COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

DATE:

June 6, 2005

BOARD MEETING DATE:

June 21, 2005

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

300 ft. within 10 days

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services

SUBJECT:

Consideration of: (1) a Planned Agricultural District Permit, a Coastal Development Permit, and Grading Exemption pursuant to Sections 6353, 6328.4, and 8603.1, respectively, of the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations; and (2) certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, to improve a 2.79-acre parcel with four walking trails, information kiosk, a proposed seating area and an overlook deck. The project location is adjacent to the Pigeon Point lighthouse, west of Cabrillo Highway in the unincorporated Pescadero area of San Mateo County. The project is appealable to the California Coastal Commission. (Appeal from decision of the Planning Commission approving the Planned Agricultural District Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Grading Exemption.)

County File Number:

PLN 2002-00675 (Peninsula Open Space Trust)

RECOMMENDATION

That the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and:

1.

Certify the Negative Declaration by making the required findings listed in Attachment A.

2.

Approve the Planned Agriculture Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Grading Permit Exemption, County File No. PLN 2002-00675, by adopting the required findings and conditions of approval identified in Attachment A.

VISION ALIGNMENT

Commitment: Number 6: The proposed project keeps the commitment to preserve and provide people access to our natural environment.

Goal: Number 15, which states: “Residents have nearby access to green space such as parks and recreational opportunities.”

The Planning Commission’s deliberations further Commitment 6 and Goal 15 as the Commission carefully considered the proposed project and found the project complied with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning Regulations by preserving our natural environment and enabling nearby residents public enjoyment of a recreational opportunity.

BACKGROUND

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to improve a 2.79-acre parcel with four walking trails, an information kiosk, a proposed seating area, and an overlook deck. The project will also involve restoration of the existing coastal bluff habitat. Parking will be provided in the existing youth hostel parking lot.

Planning Commission Action: On February 23, 2005, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to certify the Negative Declaration and approve the Planned Agricultural District Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Grading Exemption.

Report Prepared By: Olivia Sun Boo, Project Planner, Telephone 650/363-1852

Appellant: Ron Sturgeon

Applicant: POST (Peninsula Open Space Trust)

Owner: California State Parks Commission

Location: The project location is adjacent to the Pigeon Point lighthouse, west of the Cabrillo Highway public right-of-way, in the unincorporated Pescadero area of San Mateo County.

APN: 086-300-160

Parcel Size: 2.79 acres

Existing Zoning: PAD/CD (Planned Agricultural Development/Coastal Development)

General Plan Designation: Agriculture

Existing Land Use: Undeveloped open space covered with cover crop, coastal bluff scrub, non-native grasslands, wildlife habitat and a very small area of wetland area located on the east edge of the property.

Water Supply/Sewage Disposal: N/A

Flood Zone: FEMA Flood Zone C, area of minimal flooding, Community-Panel No. 060311 0400 B, effective date: July 5, 1984

Environmental Evaluation: An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared for this project. The public review and comments period began February 1, 2005 and ended February 22, 2005

Setting: The subject property is unimproved, relatively flat and located west of Cabrillo Highway in Pescadero, within the Cabrillo Highway State Scenic Corridor. The site is located adjacent to State Park Lands where the youth hostel buildings and Pigeon Point Lighthouse are located. The parcel is a mosaic of disturbed areas, dominated by non-native plant species and native Northern Coastal Bluff Scrub. There are no trees or large shrubs with exception of some ceanothus that were likely planted. The cliff and bluff faces are devoid of vegetation. There are both prime soils and non-prime soils on the parcel.

A 9-unit motel was under construction on the subject parcel prior to applicant’s purchasing the property in 2000 as part of its open space holdings. The applicant demolished and removed the motel and former warehouse in 2001 and 2002, in preparation for the proposed trail project. Since the demolition, the applicant has been working on erosion control measures, seed collection from native plant species on the property and re-vegetation. The previously disturbed portions of the site cover approximately 1.3 acres or 47 percent of the site. The site was reseeded and covered with an erosion control blanket in October of 2002.

The property is surrounded to the east by open space owned by San Mateo County; to the west by the Pigeon Point Lighthouse and youth hostel (owned by the US Coast Guard and leased to California State Parks); to the south by property owned by California State Parks that covers portions of the beach and cliffs; and to the north by Pigeon Point Road and agricultural fields.

Chronology:

Date

Action

November 7, 2002

-

Received proposed trail application.

December 23, 2003

-

Staff site inspection completed.

November 8, 2004

-

Agricultural Advisory Board reviewed the proposed project and made recommendations that are noted in this report under Section D.

February 1, 2005

-

Initial Study and Negative Declaration posted. Public review and comment period ended February 22, 2005.

February 22, 2005

-

End of public review and comments period for the environmental review. No comments were received as of the writing of this staff report. Any comments received will be discussed at the public hearing.

February 23, 2005

-

Planning Commission Public Hearing.

March 14, 2005

-

Received Letter of Appeal.

June 21, 2005

-

Board of Supervisors Public hearing.

DISCUSSION

Following are the appellant’s points of appeal, in bold, followed by staff’s analysis.

A.

KEY ISSUES OF THE APPEAL

1.

The Planning Commission was persuaded it could take POST “at its word” that if the Commission allowed the project to “go ahead,” POST could be relied on to abide by the “requirements” of “Condition #15” and that all could anticipate satisfactory results.

Staff’s Response: Condition #15 states the following:

“The applicant shall contact property owners, within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel, who own land that operate agricultural activities and request the owners to send notification to POST when chemicals spraying will occur. When such notice is received by POST, they shall temporarily close the parking lot in order to meet State and/or Federal health and safety guidelines.”

This condition was added in response to the Agriculture Advisory Committee’s request that when chemical spraying occurs on adjacent farming properties, State Parks should temporarily close access to the trails and parking area to meet State and Federal health and safety guidelines. This condition of approval is not a mitigation measure or a requirement of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) review. The intent of this condition is to prevent any new or future development from affecting current and future productivity to existing agricultural activities.

As requested by the Agricultural Advisory Committee and conditioned by the Planning Commission, POST has already made efforts to contact and coordinate a future meeting with all interested parties, and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel who own land and operate agricultural activities.

2.

The project’s Negative Declaration is incomplete, inadequate AND INACCURATE. As of the date of its release for public review (February 1, 2005), contrary to this Declarations assertion, POST is not the owner of the project parcel(s). Its true ownership by the California State Lands Commission was undisclosed. The subject parcel was formerly owned by POST and conveyed on January 14, 2005 to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The Commission and the public were not informed of this conveyance until the day of the public hearing.

Staff’s Response: Change in ownership of land is always possible and not unexpected. POST was acting as applicant and owner for the discretionary permitting process and continues to act as applicant on behalf of State Parks since the transfer of ownership in January 2005. It was the intention that POST would be transferring land ownership to State Parks.

Staff believes the change in ownership has no relevance to the question of the validity of the Negative Declaration, and that recirculation is not required. The change in ownership does not affect the scope of the project. Once the trail project is complete, State Parks intends to maintain the trail per the conditions of approval.

3.

The Negative Declaration is silent as to the potential adverse impacts associated with the project’s direct facilitation of a potentially dramatic increase in public access to the site’s shoreline and intertidial natural resources-specifically listed in the LCP as an important (“sensitive”) marine habitat area. Additionally, the project proposed frivolous bluff top recreational development that will be “visually obtrusive when viewed from the shoreline.”

Staff’s Response: The biologist report recommended that visitation to the site be restricted to a particular area on the site. The proposed trails have been designed to protect the existing conditions. The trails will incorporate railings that border both sides of the trails to restrict public access to designated areas only, thereby protecting the existing vegetation and habitats. LCP Policy 11.11 permits public recreation and shoreline access trails as an allowed use on prime agricultural land and lands suitable for agriculture, subject to the securing of a Planned Agricultural Permit. In order to minimize disturbance to native vegetation, and to minimize the footprint of construction in native plant areas, mitigation measures have been included to require that the trail locations be staked and then reviewed and relocated as necessary by a qualified biologist prior to construction.

4.

The Planning Commission’s approval on February 23, 2005 to allow this project to go forward is inconsistent with the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program (LCP), in particular Policies: 5.8.a(3), 5.10.a(4), 7.3, 7.5(a), 7.22 and 8.4(b), and CEQA.

Staff’s Response: The San Mateo County LCP Policy 5.8.a(3) (Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land Designated as Agriculture) prohibits conversion of prime agricultural land within a parcel to a conditionally permitted use unless it can be demonstrated that the productivity of any adjacent agricultural land will not be diminished.

LCP Policy 5.10.a(4) (Conversion of Land Suitable for Agriculture Designated as Agriculture) prohibits the conversion of lands suitable for agriculture within a parcel to conditionally permitted uses unless it can be demonstrated that the productivity of any adjacent agricultural lands is not diminished.

Staff believes that this project will not significantly affect the potential for agricultural use of adjacent lands. Condition #15 has been included to protect existing agricultural activities. POST has already made efforts to contact and coordinate a future meeting with all interested parties, and property owners (within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel who own land and operate agricultural activities).

LCP Policy 7.3 (Protection of Sensitive Habitat) (a) prohibits any land use or development which would have a significant adverse impact on sensitive habitat areas, and (b) development in areas adjacent to sensitive habitats shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts that could significantly degrade the sensitive habitats. All uses shall be compatible with the maintenance of biologic productivity of the habitats.

LCP Policy 7.5(a) (Permit Conditions) as part of the development review process, require the applicant to demonstrate that there will be no significant impact on sensitive habitats. When it is determined that significant impacts may occur, require the applicant to provide a report prepared by a qualified professional which provides: (1) mitigation measures which protect resources and comply with the policies of the Shoreline Access, Recreation/Visitor-Serving Facilities and Sensitive Habitats Components, and (2) a program for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. Develop an appropriate program to inspect the adequacy of the applicant’s mitigation measures.

LCP Policy 7.22 (Designation of Marine and Estuarine Habitats) designate all areas containing marine and estuarine habitats as requiring protection, specifically including but not limited to: Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, San Gregorio Estuary, Pescadero Marsh, Pigeon Point, Franklin Point, Ano Nuevo Point, and Ano Nuevo Island Reserve.

A complete biologist report identified sensitive habitat on the project site and proposed mitigation measures to avoid potential impacts. Per recommendation of the biologist, the project is conditioned with the following mitigation measures Conditions 9, 10 and 11.

Condition #9: The project biologist shall conduct appropriately timed surveys (April-May) to identify habitat and plant populations and mark their locations if found. Project related activities should avoid removal of these plants and applicable buffer zones shall be established and marked by the biologist.

Condition #10: All construction shall be scheduled to avoid the breeding season as identified by the biologist, particularly if special-status species are discovered breeding on the site. Visitation to the site or a particular area on the site shall be restricted, if special-status species are discovered breeding or otherwise using the property, as confirmed by the biologist.

Condition #11: All construction shall be scheduled to avoid the breeding season as identified by the biologist, particularly if special-status species are discovered breeding on the site. Visitation to the site or a particular area on the site shall be restricted, if special-status species are discovered breeding or otherwise using the property, as confirmed by the biologist.

LCP Policy 8.4 (Cliffs and Bluffs) prohibits development on bluff faces except public access stairways where deemed necessary and erosion control structures which are in conformity with coastal policies on access and erosion.

Staff believes the proposed stairs provide shoreline access to the bluff and nearby beach. Additionally, although the biologist’s report states the cliff face and steeper bluffs are devoid of vegetation, the project is conditioned to require appropriate mitigation measures during the construction phase, to protect the bluff face.

B.

COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS

Conformance with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, Zoning Regulations and Grading Exemption Regulations

Conformance with these regulations is discussed in the February 23, 2005, Planning Commission staff report. Please refer to Attachment G, Section A.

C.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

An Initial Study and Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. The public review and comment period was from February 1, 2005 to February 22, 2005. Comments to the Initial Study and Negative Declaration were received in a letter of appeal submitted to the Planning Division on March 14, 2005. The comments were addressed by this staff report. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration is included in this report as Attachment H.

D.

REVIEW BY THE AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Committee’s review and recommendations is discussed in the February 23, 2005, Planning Commission staff report. Please refer to Attachment G, Section C.

Staff had subsequent discussions with County Counsel regarding the Committee’s request. County Counsel confirmed the Committee’s request could be added as a condition of approval. Staff has added Condition #15 to that effect.

E.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Review by all applicable agencies is discussed in the February 23, 2005, Planning Commission staff report. Please refer to Attachment G, Section D.

ATTACHMENTS

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

Location Map/Parcel Map

C.

Site Plan

D.

Prime Soils Map

E.

Vegetation Types on the Whaler’s Cove Property

F.

Letter of Appeal (dated March 14, 2005)

G.

Planning Commission Staff Report (dated February 23, 2005; Attachments Omitted)

H.

Initial Study and Negative Declaration

I.

Biological Report

J.

Site Photos

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2002-00675

Board Meeting Date: June 21, 2005

Prepared By: Olivia Sun Boo

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS

Regarding the Negative Declaration, find:

1.

That the Negative Declaration is complete, correct and adequate and prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable State and County guidelines.

2.

That, on the basis of the Initial Study, comments received hereto, and testimony presented and considered at the public hearing, that there is no substantial evidence that the project if subject to the mitigation measures contained in the negative declaration, will have a significant effect on the environment.

3.

That the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of San Mateo County.

4.

That the mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration, agreed to by the applicant, placed as conditions on the project, and identified as part of this public hearing, have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in conformance with California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

Regarding the Coastal Development Permit, find:

5.

That the project, as described in the application and accompanying materials required by Section 6328.7 and as conditioned in accordance with Section 6328.14, conforms to the plans, policies, requirements and standards of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

6.

That the project conforms to specific findings required by policies of the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program.

Regarding the Planned Agricultural District Permit, find:

General Criteria

7.

That the encroachment of all development upon land which is suitable for agricultural use is minimized.

8.

That all development permitted on-site is clustered.

9.

That the project conforms to the Development Review Criteria contained in Chapter 20A.2 of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code.

Criteria for the Conversion of Prime Agricultural Lands

10.

That no alternative site exists on the parcel for the use.

11.

That clearly defined buffer areas are provided between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.

12.

That the productivity of an adjacent agricultural land will not be diminished.

13.

That public service and facility expansions and permitted uses will not impair agricultural viability, including by increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.

Criteria for the Conversion of Lands Suitable for Agricultural and Other Lands

14.

That all agriculturally unsuitable lands on the parcel have been developed or determined to be undeveloped.

15.

That continued or renewed agricultural use of the soils is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.

16.

That clearly defined buffer areas are developed between agricultural and non-agricultural uses.

17.

That the productivity of any adjacent agricultural lands is not diminished, including the ability of the land to sustain dry farming or animal grazing.

18.

That public service and facility expansions and permitted uses do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality.

Regarding the Grading Exemption, find:

19.

That the project qualifies under Section 8603.1 of the County Ordinance Code as exempt from the requirements of a grading permit.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Planning Division

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal, documents and plans described in this report and submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2005. Minor revisions or modifications to the project may be approved by the Planning Director if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

2.

The Coastal Development Permit and Planned Agricultural District Permit are valid for one year from the date of approval, until March 23, 2006, at or before which the applicant shall have been issued a building permit. Any extensions of these permits shall require submittal of a written request for permit extension and payment of applicable extension fees, no less than 30 days prior to permit expiration.

3.

Any change in use or intensity shall require an amendment to the permits. Amendment to these permits requires an application for amendment, payment of applicable fees, and consideration at a public hearing.

4.

The applicant shall submit plans and have a building permit issued within one year from the date of this approval and prior to the start of construction.

5.

The applicant is required to monitor the noise level at the site so that the proposed construction activity will not exceed the 80 dBA level at any one moment. All construction activity is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sunday or any national holiday.

6.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit, to the Planning Division for review and approval, an erosion and sediment control plan, which shows how transport and discharge of pollutants from the project site will be minimized during all grading and construction activities. The goal is to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering local drainage systems and water bodies, and to protect all exposed earth surfaces from erosive forces. The erosion control plan shall clearly delineate the types of measures to be used, the location of where the measures will be placed as well as a sectional drawing showing how the measures shall be installed. All erosion control devices shall be installed on-site prior to the beginning of any construction or activity on-site. The erosion control plan shall clearly delineate the types of measures to be used, the location of where the measures will be placed as well as a sectional drawing showing how the measures shall be installed. All erosion control devices shall be installed on-site prior to the beginning of any construction activities. The applicant shall arrange for a site inspection to verify installation with the Building Inspection Section. Said plan shall adhere to the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program “General Construction and Site Supervision Guidelines,” including:

a.

Removing spoils promptly, and avoiding stockpiling of fill materials when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiled soils and other materials shall be covered with a tarp or other waterproof material.

b.

Storing, handling, and disposing of construction materials and wastes so as to avoid their entry to a local storm drain system or water body.

c.

Avoiding cleaning, fueling or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in an area designated to contain and treat runoff. The applicant shall arrange for a site inspection to verify installation with the Building Inspection Section.

7.

The applicant shall have an archaeological monitor on-site during all construction and grading activities, in order to ensure an examination has taken place to record and recover any historic or prehistoric archaeological information present. The applicant shall submit a post-construction report to the Planning Division describing the final site conditions and verifying that the monitor was on-site for the duration of the project. At any time evidence is uncovered or encountered before or after monitoring, all excavations within 30 feet shall be halted until a qualified professional archaeologist is contacted to assess the situation and propose appropriate measures.

8.

A landscaping/revegetation plan shall be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The landscaping plan shall include native vegetation as proposed by the applicant’s biologist.

9.

The project biologist shall conduct appropriately timed surveys (April-May) to identify habitat and plant populations and mark their locations if found. Project related activities should avoid removal of these plants and applicable buffer zones shall be established and marked by the biologist.

10.

All construction shall be scheduled to avoid the breeding season as identified by the biologist, particularly if special-status species are discovered breeding on the site. Visitation to the site or a particular area on the site shall be restricted, if special-status species are discovered breeding or otherwise using the property, as confirmed by the biologist.

11.

The biologist shall conduct appropriately timed surveys prior to construction to determine the location of any sensitive plant species. Their removal shall be avoided and buffer zones shall be established. In order to minimize disturbance to native vegetation, and to minimize the footprint of construction in native plant areas and stake trail location, review with the botanist/biologist is required. Said review may require revision of the plans to avoid impacts. To minimize disturbance to wildlife, the applicant shall schedule construction activities to avoid breeding seasons and shall restrict public visitation if special-status wildlife is breeding. To minimize degradation of marine habitats, the applicant shall implement Best Management Practices erosion control and minimize noise and construction impacts on marine wildlife.

12.

The applicant shall execute a recordable agreement with the County that all prime and agricultural land and other land suitable for agriculture which is not needed for recreational development or for the protection and vital functioning of a sensitive habitat will be permanently protected for agriculture.

13.

When legally feasible, the applicant shall agree to lease the maximum amount of agricultural land to active farm operators on terms compatible with the primary recreational and habitat use.

14.

The applicant shall work with the State Department of Fish and Game and State Water Quality Board to determine appropriate mitigation measures and obtain a letter from these State agencies confirming the State’s satisfaction of appropriate mitigation measure. This letter shall be submitted to the Planning Division.

15.

The applicant, POST, shall arrange and coordinate a meeting(s) for the purpose of developing an agreement among interested parties to reduce potential conflicts between public access and adjacent agricultural operations for the subject parcel(s) and future trail development. POST shall invite the following organizations and interested parties to the meeting: San Mateo County (SMC) Planning and Building Division, SMC County Counsel, SMC Parks and Recreation, SMC Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures, SMC Agricultural Advisory Committee, SMC Farm Bureau, Committee for Green Foothills, State of California, and any other interested parties requested by the Planning Administrator. Prior to the final building permit inspection AND opening of the subject trails/kiosk project, the applicant, POST, and SMC Planning and Building Division shall report to the Planning Commission the results of the meeting(s).

16.

The owner shall comply with all disability access requirements deemed applicable by the Building Inspection Section prior to issuance of a building permit.

Building Inspection Section

17.

The applicant shall apply for a building permit for the observation deck and the kiosk.

Department of Public Works

18.

Erosion and sediment control during the course of work shall be according to a plan prepared and signed by the Engineer of record, and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Division. Revisions to the approved erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared and signed by the Engineer.

19.

It shall be the responsibility of the applicant’s engineer to regularly inspect the erosion control measures and determine that they are functioning as designed and that proper maintenance is being performed. Deficiencies shall be immediately corrected.

20.

No construction work shall commence until a schedule of all construction operations has been submitted to and reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Division. The submitted schedule shall include a schedule for winterizing the site. If the schedule of work is to be completed in one construction season, then the winterizing plan shall be considered a contingent plan to be implemented if work falls behind schedule. The applicant shall submit monthly updates of the schedule to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Division. All submitted schedules shall represent the work in detail and shall project the construction operations through completion.

21.

Should construction work within the County right-of-way of Pigeon Point Road be necessary, it shall not begin until Public Works requirements for the issuance of an encroachment permit, including review of applicable plans, have been met and an encroachment permit issued by the Department of Public Works.