present within proposed impact areas on the site (including the pedestrian bridge and recreational trail within the wooded open space easement area), development may impact the above species.” Mitigation measures BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, BIO-6, and BIO-7 proceed to address potential impacts of constructing the proposed project, including the footbridge, on the nine special-status wildlife species with potential to occur within the site, including Matadero Creek and its associated riparian habitat. The mitigation measures contain performance standards that must be met regardless of the final detailed bridge design, which is all that CEQA requires. Additional analysis of the potential impacts of the footbridge on wildlife movement and wildlife has been conducted by Live Oak Associates in a letter dated April 21, 2016, and in a letter prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates dated April 28, 2016. The letters were prepared to clarify and refine analyses in the IS/MND. The letters are included as Attachments D and E. Live Oak Associates concludes that the proposed trail along the northern boundary of the site and the bridge design (perpendicular crossing of creeks with a free-span bridge is preferred by resource agencies) will not substantially impede movement patterns of any wildlife. Live Oak also notes that during construction of the trail and bridge, daytime wildlife movements may be temporarily altered, but movements during dawn and twilight (crepuscular movements), and nighttime movements will not be appreciably affected. Once the 4 to 12 week construction period for these improvements ends, regional movement patterns are expected to return to pre-construction conditions. Live Oak Associates concludes that the temporary effects on daytime movements would be less than significant (Live Oak Associates 2016, p. 3). 2 STIRLING SUBDIVISION – SHUTE/WELCH RESPONSE LETTERS H.T. Harvey draws conclusions that are similar to Live Oak Associates. H.T. Harvey does not expect the construction of a footpath on the northern portion of the project site or a footbridge across Matadero Creek to substantially interfere with wildlife movement along the Matadero Creek corridor. H.T. Harvey observed numerous trails paralleling the creek within the future open space area such that animals will not be restricted to moving through the open space area at any one location (e.g., the location of the proposed footbridge). Neither the path nor bridge will include features such as tall, impassable fencing that would preclude the ability of a variety of animals to simply walk across the path or under or around the bridge. Furthermore, because many of the reptiles, amphibians, and mammals that may move within or through the project site along the Matadero Creek corridor are active at night when little or no human use of the path or bridge is expected, human activity along the path and bridge will not substantially interfere with the ability of wildlife to cross the trail (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2016, p. 3). No evidence, much less substantial evidence, has been provided to support a fair argument that the proposed pathway and footbridge, as mitigated, would have a significant impact on the environment. Additional Footbridge Description Information. Prior availability of a refined footbridge design or construction plan would not have materially affected the conclusions in the IS/MND regarding its potential impacts. Regardless, the applicant has now provided supplemental design and construction methodology details for informational purposes. The location of the footbridge is now defined. Its location has been established based on the results of a Creek and Riparian Jurisdictional Assessment conducted by WRA in April 2016. The jurisdictional assessment is included as Attachment F. The field surveys consisted of multiple site visits to determine the location of the Ordinary High Water and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) jurisdictions of the creek as required in mitigation measure BIO-7 in the IS/MND. The purpose was threefold: 1) to locate the bridge outside of any portion of the creek that could be considered jurisdictional by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); 2) to avoid removal of riparian vegetation; and 3) to identify the narrowest reach of the creek in the immediate vicinity of the preliminary bridge location shown on the Tentative Map at which the bridge abutments can be installed above the bed or bank of the creek. For the proposed location, an approximately 35-foot long bridge measured as the distance between the bridge abutments would be required. The bridge would be approximately five feet wide.