COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Planning and Building Department

DATE:

November 15, 2010

BOARD MEETING DATE:

November 30, 2010

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

10 days, within 500 feet

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Jim Eggemeyer, Community Development Director

SUBJECT:

Public Hearing to consider: (1) certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, (2) adoption of ordinances for a Zoning Text and Map Amendment, pursuant to Section 6550 of the County Zoning Regulations, to rezone the subject parcel from RM (Resource Management) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), (3) a Lot Line Adjustment, pursuant to Section 7127 of the County Subdivision Ordinance and the State Subdivision Map Act, and (4) a Street Name Assignment for the Clos de la Tech Winery, located at 19775 Skyline Boulevard, in the unincorporated South Skyline area of San Mateo County.

County File Number: PLN 2001-00534 (Rodgers)

RECOMMENDATION:

1.

Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and approve the proposed Zoning Text and Map Amendments, Lot Line Adjustment, Street Name Assignment, County File Number PLN 2001-00534, by adopting the required findings and conditions of approval as contained in Attachment A.

2.

Adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of Division VI of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code (Zoning Annex) to revise the Zoning Maps, Appendix A, to add the Planned Unit Development No. 135 (PUD-135) District Regulations, affecting one property in the unincorporated La Honda area.

3.

Adopt an ordinance amending Division VI of the San Mateo County Ordinance Code (Zoning Annex) to revise the Zoning Text, Appendix A (Planned Unit Developments) to enact the Planned Unit Development No. 135 (PUD-135) Zoning District Regulations on an approximately 166-acre agricultural property located at 19775 Skyline Boulevard, in the unincorporated La Honda area.

BACKGROUND:

Proposal: The applicant is proposing to develop a winery (Clos de la Tech) on a portion of his 165.68-acre parcel, located in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, northeast of the Town of La Honda (see Attachment C). Most of the winery facilities would be constructed underground, within three existing excavated “caves” (see Attachment D). These facilities include winery operations (fermentation, barrel storage, and bottling), winery offices, and living quarters for up to six people (see Attachments E and F). Additional surface facilities include a two-story service building, storage shed, and water tanks (see Attachment G). The service building would include habitable space to provide temporary housing for up to 15 laborers during harvest. The proposed project would increase the number of vines planted on the project site from the current 25.43 acres to a total of approximately 62 acres, and extend the existing, on-site road to access the additional plantings.

The project is composed of three components: (1) a proposed Zoning Text and Map Amendment to change the present zoning of the site from “Resource Management” (RM) to “Planned Unit Development” (PUD), (2) a Lot Line Adjustment between the subject parcel and the parcel directly to the east, and (3) a Street Name Assignment to name the project parcel’s access road to “Clos de la Tech Trail.”

The proposed PUD zoning designation is composed of physical attributes (buildings, roads, etc.), operational components (hours of operation, number of employees on-site, etc.), and preservation and enhancement components (protection for sensitive habitat and purple needlegrass grassland restoration). The physical attributes were discussed above. The operational characteristics of the proposed PUD zoning district will include:

1.

Annual bottling limit of 13,000 cases per year;

2.

Prohibition of a public tasting or retail sales room;

3.

Prohibition of public commercial events (i.e. – weddings, birthday parties, etc.); and

4.

Prohibition of public winery tours.

The preservation and enhancement component of the PUD zoning district will include:

1.

Delineation of 80 acres of on-site areas of grassland, woodland and creek corridors, located outside of the footprint of the winery and associated vineyard development, that shall be preserved in their current undeveloped condition as habitat (“Protected Potential Habitat Area”).

2.

This component also prohibits a number of activities within the Protected Habitat Area including:

•

Unseasonable watering; use of fertilizers, pesticides, biocides, herbicides or other agricultural chemicals; weed abatement activities; and incompatible fire protection activities.

•

Use of off-road vehicles and use of any other motorized vehicles except on existing roadways.

•

Agricultural activity of any kind.

•

Any legal or de facto division, subdivision or partitioning of the Protected Habitat Area except for the purposes of environmental preservation.

•

Depositing or accumulation of soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio-solids or any other materials.

•

Altering the surface or general topography of the Protected Habitat Area, including, but not limited to, any alterations to habitat, building roads or trails, paving or otherwise covering the Protected Habitat Area with concrete, asphalt or any other impervious material.

•

Removing, destroying, or cutting of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, except as required by law for (a) fire breaks, (b) maintenance of existing foot trails or roads, or (c) prevention or treatment of disease.

•

Impounding or altering any natural watercourse, body of water or water circulation on the Protected Habitat Area, and any activities or uses detrimental to water quality, including but not limited to degradation or pollution of any surface or sub-surface waters.

3.

Implementation of a 5-acre purple needlegrass restoration project within a portion of the Protected Habitat Area, subject to quantified restoration goals, performance standards, and reporting requirements.

The second component of the project is a lot line adjustment between the subject parcel (078-230-010) and the parcel directly to the east (078-230-060). This adjustment will involve the exchange of approximately 23 acres of land between the two parcels as shown on Attachment H. The area of land to be transferred from the subject parcel is within the watershed of Woodhams Creek and overlooks a spring (Tunnel Spring) that feeds the creek. Woodhams Creek, specifically Tunnel Spring, is the primary water source for the town of La Honda. The applicant had originally proposed to drill a well within this area and plant grapes on the south facing slopes overlooking the creek. With the exchange of land, planting is no longer proposed within the Woodhams Creek Watershed. The planting of vineyard rows would occur only in the adjacent Langley Creek Watershed.

The third component of this project is the assignment of a new street name to the project access road. This road extends from Langley Hill Road to the entrance of the proposed winery caves. The applicant has proposed calling this road Clos de la Tech Trail. The naming of this private road is required by Cal-Fire as a condition of approval in association with the larger project.

Planning Commission Action: On November 10, 2010, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve this project. The Commission supported the project with a modification to Section 8 of the proposed PUD ordinance.

Report Prepared By: Michael Schaller, Senior Planner, Telephone 650/363-1849

Applicants/Owners: T. J. Rodgers (Zoning Amendments and Street Name Assignment)

T. J. Rodgers and Willard Wyman (Lot Line Adjustment)

Location: 19775 Skyline Boulevard, La Honda

APNs: 078-230-010 and -060

Size: 166 acres (Rodgers); 40.12 acres (Wyman)

Existing Zoning: RM (Resource Management)

General Plan Designation: General Open Space

Sphere-of-Influence: None

Existing Land Use: The proposed 62-acre vineyard is being planted on grasslands in a phased schedule, with approximately 25 acres already planted as allowed in the RM zoning district (Section 6315.a). To maintain slope stability, the vineyards have been planted without invasive tilling or plowing. A small auger hole is drilled to plant the grapevines, and the cover crop is never tilled. The vineyard uses erosion control practices that include cover crops, silt fences, straw bale dikes, and silt basins, along with an annual self-monitoring program. The grapes are classified as deficit-irrigated, meaning that during the growing season, the plants are routinely monitored and only irrigated when deemed necessary, based on measurements of leaf water potential, to minimize water usage. The total number of leaves per plant is manually adjusted to minimize the plant’s water and nutrient demand. With two drip irrigation lines for each planted row, plants can be watered by row or individually, if needed.

Three parallel caves, each approximately 300 feet long and 25 feet wide, are located beneath the ridge top on the northern portion of the parcel. The cave heights vary from 17 to 23 feet. The caves were constructed under a grading permit (PLN 2001-00786), which was approved by the Planning Commission on March 13, 2002. Two building permits (BLD 2002-01603 and BLD 2002-01697) were issued on February 13, 2003 for the retaining walls located outside and to the west of the caves. The caves have been engineered into the bedrock with steel and reinforced concrete. The finish of the cave ceilings, walls and portals is designed to appear as natural rock outcroppings (similar to the retaining walls on Highway 92). Some winery equipment is stored inside the caves. Spoils from the cave excavations were used as fill material in a hollow on the eastern edge of the site near the main entrance and compacted to create a level building pad. This pad has been reverse sloped slightly to collect runoff in the storm drain lines. A

gravel road from the main gate circles the ridge; a secondary four-wheel drive track extends along the bottom of the vineyard and to the engineered pad.

Currently, vineyard staff utilizes a temporary mobile office near the main gate off Langley Hill Road. Two metal truck-type containers for storage, a small shed for the well pump and supplies, and portable toilets for vineyard operations and maintenance are also located in this area. There is currently parking in this area for approximately 8 to 10 vehicles on a gravel surface. In addition, there is a diesel above-ground storage tank for fueling the vineyard maintenance vehicles. Current operations at the site include planting, tending, and harvesting grapes. Vineyard staff is comprised of the foreman, 10 to 12 employees, and approximately 10 seasonal laborers. Operations on the steep slopes are facilitated by use of a specially designed tractor-like vehicle known as the “Slope Management System – TJ” (SMS-TJ), which uses a cable to pull the farming equipment up or down hill. Because the engine for this vehicle stays at the top of the slope, the tractor itself is lightweight and primarily runs on cables. This is done so the machinery does not disturb the cover crop or compact the soil. Grapes are currently trucked to an off-site facility for wine making.

Water Supply: Two wells on-site

Sewage Disposal: Septic system

Flood Zone: Zone C (Area of Minimal Flooding); Community Panel No. 060311-0334; effective date July 5, 1984.

Environmental Evaluation: A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project. The 45-day public review and comment period was between September 7 and October 22, 2010. Comments were received which were addressed by the environmental consultant and staff and incorporated into a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which was published on October 29, 2010.

Setting: The 165.68-acre site is located on the slopes of two east-west trending ridges and is currently used for viticulture. The north-facing slopes are covered with scrub and trees, while the south-facing slopes are covered with wild grasses and cultivated grapevines. Approximately 25 acres of the proposed 62-acre vineyard have already been planted. Access to the project site (which is surrounded by a fence) is currently available through a gated road off of Langley Hill Road, on the eastern border of the project site. The vineyard office is located in a trailer near the main gate. This area also contains two metal storage containers, a small shed for a well pump and supplies, a diesel storage tank, water storage well, and portable toilets for use by vineyard operations and maintenance staff. There is a parking lot that can accommodate 8 to 10 vehicles. A level, graded pad and site access roads also exist on the project site. The access roads, which total approximately 9,000 linear feet, are graded and unpaved, and provide access to the vineyard blocks and associated facilities.

Three parallel caves, each approximately 300 feet long and 25 feet wide, are located beneath the ridge top on the northern portion of the property. The entrances to the caves are fenced and the caves are empty and unused, with the exception of occasional materials or equipment storage. A water supply well is located adjacent to the caves.

The project site is surrounded by very low-density rural residential uses. Nearby properties include several single-family residential dwellings, the closest being approximately 1,200 feet to the north of the cave entrances. Additional residential uses exist in the community of La Honda, which supports approximately 2,000 residents and is located about one mile southwest of the project site.

Other uses in the area include a quarry operation (Langley Hill Quarry) and a native plant nursery (Yerba Buena Native Plant Nursery), both located approximately one to two miles northeast of the project site on Langley Hill Road. A mix of rural residences and open space lands are found throughout the San Gregorio Watershed both west and north of the project site. Across Skyline Boulevard in Portola Valley is the 325-acre Thomas Fogarty Winery estate. The majority of parcels located in the vicinity of the project site vicinity carry the General Open Space land use designation.

DISCUSSION:

A.

KEY ISSUES

1.

Compliance with County General Plan

The project, as proposed and conditioned, conforms to the applicable General Plan policies, as discussed below.

Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources

Policy 1.20 (Importance of Sensitive Habitats) – Consider areas designated as sensitive habitat as a priority resource requiring protection.

As identified in the DEIR, the project will result in the loss of 1.4 acres of high density and 12.8 acres of low-density purple needlegrass grassland, which is considered a sensitive natural community by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). As part of the project, grapevines would be drill-planted, and although some individual purple needlegrass plants would be expected to survive within the proposed vineyard areas, the conversion of these areas to vineyards would fragment and disturb the habitat and reduce the viability of this population over time. To mitigate this impact, the applicant is proposing to establish a purple needlegrass restoration site in the southeastern portion of the project parcel. This mitigation measure (BIO-1a) has been included as a Condition of Approval in Attachment A, and modified from the text proposed in the DEIR with the underlined language:

Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the winery building permits, the project sponsor shall submit a restoration plan for restore 5 acres of purple needlegrass grassland within the Protected Habitat Area. The purple needlegrass grassland acreage shall be of high-density, meeting at least 20 percent coverage. Said plan shall include a timetable and adhere to the following: The project sponsor shall:

•

Ensure that transplanting, planting, and seeding includes local, native purple needlegrass at densities that are appropriate for the site and recommended by a qualified biologist. The sources of plugs and seeds shall be from on-site or another local source to maintain the genetic integrity of the on-site population.

•

For the first five years of the restoration efforts, provide an annual report to the County, to be prepared by a qualified biologist or botanist, documenting how the restoration is meeting the coverage criteria.

•

Provide funding assurances acceptable to the County that will be sufficient to guarantee successful performance of the restoration and monitoring.

With inclusion of this condition, the project complies with Policy 1.20.

Policy 1.22 (Regulate Development to Protect Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources) – Regulate land uses and development activities to prevent, and if infeasible mitigate to the extent possible, significant adverse impacts on vegetative, water, fish and wildlife resources.

As identified in the DEIR, absent mitigation there is a risk that the project could contribute to increased sediment loads in the surface runoff from the vineyard blocks directly into Langley Creek and areas downstream. Steelhead occurs in the San Gregorio Watershed, which includes Langley Creek. To mitigate against this potential impact, the DEIR recommends limiting development of the vineyard blocks to the dry season (April 15 through October 15) and implement the mitigation measures outlined under Hydro Section HYD-1. Those measures include the preparation of a Master Drainage Plan, continued implementation of erosion control BMPs, and the continued implementation of Fish Friendly Farming Practices currently implemented on the site. Staff believes that with inclusion of these conditions, the project complies with Policy 1.22.

Policy 1.23 (Regulate Location, Density and Design of Development to Protect Vegetative, Water, Fish and Wildlife Resources) – Regulate the location, density and design of development to minimize significant adverse impacts and encourage enhancement of vegetative, water, fish and wildlife resources.

The project, with the roadway improvements currently proposed, could result in temporary and permanent impacts to five features that are subject to Corps, RWQCB and CDFG jurisdiction: Seep A, Seep B, Drainage B, Drainage C, and Drainage F. To mitigate against this potential impact, the DEIR proposes the following measure:

Mitigation Measure BIO-7: The existing jurisdictional features shall be avoided. The final project plans shall reflect preservation of the seeps and total avoidance of Corps jurisdictional areas by project roadway improvements.

With inclusion of this measure, the project complies with Policy 1.23.

Soil Resources

Policy 2.17 (Regulate Development to Minimize Soil Erosion and Sedimentation) – Regulate development to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation; including, but not limited to, measures which consider the effects of slope, minimize removal of vegetative cover, ensure stabilization of disturbed areas and protect and enhance natural plant communities and nesting and feeding areas of fish and wildlife.

As discussed in the DEIR, erosive forces naturally occur on the vineyard blocks, areas of exposed soil, and the gravel access roads. When conducting field reconnaissance for the DEIR, LSA Associates did not see any evidence of excessive sediment accumulation at the base of the existing vineyard blocks (i.e. – at the bottom of the project ridge). This would indicate that current erosion control BMPs and vineyard management practices have been successful in minimizing erosion and sediment transportation from these areas. The applicant is proposing to continue use of the same BMPs and practices on the new vineyard blocks.

LSA Associates found that the most significant erosion occurs from the access roads that are on the upper part of the ridge and those that are graded into the slopes. During dry periods, vehicle use accelerates soil erosion along the road. In some locations, stormwater and sediment is washed into a series of drop inlets, located along the side of the road, and is then conveyed by pipe to a sediment detention and settlement basin. The project proposal would extend the road network on the project parcel. This construction, plus the increased use of said roads, could result in significant erosion to occur. However, the DEIR proposes the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1a, HYD-1b, HYD-1c, and HYD-1d, which will reduce the potential for substantial erosion to a less than significant level.

With inclusion of these measures, the project complies with Policy 2.17.

Visual Quality

Policy 4.27 (Ridgelines and Skyline) –

a.

Discourage structures on open ridgelines and skylines, when seen as part of a public view in order to preserve visual integrity.

b.

Allow structures on open ridgelines and skylines as part of a public view when no alternative building site exists.

The applicant is proposing to construct the winery facilities within the existing caves, which are set below the top of the ridgeline that they sit in. The portions of the winery facilities that protrude from the caves will not project above the ridgeline, but will be viewed against the backdrop of the ridge with its vineyards. The front of the caves will utilize a colored stone treatment, similar to the Highway 92 retaining walls. This use of materials is compatible with the surrounding vegetation and soil. The proposed maintenance building will also be below the top of the ridgeline that dominates the project site. However, since it is not buried into the hillside (like the caves), it will be more visible. The visibility of the maintenance building should be limited from Highway 84 and La Honda School due to distance and intervening topography. To further reduce the visibility of this building, staff is proposing a condition of approval that requires this building to be constructed of natural materials and painted with earth-tone colors. Further, staff is recommending that the applicant submit a landscaping plan for this building which includes the planting of several trees on the west side of the building.

Rural Land Use Policies

Policy 9.27 (Definition of Agricultural Activities) – Define agricultural activities as feasible activities, including but not limited to the cultivation of land to produce food, fiber, fuel, and flowers, the grazing, growing, or pasturing of livestock, and the handling, processing or marketing of agricultural products.

The project involves the cultivation of land to produce grapes and the processing of those grapes into wine, which is by definition an agricultural product. The project parcel is designated as General Open Space on the General Plan’s Land Use Map. Agriculture is a designated of right use of land within the General Open Space category.

Policy 9.28 (Encourage Existing and Potential Agricultural Activities) –

a.

Encourage the continuance of existing agricultural and agriculturally related activities.

b.

Encourage agricultural activities on soils with agricultural capability which are currently not in production.

The project parcel was once used for grazing, similar to surrounding agricultural parcels. The current and proposed vineyards directly support this policy.

Water Supply Policies

Policy 10.25 (Efficient Water Use) –

a.

Encourage the efficient use of water supplies through effective conservation methods.

d.

Encourage water conservation for agricultural uses by using efficient irrigation practices.

The applicant uses a non-traditional dual drip irrigation system and a deficit-irrigation regime to minimize water usage. During the growing season, the plants are routinely monitored and only irrigated when necessary, based on measurements of leaf water potential. The total number of leaves per plant is manually adjusted to minimize the plant’s water and nutrient demand. As shown in Table III.B-3 of the DEIR, average water consumption for vineyard irrigation has been highly variable, depending upon weather conditions and the number of recently planted vines (young vines require more water until they become established), but the 8-year average has been 0.148 acre-feet of water per acre of vineyard, per year. By comparison, vineyards in Napa and Sonoma Counties typically use 0.4-0.5 acre-feet of water per acre of vineyard, per year. Napa County, in its “estimated water use guidelines,” estimates that a single-family residence uses 0.5-0.75 acre-feet of water, per year. The project complies with this General Plan policy.

Natural Hazards Policies

Policy 15.20 (Review Criteria for Locating Development in Geotechnical Hazard Areas) – Avoid the siting of structures in areas where they are jeopardized by geotechnical hazards, where their location could potentially increase the geotechnical hazard, or where they could increase the geotechnical hazard to neighboring properties.

This policy applies to structures such as barns or houses – structures that would be occupied by humans for some portion of time. Moreover, in the case of an earthquake or some other geotechnical failure, the collapse of these structures could injure occupants and/or cause significant damage to adjacent lands or structures due to their failure. Vineyards, as an allowed use that does not utilize habitable structures, do not fall into this category.

Policy 15.28 (Review Criteria for Locating Development in Fire Hazard Areas) – When development is proposed in hazardous fire areas, require that it be reviewed by the County Fire Warden to ensure that building materials, access, vegetative clearance from structures, fire flows and water supplies are adequate for fire protection purposes and in conformance to the fire policies of the General Plan.

This policy requires development proposed in hazardous fire areas be reviewed by the County Fire Warden to ensure that building materials, access, vegetative clearance from structures, fire flows and water supplies are adequate for fire protection purposes and in conformance to the fire policies of the General Plan. The proposed project has been reviewed by County Fire on several occasions. Each time, County Fire has stated that the project, as conditioned, meets their requirements for high fire hazard areas.

2.

Compliance with County Zoning Regulations

The project site is located in the Resource Management (RM) zoning district. The applicant is proposing to rezone the project parcel to Planned Unit Development (PUD). One of the required findings for the rezoning is that the project must be in harmony with the zoning in adjoining areas. To provide evidence to support this finding, staff has analyzed the project against the substantive criteria for an RM permit:

Permitted Uses

Wineries are an allowed use within the RM zoning district, subject to the issuance of a use permit. Under the existing zoning regulations, wineries are subject to the following limitations:

Wineries; provided that the annual storage capacity shall not exceed 10,000 gallons, the annual fermentation capacity shall not exceed 5,000 gallons, and the annual bottling shall not exceed 2,500 cases of wine; the only retail sales permitted will be those of wines produced on the premises.

In the Resource Management-Coastal Zone district, wineries are also allowed, subject to the issuance of a use permit. However, no capacity limits are stated. Any proposed winery is analyzed on a case-by-case basis. For this project, the applicant is proposing to increase the bottling limit to 13,000 cases per year. This level of bottling will take several years to achieve as the acres of vineyard come slowly on-line. While the proposed winery is larger than what is currently allowed in the RM zoning district, if approved, it would be smaller than the only other winery in the area (Thomas Fogerty Winery produces approximately 25,000 cases per year).

The applicant’s proposal to rezone would preclude all other uses currently allowed by the RM zoning. The only allowed uses on the parcel would be a winery, two residences, and support structures accessory to the agricultural use. The vineyards would continue to be allowed by right. In addition to restricting the allowed uses on the parcel, the applicant is proposing to prohibit public tours or tasting at the winery as well as all other commercial events, such as weddings, birthday parties, etc. Given the lack of parking on the site and the accessibility of Langley Hill Road, these restrictions seem practicable.

Maximum Height of Structures

In the RM district, no residential or commercial structure shall exceed three stories or 36 feet in height except as allowed by use permit. The only proposed above-ground structure is the service building/bunkhouse for seasonal workers. This building is proposed at two stories and approximately 28 feet.

Minimum Yards

Required

Winery

Service Building

Front:

50 feet

1,200 feet

1,200+ feet

Side:

20 feet

300 feet

400 feet

Rear:

20 feet

1,200+ feet

200 feet

Main and accessory buildings must be located at least thirty (30) feet apart. In this case, there is approximately 1,800 feet separating the winery cave entrances and the proposed location of the service building.

Development Review Criteria

The requirements of the RM zoning district necessitate a review of the proposal against criteria outlined in Chapter 20A.2 of the County Zoning Regulations. The primary criteria applicable to this project are: Environmental Quality, Site Design, Utilities and Water Resources. The project has been found to conform to these criteria as discussed below.

Environmental Quality Criteria

All developments should be designed and located to conserve energy resources, and thereby reduce the impacts of energy consumption on air, land, water, and living resources. Such efforts might include the clustering or location of development to reduce paving, grading, runoff, and driving times, and structural designs which maximize use of solar energy and reduce use of electricity and fossil fuels.

The applicant has designed this project to minimize electrical use as much as possible. The three caves are staggered at sloping elevations. This is to allow gravity feed of wine from one cave to the next lower cave. In addition, by placing the winery underground, the project reduces the need for artificial cooling to maintain optimum storage temperature within the winery facility.

Standards for emission of air pollutants must be met, for protection of crops, the natural environment, and public health.

There would be some dust impacts associated with construction of access roads on the project site. These are discussed in detail in Chapter H of the DEIR. To address these impacts, the DEIR recommends a number of construction practices (Mitigation Measure AIR-1) to be implemented by the applicant. These measures have been included in Attachment A. In addition, the DEIR identified the potential for the generation of particulate matter during composting operations. Again, measures have been recommended in the DEIR (Mitigation Measure AIR-2) and included in Attachment A of this report. With the inclusion of these measures, the project complies with the review criteria.

No use or development may introduce significant levels of noxious odors into the environment.

The DEIR identified the potential for objectionable odors generated by the composting operations. To mitigate this potential impact, the DEIR recommends the development and implementation of an Odor Impact Minimization Plan in accordance with the State Compostable Materials Handling Operations and Facilities Regulatory Requirements (Mitigation Measure AIR-3). This measure has been included in Attachment A.

Use and discharge of chemical agents, particularly including pesticides and heavy metals, which concentrate in the food chain and interrupt or destroy the primary biological network or threaten the survival of endangered species, shall be prohibited.

As discussed in Chapter G of the DEIR, pesticide use at the project site is regulated by existing Federal and State regulations which pre-empt local regulation of such substances. The County’s Agricultural Commissioner enforces these regulations.

Developments resulting in long-term noise levels, which may have a substantial detrimental effect on resources or the quality of the environment, shall be prohibited.

The DEIR acknowledges that there is the potential for a temporary, intermittent increase in ambient noise levels during construction of the winery facilities. To mitigate against this potential impact, Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 has been proposed by the EIR consultant. Staff has included this mitigation measure in Attachment A. With regard to the use of noise making devices to control bird foraging in the vineyards, the applicant has not suggested that they would use such devices. They are not currently used by the applicant. However, there is the possibility that at some point in the future, the winery operator could determine that such devices are necessary. The use of such devices would cause a dramatic and disruptive increase in ambient noise levels which would be considered a significant impact. To avoid such a situation, staff is proposing a condition of approval (Condition 5) which would prohibit the use of such devices.

Site Design Criteria

All roads, buildings and other structural improvements or land coverage shall be located, sited and designed to fit the natural topography and shall minimize grading and modification of existing landforms and natural characteristics.

As described in the DEIR, the individual grapevines are planted using an 18” diameter auger to minimize ground disturbance, rather than tilling or plowing or benching of the hillsides. The applicant is proposing to continue this planting scheme in the future planting areas. The proposed unpaved ranch roads will follow the contours of the ridge in order to avoid significant land disturbance.

All development shall be sited and designed to minimize the impacts of noise, light, glare and odors on adjacent properties and the community-at-large.

The project’s potential to create noise or odor impacts was discussed previously in this report and in the DEIR. With regard to light and glare, the project will introduce some minor sources of light to the project site. This would include security lighting around doorways at both the winery and the service building, similar to a typical residential building. As with any other residential building, steps must be taken to ensure that nighttime views are not significantly impacted. These include downward directing and shielding of external lights. These measures are incorporated in Mitigation Measure VIS-1.

The development shall employ colors and materials that blend in with, rather than contrast with, the surrounding soil and vegetative cover of the site. In grassland, or grassland/forest areas, all exterior materials shall be of the same earth and vegetative tones as the predominant colors of the site (as determined by on-site inspections). Highly reflective surfaces and colors are discouraged.

The applicant is proposing to dress the exterior facade of the wine caves with earth-tone colored, sculpted rock; similar to the treatment used on the Highway 92 improvement project. Staff is proposing a condition of approval (Condition 6), which requires the service building/bunkhouse to be constructed of natural materials and employ earth-tone colors as well.

Utilities Criteria

Suitability for septic tank installation or other treatment facility must be demonstrated where no sewer system exists.

The applicant has submitted percolation test data and preliminary septic system plans to the County Environmental Health Division. These have been reviewed and received preliminary approval. Prior to the issuance of a building or occupancy permit for winery facilities, the applicant will be required to pull a septic system permit from the Health Department.

Water Resources Criteria

Site preparation procedures and construction phasing shall be carefully controlled to reduce erosion and exposure of soils to the maximum extent possible.

and

Projects shall utilize methods to maintain surface water runoff at or near existing levels.

and

Projects shall clearly demonstrate methods to be employed for management of vegetative cover, surface water runoff, groundwater recharge, and erosion and sedimentation processes to assure stability of downstream aquatic environments.

Chapter B of the DEIR discusses at length the potential for erosion on the project site during construction activities, as well as long-term sedimentation resulting from daily activities in the vineyards. The DEIR also notes that the applicant currently implements a number of erosion control measures, including permanent cover crops, silt fencing and straw bale dikes, to minimize downslope sedimentation. To reduce potential long-term impacts to water quality due to sedimentation, the DEIR recommends three measures (HYD-1b, c, and d) which have been included as conditions of approval in Attachment A.

It shall be demonstrated that withdrawals from groundwater basins will not be in such quantity that a continued supply would be jeopardized or would result in saltwater intrusion.

Chapter B of the DEIR talks extensively about groundwater supply and demand. It is estimated, based upon past irrigation practices and estimates of domestic and winery water use, that the project would use an average of 7.7 acre-feet of water per year at buildout. The amount of recharge occurring within the Langley Creek Watershed varies from year to year depending upon rainfall. However, based on data set forth in the DEIR, natural recharge of the Langley Creek aquifer during even short periods of precipitation would far exceed the relatively modest groundwater withdrawals associated with the project. Both the applicant’s consultant (Shaw Environmental) and the County’s consultant (HydroFocus) reached this conclusion.

This conclusion was demonstrated by the data gathered on the project site during the period of February 28 to March 18, 2009, in which the downstream segment of Langley Creek near the project site (location DLLT) had a flow rate of 109 gpm. The total volume of stream flow during that period was equivalent to 0.69 inches of runoff over the 160-acre watershed upstream of DLLT. Data from the meteorological station on the project site recorded 4.48 inches of rain and 1.22 inches of evapotranspiration during the period. According to HydroFocus, rainfall that occurred prior to February 28 was likely sufficient to have replenished soil moisture, so the excess water (4.48 inches of rainfall – 1.22 inches of evapotranspiration – 0.69 inches of runoff = 3.24 inches) resulting from rainfall during this time period presumably accrued to groundwater storage which then drains to creeks and springs over longer periods of time. This increment of groundwater recharge over less than three weeks of combined precipitation events amounted to 43.2 acre-feet over the watershed in a 3-week period, which is five times greater than the average annual pumping at well DLLW-1 on the project site. Based upon this analysis, staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant impact upon groundwater resources within the Langley Creek Watershed.

PUD Findings

As stated at the beginning of this section, the applicant is proposing to rezone the project parcel from RM to PUD. Within each PUD district, specific conditions for the regulation of the use of the parcel shall be specified. The following findings must be made by the Planning Commission in order to approve this rezoning request:

a.

That this proposal is a desirable guide for the future growth of the subject area of the County.

As discussed previously, wineries are already an allowed use in both the RM and the RM-CZ zoning districts. While case limits are stipulated in the RM district, no such limits are included in the RM-CZ district. It is unclear why the specific limits were placed on wineries in the RM when this use was added to the zoning regulations. It does not appear to have been based upon any kind of functional analysis of constraints. The proposed project has been analyzed against the site and area constraints and all identified significant impacts can be mitigated. As an agricultural use, the project simply complies with the already established growth/use pattern adopted by the County over 50 years ago.

b.

That this proposal will not be detrimental to the character and the social and economic stability of the subject area and its environs, and will assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas.

As pointed out previously, the primary visual characteristic of the proposal are the vineyards, which, as agriculture, are an allowed use and consistent with the rural, agricultural nature of the area. San Mateo County already has several established vineyards within its boundaries, so the proposal is not introducing a new use to the County. There is no evidence to suggest that the social or economic stability of the area will be compromised. As pointed out previously, the winery will be closed to the public. No commercial or public events will be allowed at the winery.

c.

Will be in harmony with the zoning in adjoining unincorporated area.

As evidenced by the analysis above, the proposal would comply with all aspects of the RM zoning which will continue to be the zoning on adjoining parcels. The primary difference between the existing RM regulations and the proposed PUD regulations is the higher case limit that the applicant is proposing.

d.

Will obviate the menace to the public safety resulting from land uses proposed adjacent to highways in the County, and will not cause undue interference with existing or prospective traffic movements on said highways.

The project site is not adjacent to any highways, nor would the minor amount of traffic generated by the project cause undue conflicts with existing traffic on Skyline Boulevard (the nearest public road).

e.

Will provide adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to the subject property and further, that said property shall not be made subject to unusual or undue risk from fire, inundation, or other dangers.

The project parcel is over 160 acres in size. All development will be located over 100 feet from the nearest property line. Based upon the analysis of hazards contained within the DEIR, there is no reason to believe the project will be subject to undue risk from natural hazards.

f.

Will not result in overcrowding of the land or undue congestion of population.

The project parcel is over 160 acres in size, and the project proposes only two residential units and a bunkhouse for seasonal workers. There is no reason to believe that the proposed use will cause overcrowding on the project parcel or adjacent parcels.

3.

Compliance with Lot Line Adjustment Requirements

The proposed lot line adjustment has been analyzed against the criteria for review of lot line adjustments as set forth in Section 7126.1 of the County Subdivision Regulations. This section states that review of a lot line adjustment application shall be limited to a determination of whether or not the parcels resulting from the adjustment conform to County Zoning and Building Ordinances. Specifically, a lot line adjustment application shall be evaluated with regard to the following criteria:

a.

Conformity with Zoning and Building Regulations.

No non-conforming parcels will result from approval of this lot line adjustment. Both parcels will exceed the minimum parcel size of this zoning district after adjustment. The existing and proposed structures on Mr. Rodgers’ parcel will conform to the required setbacks of this zoning district. There are no structures on Mr. Wyman’s parcel.

b.

Suitability of building sites created by the lot line adjustment.

Both parcels will be over 40 acres in size after the adjustment. Both parcels will be of adequate size to accommodate potential building sites that meet minimum setback requirements. In the case of Mr. Rodgers’ parcel, no additional structures are proposed other than those previously discussed. Mr. Wyman has not submitted any plans or proposals to the County.

c.

Provision for adequate routine and emergency access.

The existing access improvements on the winery parcel have been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the County Fire Marshal. No applications for development of the Wyman parcel have been submitted to the County; however, there is no reason to believe that access could not be provided to the parcel in the future.

d.

Provision for adequate water supply and sewage disposal.

The winery parcel has two wells on it. The applicant has submitted an application for a septic permit from the County Environmental Health Division. The lot line adjustment will not affect either of the wells or the proposed septic system.

4.

Street Name Assignment

Cal-Fire determined that a new street name is required due to the length of the existing access road. The Planning and Building Department’s procedure for the review and notification of a street name assignment includes the following:

a.

Examination of maps to determine if there are similar or identical names within 5 to 10 miles that might be confused with the proposed street name.

There are no streets named “Clos de la Tech Trail,” or any similarly spelled or sounding roads, anywhere in San Mateo County.

b.

Notification of appropriate agencies of the proposed street name and public hearing.

Staff referred the proposed street name assignment, along with a copy of the Thomas Brothers map page, to all the affected agencies and organizations. No comments were received on the proposal.

c.

Public notification including:

Published legal notice at least ten days prior to the public hearing.

Legal notice was published in the San Mateo County Times as part of the notification for this project.

In addition to the procedural requirements described above and in order to approve the street name assignment, the Planning Commission must be able to find that “The proposed street naming of ‘Clos de la Tech Trail’ in the unincorporated Skyline Boulevard area would assist in the effective delivery of public services and would not be detrimental to the public welfare in the neighborhood.”

The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the street name because it will not be detrimental to the public welfare and will assist Cal-Fire and other emergency service providers in operating quickly and efficiently in the event of an emergency. The new street name and signage will improve emergency services in the area.

B.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

1.

Draft EIR Overview

A Draft EIR for this project was previously presented to the Planning Commission in August 2008. During the public review period for that document, numerous comments were received which challenged the adequacy of the Draft EIR, particularly with regard to potential groundwater impacts associated with the project and the adequacy of the cumulative impacts and growth-inducement analysis in relation to the then-proposed Countywide zoning text amendment.

In response to these comments, the applicant retained an environmental consultant to analyze the hydro-geologic issues raised during the comment period. The County agreed to this proposal with the clear understanding that the resulting technical report would be peer reviewed by the County’s EIR consultant prior to inclusion in a revised EIR. Additionally, the applicant proposed to withdraw their original Countywide zoning text amendment and replace it with a site-specific rezoning request.

The applicant submitted a technical report, prepared by Shaw Environmental Consulting, on September 16, 2009. At that time, the County’s contract with the previous EIR consultant had expired and a new consultant, LSA Associates, was selected by the County to peer review the applicant’s submittal and revise the Draft EIR.

In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the County prepared a new Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was circulated to local, State, and Federal agencies and other interested parties for 30 days, beginning February 8, 2010. The NOP provided a general description of the proposed winery project, a discussion of the proposed PUD zoning text and map amendment, and a preliminary list of potential environmental impacts.

The NOP identified six planning issues and possible environmental impacts of the proposed project:

•

Issue 1.

Hydrology, Groundwater and Water Quality

•

Issue 2.

Traffic and Circulation

•

Issue 3.

Implications of Proposed Zoning Text Amendments (i.e., site-specific, PUD amendment)

•

Issue 4.

Visual Quality Effects Related to the Aesthetics of the Project

•

Issue 5.

Noise Levels

•

Issue 6.

Air Quality Effects

The Draft EIR analyzes these six planning issues and possible environmental effects as well as those related to land use, plans and policies; geology, soils and geo-hazards; biological resources; traffic, circulation and parking; hazards and hazardous materials; public services and utilities; cultural resources; and global climate change.

The revised Draft EIR (DEIR) was published on September 7, 2010, with a 45-day comment period, which ended on October 22, 2010. The DEIR was distributed to local, State and Federal responsible and trustee agencies. The general public was advised of the availability of the DEIR through public notice in the San Mateo Times, by direct mail to the registered property owners within and around the town of La Honda, and by e-mail to those persons who had previously e-mailed staff on this project. During the 45-day review period, the Planning Commission held one public hearing to take testimony on the DEIR.

As required by CEQA, the DEIR also discusses the Significant Irreversible Effects of the project, and the Growth-Inducing and Cumulative Impacts of the Winery and the proposed Zoning Amendment. The DEIR also analyzes three alternatives to the project:

a.

No Project (No winery, zoning amendment, or lot line adjustment. No residences or service building/bunkhouse. Planting of vineyards and the drilling of a well could occur in the Woodhams Creek Watershed, as originally proposed).

b.

Reduced Production (County would not approve PUD zoning amendment, but would approve a use permit to allow a winery with production limit of 2,500 cases. Proposed lot line adjustment would be approved. Residential uses and service building/bunkhouse would be constructed).

c.

Relocated Vineyard/No Winery (Lot line adjustment approved, but no winery allowed. Residential uses and service building/bunkhouse would be constructed).

From an impact avoidance perspective, the DEIR identifies the Relocated Vineyard/No Winery alternative as the environmentally superior alternative because it would reduce impacts to the Woodhams Creek Watershed and would reduce wine-making activity on the site (resulting in slight reductions in on-site emissions and water use). However, this alternative would incrementally increase truck trips along local roadways because grapes harvested on the site would need to be transported off-site for processing (although truck traffic associated with the off-site transport of processed wine would be eliminated).

However, in the context of overall environmental impacts, the DEIR has concluded that the proposed project is environmentally sound compared to all other project alternatives. This conclusion is based in part on the project’s avoidance of agricultural activities within the Woodhams Creek Watershed (and therefore avoidance of potential water supply impacts affecting the La Honda community). Avoidance of water quality supply impacts to the La Honda community would not occur under the No Project alternative. While the Relocated Vineyard/No Winery Alternative also avoids the Woodhams Creek Watershed, the lack of a winery means that on-site vineyard grape production must be trucked off-site to other locations, producing adverse noise and traffic effects (although the transport of processed wine off-site would be eliminated under this alternative). Establishing a winery on the project site would allow for agricultural production and wine production to occur in the same area, reducing the need to transport grapes off-site for processing, and achieving all project objectives.

2.

Key Issues/Significant Impacts Identified in the Draft EIR

The DEIR provides a table summarizing the project’s environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures on pages 6 to 23. The table identifies each significant impact, recommended mitigation measures, and its level of significance after mitigation. The recommended mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval in Attachment A. Key issues discussed in the DEIR include the potential for increased soil erosion and runoff, and potential impacts to biological resources, amongst others.

3.

Overview of the Final EIR

The environmental consultant prepared a Response to Comments document as an addendum to the Draft EIR. The DEIR identifies the likely environmental effects of the project, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts. The Response to Comments document responds to comments on the DEIR and proposes revisions to the DEIR as necessary in response to these comments or to clarify any previous errors or omissions. The Response to Comments document, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for this project if certified by the Board of Supervisors as complete and adequate under CEQA.

The Response to Comments document contains the following components:

a.

An introduction describing the purpose of the document, the environmental review process, and the document organization.

b.

A list of commenting agencies, organizations and persons.

c.

Copies of comment letters, summaries of oral comments received, and responses to each.

d.

Draft EIR text revisions to clarify any errors, omissions or misinterpretations.

4.

Key Components of the Final EIR

As mentioned above, the 45-day CEQA-mandated comment period ran from September 7 to October 22, 2010. Twenty (20) letters/e-mails were received by the County and 29 oral comments were made at the October 13, 2010 Planning Commission hearing. The majority of the comments were related to:

•

Groundwater adequacy and potential impacts on surface water flows in area creeks and groundwater flows from area springs, and their impact upon Woodhams Creek.

•

Visual impacts of the project.

•

Erosion and slope stability due to planting of vineyards on steep slopes.

•

The appropriateness of using PUD rezoning of the parcel versus a Countywide zoning text amendment.

In order for the Board of Supervisors to certify the Final EIR, the following findings must be made (supporting language follows each finding):

a.

The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

As discussed under Section 6 (Procedural History) in Attachment B (CEQA Findings of Fact for the Clos de la Tech Winery EIR), a Notice of Preparation for this EIR was distributed by the County, followed by the preparation of a Draft EIR. The 45-day public review period for this Draft EIR was September 7 through October 22, 2010. A Response to Comments Document (which, together with the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR) was released and distributed to public agencies and other commenters on the Draft EIR, and for public review, on October 29, 2010, more than 10 days in advance of the scheduled date of certification. The County Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 10, 2010, to consider the Draft and Final EIR and Project Approvals and issued a recommendation concerning the project to the Board.

b.

The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to deciding on the project; and

The Final EIR was presented to the Board at the November 30, 2010 hearing, at which time the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and supporting documentation. The Board has determined that the Findings contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project. The Board finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and that the Board complied with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements.

c.

The Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

The Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the County’s independent judgment. The County has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report as well as reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant.

In addition to the above findings to certify the EIR, if an EIR identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the Lead Agency must adopt findings of fact for each impact (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091[a]). For each significant impact, the Lead Agency must make one of the following findings:

•

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.

•

Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

•

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR.

Each finding must be accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for the finding. In addition, the Lead Agency must adopt, in conjunction with the findings, a program for reporting or monitoring the changes that it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen impacts (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091[d]). These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. This program is referred to as the Mitigation Monitoring Report and Program (MMRP).

Included as Attachment B of this report is the “CEQA Findings of Fact” document for this project. This document contains a brief overview of the project and a discussion of those impacts determined to be significant. The proposed mitigation measures for each impact are discussed as well as the required finding for each impact, as discussed above. In addition, Attachment I of this report contains the MMRP as required by the Guidelines. Together, these two documents fulfill the requirements of Section 15091.

The Planning Commission and staff have concluded that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed winery project and zoning amendments. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the Board of Supervisors: (a) make the findings listed above and certify the Environmental Impact Report, and (b) make the findings adopting the “CEQA Findings of Fact” document and the Mitigation Monitoring Report and Program in accordance with Section 15091 of the Public Resources Code (CEQA Guidelines).

C.

REVIEWING AGENCIES

Department of Public Works

Building Inspection Section

County Counsel

County Fire Marshal

Environmental Health Division

California State Resources Agency

Department of Conservation

Department of Fish and Game, Region 3

Department of Parks and Recreation

Department of Water Resources

California Highway Patrol

CalTrans, District 4

State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality

State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights

Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2

Native American Heritage Commission

State Lands Commission

County Counsel has reviewed and approved the proposed materials as to form and content.

The approval of the rezoning of the subject parcel from RM to PUD contributes to the 2025 Shared Vision outcome of a Livable Community by facilitating agricultural development of an underutilized parcel and helping to preserve the agricultural and open space nature of the project area.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Nominal cost to the Planning and Building Department to monitor compliance with conditions of approval for this project.

ATTACHMENTS:

A.

Recommended Findings and Conditions of Approval

B.

CEQA Findings of Fact for the Clos de la Tech Winery EIR

C.

Project Site Location and Regional Vicinity

D.

Proposed Project Components

E.

Proposed Winery Layout

F.

Proposed Winery Exterior Drawing

G.

Proposed Service Building Elevations and Floor Plan

H.

Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Plan

I.

Mitigation Monitoring Plan

Attachment A

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Permit File Number: PLN 2001-00534

Board Meeting Date: November 30, 2010

Prepared By: Michael Schaller, Senior Planner

For Adoption By: Board of Supervisors

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:

1.

Regarding the Environmental Review

To Certify the Final EIR, Find:

a.

The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

As discussed under Section 6 (Procedural History) in Attachment B (CEQA Findings of Fact for the Clos de la Tech Winery EIR), a Notice of Preparation for this EIR was distributed by the County, followed by the preparation of a Draft EIR. The 45-day public review period for this Draft EIR was September 7 through October 22, 2010. A Response to Comments Document (which, together with the Draft EIR constitute the Final EIR) was released and distributed to public agencies and other commenters on the Draft EIR, and for public review, on October 29, 2010, more than 10 days in advance of the scheduled date of certification. The County Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 10, 2010, to consider the Draft and Final EIR and Project Approvals and issued a recommendation concerning the project to the Board.

b.

The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to deciding on the project; and

The Final EIR was presented to the Board at the November 30, 2010 hearing, at which time the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and supporting documentation. The Board has determined that the Findings contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project. The Board finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and that the Board complied with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements.

c.

The Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

The Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the County’s independent judgment. The County has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Report as well as reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant.

Regarding Significant Impacts, Find:

That the Board of Supervisors has considered the “CEQA Findings of Fact” document included as Attachment B of this report and approved the conclusion that no significant impact will occur because changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the FEIR.

Regarding the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Find:

That, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Board hereby adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, included as Attachment I of this report. In the event of inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

2.

Regarding the Planned Unit Development Zoning Amendment, Find:

That the proposed zoning of the area would be in harmony with existing zoning in the area, and would not be in conflict with the County Master Plan (i.e., 1986 General Plan), or with any current land use plan for a sub area of the County previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and that the specific PUD District under consideration:

a.

Is a desirable guide for the future growth of the subject area of the County.

Wineries are an allowed use in both the RM and the RM-CZ zoning districts. While case limits are stipulated in the RM district, no such limits are included in the RM-CZ district. The proposed project has been analyzed against the site and area constraints and all identified significant impacts can be mitigated. As an agricultural use, the project simply complies with the already established growth/use pattern adopted by the County over 50 years ago.

b.

Will not be detrimental to the character, social and economic stability of the subject area and its environs, and will assure the orderly and beneficial development of such areas.

The primary visual characteristics of the proposal are the vineyards, which, as agriculture, are an allowed use and consistent with the rural, agricultural nature of the area. San Mateo County already has several established vineyards within its boundaries. The proposal is not introducing a new use to the County. There is no evidence to suggest that the social or economic stability of the area will be compromised. The winery will be closed to the public. No commercial or public events will be allowed at the winery.

c.

Will be in harmony with the zoning in adjoining unincorporated areas.

Staff has determined that the proposal would comply with all aspects of the RM zoning which will continue to be the zoning on adjoining parcels. The primary difference between the existing RM regulations and the proposed PUD regulations is the higher case limit that the applicant is proposing.

d.

Will obviate the menace to the public safety resulting from land uses proposed adjacent to highways in the County, and will not cause undue interference with existing or prospective traffic movements on said highways.

The project site is not adjacent to any highways, nor would the minor amount of traffic generated by the project cause undue conflicts with existing traffic on Skyline Boulevard (the nearest public road).

e.

Will provide adequate light, air, privacy and convenience of access to the subject property and further, that said property shall not be made subject to unusual or undue risk from fire, inundation, or other dangers.

The project parcel is over 160 acres in size. All development will be located over 100 feet from the nearest property line. Based upon the analysis of hazards contained within the DEIR, there is no reason to believe the project will be subject to undue risk from natural hazards.

f.

Will not result in overcrowding of the land or undue congestion of population.

The project parcel is over 160 acres in size, and the project proposes only two residential units and a bunkhouse for seasonal workers. There is no reason to believe that the proposed use will cause overcrowding on the project parcel or adjacent parcels.

3.

Regarding the Lot Line Adjustment, Find:

a.

That the proposed adjustment conforms with Zoning and Building Regulations.

No non-conforming parcels will result from approval of this lot line adjustment. Both parcels will exceed the minimum parcel size of this zoning district after adjustment. The existing and proposed structures on Mr. Rodgers’ parcel will

conform to the required setbacks of this zoning district. There are no structures on Mr. Wyman’s parcel.

b.

That the proposed adjustment creates suitable building sites.

Both parcels will be over 40 acres in size after the adjustment. Both parcels will be of adequate size to accommodate potential building sites that meet minimum setback requirements. In the case of Mr. Rodgers’ parcel, no additional structures are proposed other than those previously discussed. Mr. Wyman has not submitted any plans or proposals to the County.

c.

That the proposed adjustment provides for adequate routine and emergency access.

The existing access improvements on the winery parcel have been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the County Fire Marshal. No applications for development of the Wyman parcel have been submitted to the County; however, there is no reason to believe that access could not be provided to the parcel in the future.

d.

That the proposed adjustment provides for adequate water supply and sewage disposal.

The winery parcel has two wells on it. The applicant has submitted an application for a septic permit from the County Environmental Health Division. The lot line adjustment will not affect either of the wells or the proposed septic system.

4.

Regarding the Street Name Assignment, Find:

That the proposed street name assignment of “Clos de la Tech Trail” in the South Skyline area would assist in the effective delivery of public services and would not be detrimental to the public welfare in the neighborhood.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

A.

Mitigation Measures Identified in the DEIR

1.

HYD-1a: Prior to issuance of site-specific permits, the project sponsor shall prepare a Master Drainage Plan that shall comply with all applicable hydro-modification requirements, including those of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and San Mateo County. The Master Drainage Plan (MDP) shall be based on: (1) Shaw Environmental, Inc., 2010. Summary of Technical Findings, Clos de la Tech Vineyard and Winery Development Project, San Mateo County, California, July; (2) Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, 2010. Review Comments for June – July Version of Shaw Report, August 2; (3) a site-specific geotechnical report prepared for the site; and (4) final plans for all grading, roadways, buildings, and other structures proposed for the project site.

The MDP shall be prepared by a licensed engineer; require that all significant construction work occur during non-rainy seasons; and require a variety of appropriate stormwater control measures, including:

•

Use of hay bales, jute netting, silt fencing;

•

Reseeding of disturbed soils and use of straw mulch cover;

•

Construction of engineered retention basins and vaults;

•

Retention of plant cover before and after planting as feasible between vine rows;

•

Use of filter strips; and

•

Monitoring of soil conditions to reduce unnecessary irrigation.

Further, the MDP shall, at a minimum, require the following features for each stormwater basin on the project site. These features shall be built and/or installed prior to the issuance of the first building permit or a habitable structure, or the planting of additional vineyards (whichever comes first). The MDP shall demonstrate that such structures prevent significant stormwater flow based on the BAHM analysis contained in the Shaw report.

Basin 1: The project applicant shall install 25 hay bale structures along the base of the new vineyard area or a single trapezoid-shaped pond measuring approximately 77 feet by 77 feet.

Basin 2: The project applicant shall install 20 hay bale structures along the base of the new vineyard areas or a single 40-foot by 40-foot trapezoidal pond.

Basin 3: The project applicant shall install 30 hay bale structures along the base of the new vineyard areas or a single 60-foot by 60-foot trapezoidal pond.

Basin 4: The project applicant shall install 20 hay bale structures along the base of the new vineyard areas or a single 22-foot by 45-foot trapezoidal pond.

Basin 5: The project applicant shall install 30 heightened hay bale structures along the base of the new vineyard areas or a single 59-foot by 59-foot trapezoidal pond.

Basin 6: The project applicant shall install a single 41-foot by 41-foot trapezoidal pond.

Pad Support Basin: The project applicant shall install a single 31-foot by 31-foot by 3-foot deep vault within the pad.

The MDP shall be reviewed and approved by the County.

2.

HYD-1b: The project applicant shall continue to implement and maintain the erosion control BMPs that have been established on the site, and use similar BMPs in areas covered by new vineyards and buildings. In addition, the applicant shall implement the following erosion prevention and sediment control measures:

•

Provide weekly inspections of the erosion control measures during the irrigation season, as well as during and immediately after rain events, to ensure the measures are effective in controlling sedimentation.

•

Establish permanent sediment retention basins that are sized to accommodate sedimentation from the entire vineyard, winery and road area (see Mitigation Measure HYD-1a).

•

Implement an ongoing self-monitoring program of erosion control and groundcover conditions.

3.

HYD-1c: The applicant shall prevent additional chemical pollutants from entering the waterway by continuing to utilize pesticides in accordance with State regulations. Pesticide use shall be minimized through the preparation and implementation of a chemical use plan (which could be incorporated into an Integrated Pest Management Plan) that shall be reviewed and approved by the County. The applicant shall continue to monitor groundwater and surface water biannually, at the beginning and end of the irrigation season, and shall report the findings, annually, to the County. In addition, samples shall be taken after the first winter storm event.

4.

HYD-1d: The project applicant shall continue to implement the Fish Friendly Farming Practices currently implemented on the site. The County shall undertake bi-annual inspections to insure that Fish Friendly Farming Practices are being utilized. Bi-annual water samples shall continue to be taken from the current five locations currently being tested by the project applicant. The County shall inspect the water quality samples to ensure that the samples do not contain significant levels of pollutants or fertilizers from the vineyard.

5.

GEO-1: Implement Mitigation Measures HYD-1a, HYD-1b, HYD-1c, and HYD-1d.

6.

GEO-2: A geotechnical investigation, prepared by a licensed professional, shall be prepared for development on the site. The investigation shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of San Mateo County and shall provide design recommendations for all proposed site improvements, including structures, roads, hillside cultivated areas, and wastewater treatment facilities. The design recommendations shall be incorporated into final grading, building, and drainage plans, and eventual construction shall be in conformance with standards in the applicable California Building Code.

7.

BIO-1a: Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the winery building permits, the project sponsor shall submit a restoration plan for 5 acres of purple needlegrass grassland within the Protected Habitat Area. The purple needlegrass grassland acreage shall be of high-density, meeting at least 20 percent coverage. Said plan shall include a timetable and adhere to the following:

•

Ensure that transplanting, planting, and seeding includes local, native purple needlegrass at densities that are appropriate for the site and recommended by a qualified biologist. The sources of plugs and seeds shall be from on-site or another local source to maintain the genetic integrity of the on-site population.

•

For the first 5 years of the restoration efforts, provide an annual report to the County, to be prepared by a qualified biologist or botanist, documenting how the restoration is meeting the coverage criteria.

•

Provide funding assurances acceptable to the County that will be sufficient to guarantee successful performance success of the restoration and monitoring.

8.

BIO-1b: The 2009 focused protocol-level special-status plant surveys conducted by Shaw did not include the proposed purple needlegrass mitigation area, including mapping of the species present within the proposed mitigation area. To avoid potential impacts to existing purple needlegrass, special-status plants, and sensitive plant communities, prior to any ground disturbance or plantings in on-site mitigation area, protocol-level surveys shall be conducted for special-status plants and sensitive communities. Surveys shall be conducted by qualified botanists according to CDFG and CNPS protocols. If found during the surveys, any existing special status plants, purple needlegrass, and other sensitive natural communities in this area shall be thoroughly and accurately mapped using GPS. Locations of special status plants shall be avoided or measures implemented to protect special status species shall be incorporated into the Protected Habitat Area.

The relative and absolute cover of purple needlegrass shall be estimated and to be considered a sensitive plant community according to the Manual, a stand shall have an absolute cover of purple needlegrass that is greater than 5 percent or a relative cover greater than 10 percent. Any existing stands of purple needlegrass at the mitigation area that are considered a sensitive community shall be preserved and the acreage can be counted toward the acreage required for compensatory mitigation. During the proposed purple needlegrass planting, these areas of existing purple needlegrass and other sensitive plant communities shall be avoided and shall be clearly delineated with flagging or fencing.

9.

BIO-2: Development of the vineyard blocks shall be conducted during the dry season (April 15 through October 15) when surface runoff would be minimized. In addition, implement Mitigation Measures HYD-1a, HYD-1b, HYD-1c, and HYD-1d.

10.

BIO-3a: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-7. This shall require rerouting of the access road to avoid the seep and adjacent willow riparian area. The final project plans shall reflect preservation of the seeps. Placing a bridge over the seep would shade out wetland vegetation and would result in a loss of associated wetland functions (cover, sediment filtering, etc.).

11.

BIO-3b: To facilitate movement of California red-legged frogs through the vineyard area, gaps should be incorporated into the design of proposed hay bales/silt fence dikes. Gaps shall be no more than 100 feet apart and no less than 2 feet wide. The design of the fence shall be approved by a wildlife biologist with demonstrated knowledge of California red-legged frog biology and ecology and shall be approved by the Community Development Director. In addition, no plastic netting shall be allowed for any erosion control matting or fiber roles. All erosion control materials shall use coconut or other natural fiber for netting because amphibians such as the California red-legged frog, and reptiles and birds can be easily tangled in plastic netting.

12.

BIO-3c: In accordance with the draft PUD attached as Appendix E, the project sponsor shall preserve 80 acres of the 166-acre property located outside of the footprint of the winery and associated vineyard development (“Protected Habitat Area”) in its current undeveloped condition as potential habitat.

Per the requirements of the draft PUD, the following uses and activities shall be prohibited within the Protected Habitat Area:

•

Unseasonable watering; use of fertilizers, pesticides, biocides, herbicides or other agricultural chemicals; weed abatement activities; and incompatible fire protection activities.

•

Use of off-road vehicles and use of any other motorized vehicles except on existing roadways.

•

Agricultural activity of any kind.

•

Recreational activities, including, but not limited to, horseback riding, biking, hunting or fishing except for personal, non-commercial, recreational activities of the owner of the affected property and his or her guests.

•

Commercial, industrial, residential, or institutional uses.

•

Any legal or de facto division, subdivision or partitioning of the Protected Potential Habitat Area except for the purposes of environmental preservation.

•

Construction, reconstruction, erecting or placement of any building, billboard or sign

•

Depositing or accumulation of soil, trash, ashes, refuse, waste, bio-solids or any other materials.

•

Planting, introduction or dispersal of non-native or exotic plant or animal species.

•

Filling, dumping, excavating, draining, dredging, mining, drilling, removing or exploring for or extracting minerals, loam, soil, sand, gravel, rock or other material on or below the surface of the Protected Habitat Area, or granting or authorizing surface entry for any of these purposes.

•

Altering the surface or general topography of the Protected Habitat Area, including, but not limited to, any alterations to habitat, building roads or trails, paving or otherwise covering the Protected Habitat Area with concrete, asphalt or any other impervious material.

•

Removing, destroying, or cutting of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, except as required by law for (i) fire breaks, (ii) maintenance of existing foot trails or roads, or (iii) prevention or treatment of disease.

•

Impounding or altering any natural water course, body of water or water circulation on the Protected Habitat Area, and any activities or uses detrimental to water quality, including but not limited to degradation or pollution of any surface or sub-surface waters.

13.

BIO-4: If vegetation removal or construction activity is scheduled between March 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nest survey of the areas where vegetation is to be removed within 2 weeks of the scheduled removal. If an active nest is found, a 25- to 50-foot buffer (depending on the nesting species and habitat) shall be established around the nest site and a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest at periodic intervals (no less than 1 week intervals) until the young have fledged or it has been determined that the nest has failed. After the monitoring biologist has determined that the nest site is inactive, clearing of vegetation and/or other construction activity can commence in the former buffer area. If a raptor species is found nesting within a proposed construction area, a minimum 200- to 300-foot buffer, depending on species, shall be established and maintained around the nest site until the monitoring biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest has failed. Buffer areas around nests could be reduced if in consultation with CDFG it is determined that a smaller buffer would not result in adverse impacts to the nesting bird or the nestlings.

14.

BIO-5: Within 2 weeks of scheduled clearing and/or grading of a given vineyard block, the area and a 250-foot surrounding buffer shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist for active badger dens. If an active American badger den is found, the biologist shall consult with the CDFG to determine if clearing and grading within the vineyard block is likely to adversely affect the den. If the den is occupied by an individual other than a female with young, CDFG shall be contacted to determine if live trapping and relocation is an option. If it is determined that the den is occupied by a female with young, the area within 250 feet of the den may have to be avoided until the young have matured and dispersed from their natal den.

15.

BIO-6: A pre-construction survey of the wine caves shall be conducted prior to their final closure to determine if bats are roosting in the caves. No eviction of bats shall occur if the roosts are determined to be maternity roosts. If maternity roosts are observed in the caves, then the biologist shall contact CDFG for additional guidance. If bats are present, and the roosts are determined to be day or night roosts, bats shall be excluded before the caves are sealed. A mitigation plan to provide alternate roost sites shall be prepared before excluding the bats if the colonies contain either Townsend’s big-eared bats or pallid bats. Exclusion shall be accomplished during the final stages of work on the closure when entrance to the caves is restricted to doors or other openings in the cave façade. Bats shall be excluded by strategically placing netting over open doors or other openings. The netting can be hung over openings so bats can crawl out under the bottom “flap” of the net, but not fly back in. If feasible, the best time to exclude bats would be in the fall (August to October) after maternity colonies have dispersed and before winter roosts have formed.

16.

BIO-7: The existing jurisdictional features shall be avoided. The final project plans shall reflect preservation of the seeps and total avoidance of Corps jurisdictional areas by project roadway improvements.

17.

BIO-8a: A minimum 50-foot setback shall be maintained between the edge of the riparian habitat and the nearest maintained vineyard. No planting, roads, or construction disturbance shall be allowed within the setback. Herbaceous cover shall be maintained in the setbacks, but may be mowed at the discretion of the vineyard operator. Setbacks shall be flagged during construction so as to prevent accidental encroachment by construction equipment.

18.

BIO-8b: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-7.

19.

BIO-9a: A minimum 100-foot setback shall be maintained from the edge of regulated waters, as determined using federal and State jurisdictional criteria. No planting, roads, or construction disturbance shall be allowed within the setback, except as specifically authorized in Corps, CDFG, and RWQCB permits. Herbaceous cover shall be maintained in the setbacks, but may be mowed at the discretion of the vineyard operator. Setbacks shall be flagged during construction so as to prevent accidental encroachment by construction equipment.

20.

BIO-9b: Langley Creek shall be inspected annually for a minimum of 5 years by an accredited fisheries biologist. The biologist shall assess the overall function of Langley Creek as steelhead habitat, and shall monitor changes in habitat quality over time. Specifically, the biologist shall monitor sediment accumulation in steelhead habitat. The biologist shall submit an annual status summary to the County that will include recommendations to the project sponsor to address any perceived habitat degradation attributable to vineyard operation. After 5 years of results indicating no loss of habitat function in Langley Creek, the project sponsor may ask the biologist to submit a report to the County recommending cessation of monitoring.

21.

TRANS-1: The construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the County’s Public Works Department. The plan shall include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, any safety hazards and traffic congestion during construction:

•

A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, signs, and designated construction access routes.

•

Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, and circulation and safety. Impacts to SR 35 shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible.

•

Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project sponsor.

22.

NOISE-1: The project applicant shall require that construction contractors implement the following measures throughout the duration of construction activity:

•

Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).

•

Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills), if any, used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to 10-dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5-dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.

23.

HAZ-1: The applicant’s contractor shall implement construction best management practices (BMPs) for handling, storing, and disposing hazardous materials on-site. The contractor shall be responsible for maintaining a clean work site with good housekeeping practices and be responsible for containment and clean-up of inadvertent chemical releases and those caused by blatant misuse. The requirements for the contractor to employ BMPs shall be included in contract specifications thereby becoming part of the project. The use of standard construction BMPs would minimize potential hazardous material releases, and would include, but are not limited to, the following practices:

•

Follow manufacturer’s recommendations and regulatory requirements for use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and petroleum products used in construction;

•

Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel tanks;

•

Properly contain and dispose of grease and oils used for routine maintenance of construction equipment; and,

•

Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.

24.

HAZ-2: The applicant shall implement the following measures to ensure that fuel storage on the site is adequate to prevent release of fuels during vineyard operation:

•

Comply with all applicable State and County regulations pertaining to above ground fuel storage, dispensing, monitoring, spill containment, and reporting.

•

Install a modern tank system that includes secondary containment features and leak detection monitoring for the diesel fuel storage tank and place spill containment equipment at the utilities pad.

•

If visual and olfactory evidence or monitoring equipment detection indicates leakage or rupture of the diesel tank, the spill shall be reported to the County and the tank shall be repaired or replaced. Spill cleanup shall be performed in accordance with County requirements. All fueling, maintenance of vehicles and other equipment and staging areas shall occur at least 100 feet from riparian areas. To prevent the accidental discharge of fuel or other fluids associated with vehicles and other equipment, all workers shall be trained on procedures to prevent inadvertent spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.

25.

HAZ-3: Implement Mitigation Measures HYD-1a, HYD-1b, HYD-1c, and HYD-1d.

26.

HAZ-4a: The applicant and construction contractor shall develop a fire safety plan, which describes various potential scenarios and action plans in the event of a fire. The fire safety plan shall be submitted to the local fire prevention district for review and approval.

27.

HAZ-4b: During construction, all staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development using spark-producing equipment shall be cleared of dried vegetation or other material that could ignite. Any construction equipment capable of generating a spark shall be equipped with a spark arrestor in good working order. All vehicles and crews working at the project site shall have access to functional fire extinguishers at all times. Motor vehicles shall be permitted only on roadways and parking areas. In addition, construction crews are required to have a spotter during welding activities to identify for potentially dangerous situations, including accidental sparks.

28.

HAZ-4c: During the design of the building, the architect shall ensure that the exterior construction features (e.g., roofing, siding) meet ignition resistant construction standards set in the new Wildland/Urban Building Code. This would include installation of a Class A roof, installation of fire sprinklers in main buildings, and a fire alarm system in main buildings. The project also shall also incorporate guidance from the County’s Decision making Guidelines for Vegetation Management, ensuring that landscape plans minimize wildland fire hazards and provide defensible space around each structure of 100 feet by mowing grass, and removing dead vegetation and other flammable materials from roofs, decks, grounds, propane tanks.

29.

AIR-1: The following construction practices shall be implemented at the project site during the construction and pre-construction phases of the project:

•

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

•

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

•

All visible mud or dirt deposited on public roads that are adjacent to the project site shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping shall be prohibited.

•

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

•

Paving and building pads shall be completed as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.

•

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

•

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

•

Post a publicly-visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the San Mateo County offices regarding dust complaints. The responsible contact shall respond to warranted complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

•

The project sponsor shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in construction activities (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project-wide, fleet-average, 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other methods that become available.

30.

AIR-2: The following measures shall be implemented during composting operations to control PM10 emissions:

•

Refrain from turning, screening, or loading activities on windy days;

•

Use water sprays or mists during grinding, screening, and pile-turning activities;

•

Maintain proper moisture levels in active composting piles; and

•

Maintain good housekeeping practices, including site cleanliness.

31.

AIR-3: The project applicant shall regularly turn and mix compost piles to ensure the maintenance of proper aerobic conditions. In addition, the project applicant shall formulate an Odor Impact Minimization Plan in accordance with the State Compostable Materials Handling Operations and Facilities Regulatory Requirements (Title 14 CCR § 17863.4). This plan shall be submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division for its review and approval.

As specified in Regulation 17863.4, the Odor Impact Minimization Plan shall provide guidance to on-site operation personnel by containing, at a minimum, the following items:

a.

An odor monitoring protocol which describes the proximity of possible odor receptors and prescribes a method for assessing odor impacts at the locations of possible odor receptors;

b.

A description of meteorological conditions affecting migration of odors and/or transport of odor-causing material off-site. Seasonal variations that affect wind velocity and direction shall also be described;

c.

A complaint response protocol;

d.

A description of design considerations and/or projected ranges of optimal operation to be employed in minimizing odor, including the method and degree of aeration, moisture content of materials, airborne emission production, process water distribution, pad and site drainage and permeability, equipment reliability, personnel training, weather event impacts, utility service interruptions, and site-specific concerns; and

e.

A description of operating procedures for minimizing odor, including aeration, moisture management, drainage controls, pad maintenance, storage practices (e.g., storage time and pile geometry), contingency plans (i.e., equipment, water, power, and personnel), bio-filtration, and tarping.

The Odor Impact Minimization Plans shall be reviewed annually by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division to determine if any revisions are necessary to ensure continued proper management of the compost.

32.

CULT-1: The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for archaeological deposits by including the following directive in contract documents:

If prehistoric or historical archaeological deposits are discovered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and a qualified archaeologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations regarding the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. Archaeological resources can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite tool-making debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (i.e., midden soil often containing heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone-milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones). Prehistoric archaeological sites often contain human remains. Historical materials can include wood, stone, concrete, or adobe footings, walls, and other structural remains; debris-filled wells or privies; and deposits of wood, glass, ceramics, metal, and other refuse.

The County shall verify that the language has been included in the contract documents before issuing any new building or grading permits. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials or human remains and associated materials. It is recommended that adverse effects to such deposits be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register. If the deposits are not eligible, avoidance is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, avoidance of project impacts on the deposit shall be the preferred mitigation. If adverse effects on the deposits cannot be avoided, such effects must be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of the deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; curation of archaeological materials at an appropriate facility for future research and/or display; preparation of a brochure for public distribution that discusses the significance of the archaeological deposit; an interpretive display of recovered archaeological materials at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools and/or historical societies on the findings and significance of the site and recovered archaeological materials. The County shall ensure that any mitigation involving excavation of the deposit is implemented prior to the resumption of actions that could adversely affect the deposit.

Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results of the analysis, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the archaeological deposits discovered. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, the County, and the Northwest Information Center.

33.

CULT-2: The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources by including the following directive in contract documents:

The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shall be redirected and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the situation, consult with agencies as appropriate, and make recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontological materials. Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as tracks. Ancient marine sediments may contain invertebrate fossils such as snails, clam and oyster shells, sponges, and protozoa; and vertebrate fossils such as fish, whale, and sea lion bones. Vertebrate land mammals may include bones of mammoth, camel, saber tooth cat, horse, and bison. Paleontological resources also include plant imprints, petrified wood, and animal tracks.

The County shall verify that the language has been included in the contract documents before issuing any new grading or building permits.

It is recommended that adverse effects to paleontological resources be avoided by project activities. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontological resources shall be evaluated for their significance. If the resources are not significant, avoidance is not necessary. If the resources are significant, adverse effects on the resources shall be avoided, or such effects shall be mitigated. Mitigation can include, but is not necessarily limited to: excavation of paleontological resources using standard paleontological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered materials; production of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of recovered fossils; curation of paleontological materials at an appropriate facility (e.g., the University of California Museum of Paleontology) for future research and/or display; an interpretive display of recovered fossils at a local school, museum, or library; and public lectures at local schools on the findings and significance of the site and recovered fossils.

The County shall ensure that any mitigation involving excavation of the resource is implemented prior to project construction or actions that could adversely affect the resource.

Upon completion of the assessment, the paleontologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results, and provide recommendations for the treatment of the paleontological resources discovered. This report shall be submitted to the project applicant, the County, and the paleontological curation facility.

34.

CULT-3: If human remains are encountered, these remains shall be treated in accordance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5. The project applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of the sensitivity of the project area for human remains by including the following directive in contract documents:

If human remains are encountered during project activities, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

The County shall verify that the language has been included in the contract documents before issuing any new grading or building permits.

Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results and provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate and in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD. The report shall be submitted to the project applicant, the County, the MLD, and the Northwest Information Center.

35.

VIS-1: The following measures shall be incorporated into the project design:

•

Exterior lighting shall use fixtures with low-level lighting, focused beams, and directional hoods to minimize light visible from other properties and reduce night sky impacts.

•

Non-reflective, permeable surfaces shall be utilized to reduce glare.

36.

GCC 1: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR.

B.

Planning and Building Department

1.

This approval applies only to the proposal and plans in this report and submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2010 and the Board of Supervisors on November 30, 2010. Minor adjustments to the project in the course of applying for building permits may be approved by the Community Development Director if they are consistent with the intent of and in substantial conformance with this approval.

2.

The applicant shall enter into a contract with the San Mateo County Planning Department for all mitigation monitoring for this project. The fee shall be staff’s cost plus 10% as required in the Planning Service Fee Schedule adopted by the Board of Supervisors Resolutions No. 63452 and No. 64883.

3.

All future structures to be built on the project site shall be designed to incorporate permanent stormwater control measures (such as using permeable surfaces for driveways and walkways, and building downspouts connected to drywell systems) in conformance with BAASMA Guidelines. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure on the project site, all plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Department for conformance with this condition.

4.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction on the project site, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the Planning Department for review and approval. Said plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and include irrigation details. Said landscaping plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the last house resulting from this project.

5.

The use of noise making devices for bird/pest control within the vineyards shall be prohibited. Said prohibition shall be incorporated into the final PUD ordinance language.

6.

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the service building/bunkhouse, the applicant shall submit exterior color and material samples and a roofing sample for review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the building permit. The materials for the building shall be the same color on all four sides of the structure. Acceptable colors must be earth tones, which blend with the surrounding vegetation patterns of the site. Reflective surfaces and colors are prohibited. These approved colors and materials shall be verified by the Planning and Building Department prior to a final inspection for the building permit.

7.

Section 8 of the proposed PUD shall be modified as follows:

Prior to the planting of any new vineyard acreage, the applicant shall, at his expense, drill a well to monitor groundwater levels in the area near Tunnel Springs. The location and monitoring protocol for said well shall be established in consultation with the San Mateo County Planning Department and the Environmental Health Services Division of the San Mateo County Health Department. If the monitoring well is to be located on land to be transferred to an owner other than the applicant, then the applicant shall establish an easement that would allow for maintenance of the monitoring well and its equipment. Results of the monitoring shall be transmitted to the San Mateo County Community Development Director on an annual basis. If water levels in the monitoring well drop below a threshold (to be determined as part of the monitoring protocol), then the applicant shall cease pumping of his wells until such time as water levels in the monitoring well return to the threshold level.

Lot Line Adjustment Conditions

8.

The applicant shall submit to the Project Planner, (for recordation), legal descriptions of reconfigured parcels. The Project Planner will review these draft descriptions and forward them to Public Works for tentative approval.

9.

The applicant shall submit, to the Project Planner, a copy of the unrecorded Grant Deeds (of only the parcel areas to be exchanged) for review and approval prior to transfer of ownership. The Project Planner will review these draft descriptions and forward them to Public Works for tentative approval.

10.

Upon approval of the draft legal descriptions and the draft grant deeds by the Project Planner and the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall coordinate with the Project Planner, the recordation of the reconfigured parcel descriptions. The applicant shall then record the appropriate grant deeds transferring the applicable parcel areas per the previously recorded legal descriptions.

Department of Public Works

11.

Prior to the issuance of any Building Permits for this project, the applicant shall provide payment of “roadway mitigation fees” based on the square footage (assessable space) of the proposed building per Ordinance No. 3277.

12.

The applicant shall submit a driveway “Plan and Profile,” to the Public Works Department, for the service building/bunkhouse. Said plan shall show the driveway access from the property line to the garage slab. This driveway must comply with County Standards for driveway slopes (not to exceed 20%). The driveway plan shall also include and show specific provisions and details for both existing and proposed drainage patterns and drainage facilities.

13.

The provision of San Mateo County Grading Ordinance shall govern all grading on and adjacent to this site. Unless exempted by the Grading Ordinance, the applicant is required to apply for a grading permit.

14.

Erosion and sediment control during the course of this grading 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 Department. Revisions to the approved erosion and sediment control plan shall be prepared and signed by the engineer.

15.

The applicant shall have a “Grading Plan” for the proposed vineyard access roads, prepared by a registered civil engineer that includes the following:

a.

“All grading shall be according to the plan entitled ____________________, prepared by __________________________, signed by __________________________, dated ____________________.”

Revisions to the approved grading plan shall be prepared and signed by the Engineer, and shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department for concurrence “prior” to commencing any work pursuant to the proposed revision.

16.

The engineer who prepared the approved grading plan shall be responsible for the inspection and certification of the grading as required by Section 8606.2 of the Grading Ordinance. The engineer’s responsibilities shall include those relating to non-compliance detailed in Section 8606.5 of the Grading Ordinance.

17.

No grading shall commence until a schedule of all grading operations has been submitted to and reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Department. The submitted schedule shall include a schedule for winterizing the site. If the schedule of grading operations calls for the grading to be completed in one grading 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 Department. All submitted schedules shall represent the work in detail and shall project the grading operations through completion.

Environmental Health Conditions

18.

At the building permit application stage, the wastewater treatment system will require a waste discharge permit from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Said permit must be submitted prior to final on said building permit.

19.

At the building permit application stage, the applicant shall obtain an on-site sewage disposal permit and meet all requirements for design criteria and setback requirements.

20.

Applicant shall submit health review fee of $174.00.

21.

Applicant shall submit a business plan for the diesel tank(s) addressing containment for accidental spills. The diesel tank shall maintain a minimum of 50 feet from any water well.

22.

Prior to the building final, the applicant shall obtain an “Employee Housing Permit” for the employee housing units. Subject permit must be renew every year.