Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution - 03-19- 20030605 - SMC Coastal Annexation Fi RESOLUTION NO. 03-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADOPTING THE FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED SAN MATEO COASTAL ANNEXATION PROJECT WHEREAS,the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ("District")has reviewed and evaluated the proposed San Mateo Coastal Annexation Program ("Program") and has certified the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the Program; and WHEREAS, the Program consists of the following actions: 1. Initiating and carrying out proceedings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code for the proposed annexation of territory of the District and for the amendment of the sphere of influence of the District (pursuant to Resolution No. 03-20); and 2. Adopting and implementing the Final Service Plan for the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Area(attached as Exhibit B to Resolution No. 03-20); 3. Adopting and implementing an ordinance prohibiting the acquisition of property by eminent domain within specified areas(pursuant to Ordinance No. 03-01); and 4. Amending and implementing the District's policy known as"Open Space Acquisition Policies as Lands Relate to Sphere of Influence and Annexation Policies (Appendix F to the Draft EIR); and 5. Making a determination of no property tax exchange pursuant to the provisions of Division 1, Part 0.5, Section 95 et seq. of the California Revenue and Tax Code (pursuant to Resolution No. 03-2 1). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the District Board of Directors that the District hereby adopts the Findings for the Program, attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by District Board of Directors that the District hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Chapter VII of the May 2003 document entitled San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report/Responses to Comments. RESOLUTION No. 03-19 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on June 6, 2003, at a Special Meeting thereof, by the following vote: AYES: N. Hanko, L. Ham ett, M. Davey, P. Siemens, J. C yn, D. Littte, K. Nitz NOES: none ABSTAIN: none ABSENT: none ATTEST: % APPROVED: Se etary esident oard of Directors Board of Directors I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly held and called on the above day. r� Di 5 Clerk EXHIBIT A FINDINGS FOR THE PROPOSED MIDPEN]NSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SAN MATEO COASTAL ANNEXATION PROJECT The following findings are hereby adopted by the Board of Directors of the Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6, and the CEQA Guidelines,Title 14,California Code of Regulations, sections 15091 through 15093, for the San Mateo Coastal Annexation Project described below. I.Project Description A. The Proposed Project: The Coastal Annexation Program The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District("District")is a public agency that acquires and manages open space resources in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties. The District proposes to extend its boundaries and sphere of influence to include the San Mateo County Coastside as described below in order to acquire land and easements, and to manage lands owned by other agencies or non-profit organizations, for the purpose of preservation of open space and agriculture, and the protection of natural resources. The proposed project,referred to in these Findings as the "Coastal Annexation Program", the "Program" and the"Project", was evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"). The Environmental Impact Report("EIR")consists of the June 2002 San Mateo Coastal Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report("DEIR")and the May 2003 San Mateo Coastal Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report/Responses to Comments("FEIR"). The District Board of Directors on June 5, 2003 certified that(1)the EIR was completed in accordance with CEQA, (2)the EIR was presented to and considered by the Board prior to taking action on the Program,and (3)the EIR reflects District's independent judgment and analysis. The EIR is what CEQA refers to as a Program EIR. The District, as lead agency under CEQA,has prepared this document as a Program EIR to be used for a series of individual actions that are related geographically, as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions in connection with a continuing program including individual actions carried out under the same statutory or regulatory authority having generally the same environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. Subsequent District land acquisitions will be subject to the District's Open Space Use and Management Planning Process, and subsequent preparation of site-specific Use and Management Plans. Project-specific CEQA documentation will be prepared on each acquisition and Use and Management Plan.That documentation will rely on the information in this EIR to the extent it is reasonable and feasible to do so. The Coastal Annexation Program is described in Section II of the DEIR as amended by the FEIR. The Program includes the adoption of the Final Service Plan for the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Area, adoption of the Willing Sellers Ordinance(Appendix B to the FEIR), and adoption of the Annexation Policy(Appendix F to the DEIR). The geographic area directly affected by the Program is within San Mateo County and west of State Highway 280. The area proposed for annexation and inclusion in the District's sphere of influence("Coastal Annexation Area")is generally defined as follows: • On the east by the existing District boundary and the San Francisco watershed lands • On the west by the Pacific Ocean • On the north by the southern boundary of the City of Pacifica • On the south by the San Mateo County/Santa Cruz County boundary The Coastal Annexation Area consists of approximately 140,000 acres and is depicted on Map 2 in the DEIR. The Program will extend the District's services of low intensity recreation, land stewardship,and open space and agricultural land preservation to the Coastal Annexation Area upon final approval of annexation by the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission. The characteristics of the Program services to be provided, and the Guiding Principles under which the services are to be provided, are described in the Final Service Plan. The District's mission for the Coastal Annexation Area as defined by the Final Service Plan is: To acquire and preserve in perpetuity open space land and agricultural land of regional significance,protect and restore the natural environment,preserve rural character, encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. The District's Coastal Annexation project focuses on preservation and management of open space resources in order to fulfill the following objectives identified in the proposed Service Plan. • Protect watershed integrity and water quality • Protect sensitive resources such as habitats for special-status species • Provide key links to existing District and other public open space lands • Provide visitor-serving facilities(unpaved trails and small, gravel-surfaced parking lots) for low-intensity recreation(hiking,bicycling and horseback riding) • Support development of an integrated regional trail system coordinated with the San Mateo County Trails Plan • Provide opportunities for scientific research,resource conservation demonstration projects, outdoor environmental education programs, and interpretive programs, and • Preserve existing and potential agricultural operations in order to keep the maximum amount of prime agricultural land and other lands suitable for agriculture in agricultural production. The Final Service Plan includes an overview of the Program for 15 years after annexation including land and easement acquisition,development of trails and staging areas,and land management. At the end of the 15-year period,it is anticipated that the District will have acquired a total of 7,500 acres of land in fee and 1,800 acres in easement. It is estimated that 2,500 acres of land will be managed under contract. The total of all lands and easements owned or managed by the District in the Coastal Annexation Area will be approximately 11,800 acres after 15 years. Based on this total,the District estimates that it will provide approximately 37 miles of public trails (27 miles of existing trails and 9.7 miles of new trails)and two gravel Page 2 surfaced staging areas. A temporary field staff office would be established in buildings acquired or leased by the District. Improvements are also anticipated to eventually include a ranger office, a maintenance facility to support land stewardship activities(typically a combined facility less than 5,000 square feet)and visitor-serving low intensity recreation uses of hiking, bicycling and equestrian use. Agricultural land preservation is an important component of the Program. This will include the acquisition of land in fee,the sale and leaseback of agricultural land for production,and the acquisition of agricultural easements. B. The Need for the Project The Coastal Annexation project is consistent with,and encouraged by, the San Mate© County General Plan. Many of the goals and objectives of the General Plan's Park and Recreation Resources Policies specifically speak to efforts such as the Coastal Annexation project as shown by the following examples: Policy 6.47 -Encourage the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District to acquire, protect,and make available for public use open space lands in rural areas and open space of regional significance in urban areas in cooperation with San Mateo County. • Policy 6.38.b-Particularly encourage the development of: trails that link park and recreation facilities on San Francisco Bay to those on the Pacific Coast; multi-use trails where appropriate and trails in County lands under management by other public agencies. Ensure that these trails do not adversely affect adjacent land uses. The Coastside Subregional Planning Project, September, 1998,prepared by the Cities of Half Moon Bay and Pacifica and the County of San Mateo, and sponsored by the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG), identifies natural resource protection and management as a key issue within the subregion, including parkland, agricultural and grazing land, forested watersheds, coastal wetlands,beaches,creeks and wildlife habitat. The project report discusses the decrease in land purchases by the State Department of Parks and Recreation,local cities, and counties due to diminishing funds. It recognizes that expansion of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's boundaries represents one of the most promising efforts in ten years for acquisition and preservation of open space. The Midcoast Recreation Needs Assessment for San Mateo County,which focused specifically on the midcoast communities of Montara, Moss Beach, Princeton, Miramar, and El Granada, found that the top three priorities for people in those midcoast communities were: preserving natural open space, walking/jogging trails, and multi-use trails. The findings of the assessment support the District's mission for the Coastal Annexation Area. The Pacifica Boundary Study, Golden Gate National Recreation Area San Mateo County, California, prepared by Pacific West Region National Park Service May, 1997, describes the unique natural and scenic resources of coastal San Mateo County and the need for greater preservation efforts. The report discusses potential development in the area around Pacifica and the important riparian and wetland habitats that could be affected if there are no preservation efforts. Some of the lands include biologically rich wetland habitat that may support special status species such as the California red-legged frog and the San Francisco garter snake. Organizations and agencies whose mission is preservation of open space expressed the need for increased stewardship of the open space and agricultural resources of coastal San Mateo County throughout the proposed Annexation Area. In 1997 and 1998, the District held discussions with Page 3 other open space, recreation, and park service providers and with interested public agencies within the Coastal Annexation Area(including the National Park Service,the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the San Mateo County Parks Department,the California Coastal Conservancy, the California Coastal Commission,Peninsula Open Space Trust,Nature Conservancy, Sempervirens Fund, and Save the Redwoods League).These agencies and entities expressed a high level of interest in coastal open space preservation. Public park and open space providers indicated that these agencies have a limited capacity to provide expanded open space preservation and management services, and that,therefore,there is the need for a local agency to provide these services. In addition,private land trusts and conservation organizations owning land in the Coastal Annexation Area are not structured to manage open space lands and provide public access on a long-term basis. In 1997,resolutions were adopted by public agencies in the Coastal Annexation Area requesting the District's assistance in preserving open space and agricultural resources on the Coast, including resolutions adopted by the City of Half Moon Bay,the Midcoast Community Council, and the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council. A public opinion survey undertaken by the District in 1998 by Godbe Research and Analysis indicated that 93 percent of respondents on the Coast, 88 percent of respondents within current District boundaries, and 86 percent of respondents within the remainder of San Mateo County stated that preservation of coastal open space in San Mateo County was important. In November 1998,an advisory election was held in the Coastal Annexation Area. The measure stated: "In order to preserve open space resources on the San Mateo County coast, shall the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District extend its boundary west of Skyline Boulevard to the San Mateo County coast, from the southern boundary of Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line?" The voters approved the measure. The need for the project was also expressed in resolutions and letters of support from 10 cities, 2 counties, other public park agencies, over 20 community organizations, and 2 congressmen. II. The Public Review Process A. The Planning Process for Development of the Program Service Plan In response to the expressed need for increased protection and management of valuable open space and agricultural lands in the Coastal Annexation Area, the District, in June, 1998, formed a Citizen's Advisory Committee, chaired by San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon, composed of 13 coastside residents representing a broad spectrum of government, agricultural and environmental interest groups.The Service Plan was developed with the input of the Committee, which held 17 meetings over the course of a year. In 2000, District staff met with government and agricultural groups to review the Draft Service Plan.The Board then held two public Board meetings to receive further input on the Draft Service Plan. On November 28 , 2000,the Board reviewed and approved the Draft Service Plan for the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Area and approved updates to the DEIR on June 12, 2002. Page 4 B. The Public Review Process for Preparation of the Final EIR On June 9, 2000,the District issued a Notice of Preparation pursuant to CEQA to obtain comments on the proposed scope of the EIR for the Program. Copies were sent to the State Office of Planning and Research and all affected responsible and trustee agencies as well as interested citizens. Prior to preparing the DEIR, the District held three public scoping meetings to receive public comment on the environmental issues, Mitigation ation Measures and alternatives to be addressed in the DER as follows:: • Half Moon Bay on June 20,2000 • Pescadero on June 22,2000, and • The District's main office in Los Altos on June 27, 2000 On June 12,2002,the Board received an informational report on the Draft EIR and established the comment period for the DEIR commencing on June 13, 2002 and ending August 2, 2002 which provided a 51-day comment period. The District issued a Notice of Completion on June 13, 2002 which was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research. On June 13,2002, the District issued its Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR in compliance with CEQA which Notice was published in the San Mateo County Times newspaper and the Half Moon Bay Review newspaper. j CEQA Guidelines require that the public have at least 45 days to review and comment on the DEIR.The Board, in response to public requests,extended the comment period to August 28, 2002,providing a total of 77 days for review and comment on the environmental document. The District mailed public notices of the DEIR's availability to all individuals and organizations requesting notice, all responsible and trustee agencies, and to over 13,000 coastside residents. The DEIR was available for review or purchase beginning on June 13, 2002. Review copies of the DEIR were available at the following locations: the Half Moon Bay Public Library, Woodside Public Library, Los Altos Public Library, Pescadero Bookmobile,the District's administrative office in Los Altos and on the District's website. Printed copies of the DEIR could be purchased from Kinko's in Mountain View and Ocean Shore Printing in Half Moon Bay at the cost of reproduction. Copies were also available on CD-ROM at no charge. Although a public hearing to receive public comments on the DEIR was not required, the District held three public meetings to take comments during the review period as follows: • Pescadero on July 9,2002 • Half Moon Bay on July 17, 2002, and • The District's main office in Los Altos on July 31, 2002 Over 250 verbal comments and 320 written comments were received during the public comment period in the form of 62 verbal commenters, 5 Agency letters, 17 letters from Organizations, and 75 letters from members of the public. Notices providing information about the Special Meeting held on June 5 to consider whether to certify the FEIR and where to review or purchase the FEIR and other annexation project documents were mailed to over 14,000 coastside residents on May 23, 2003, to all individuals and organizations requesting notice, and to all responsible and trustee agencies on May 27, 2003. Page 5 Notice of the Special Meeting was also published in the Half Moon Bay Review and San Mateo County Times newspapers. Copies of the Final EIR, Service Plan and Fiscal Impact Analysis were mailed on May 24,2003 to the agencies that had commented on the DEIR. Review copies of the FEIR and other documents were available at the following locations: the Half Moon Bay Public Library, Woodside Public Library, Los Altos Public Library, Southcoast Bookmobile, the District's administrative office in Los Altos, and on the District's website. Printed copies could be purchased from Kinko's in Mountain View and Ocean Shore Printing in Half Moon Bay at the cost of reproduction. The documents were also available on CD-ROM at no charge. C. Summary of the Public Review Process for the Coastal Annexation Program The Program Service Plan, FEIR, and related Program documents were developed over a five- year period of extensive public participation. The public participation process included the formation of a Citizens Advisory Committee,the calling of an advisory election,and over 40 public meetings (including 17 meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee, 21 meetings of the District Board of Directors, and 7 hearings concerning the EIR). 111. Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project The EIR carefully examined a broad range of environmental disciplines to determine the potential for environmental impact and appropriate mitigation, if necessary. This assessment was done systematically in four steps: 1. The Existing Setting considers the existing conditions as they relate to the attributes of the environment that may be affected by the project. Pursuant to Section 15125 of the state CEQA Guidelines,the environmental setting was evaluated at a level of detail necessary to provide an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. 2. Applicable Policies and Regulations lists those policies and regulations pertinent to the environmental discipline under consideration and relevant to the Coastal Annexation Program and its potential effects on environmental resources. Relevant policies usually included those of San Mateo County and those of the City of Half Moon Bay. 3. Significance Criteria sets forth the basis used to evaluate whether the project would cause a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Coastal Annexation Program. 4. Impacts and Mitigation Measures evaluates potential project effects according to the significance criteria to determine whether the impact may be significant, and if so, whether there is mitigation that can reduce impact to a level that is less than significant. The project as proposed already included a number of policies that would have the effect of avoiding or reducing significant environmental impacts that could otherwise result from implementation of the project. Each potential impact has been evaluated in light of the relevant policies and guidelines found in the Draft Service Plan. If these policies and guidelines alone were not sufficient to avoid significant adverse impacts,mitigation is proposed. The District has adopted all of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. The impact analyses have been prepared to comply with Section 15143 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that the"significant effects should be discussed with emphasis in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence." The results of the impact assessment in the EIR and the District's approval of the project is considered below. Page 6 a. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts At-ter carefully considering the EIR including all public comments on the EIR, the District finds that there are no aspects of the physical environment which would be significantly and adversely affected by the San Mateo Coastal Area Annexation Program if the mitigation recommended in the EIR is carried out. The project as approved by the District includes all of the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. b. Significant Impacts Reduced to a Level of Insignificance by Mitigation Measures Based on public comment and the EIR, the District finds several areas where the San Mateo Coastal Area Annexation Program may have an adverse impact on the physical environment,but that these potential impacts can be reduced to less than significant by adopting certain mitigation measures, as listed here. The careful development of suitable mitigation measures has been an important product of the EIR and public review process. Because this is a Program EIR,and the location and character of future acquisitions or facilities is not yet known,the analysis must consider the general potential for environmental impact and the general capacity to mitigate impact. All of the mitigation recommended in the EIR is adopted by the District. Much of the mitigation is in the form of changes to the Service Plan and those recommended changes are incorporated in the adopted Service Plan. The Service Plan gives the District key policies needed to successfully carry out subsequent actions under the annexation. The District recognizes that additional steps will be needed to ensure the beneficial application of these policies. The District has adopted a Mitigation and Monitoring Program specifying the timing and means of implementation for each mitigation measure, in accordance with Section 15097(a)and(c)of the CEQA Guidelines. Specific future actions would also undergo CEQA compliance and further specific mitigation would be determined at that time. The mitigation recommended in the EIR is of sufficient breadth, depth, and detail for the program level of the proposed project and emphasizes its commitment to apply the policies in the Service Plan to avoid any significant adverse environmental effects of the San Mateo Coastal Area Annexation Program. The list of impacts and mitigation here uses the identification code numbering used in the EIR and the Monitoring Plan. Changes to the Draft Service Plan text to accomplish mitigation is shown as either underline where new or stFikeeut where deleted. The statement under"Adoption and Finding" shows the District intent to adopt the measure and summarizes information in the record explaining why the measure is sufficient to avoid a significant impact. LAND USE Impact LU-1: Land uses and users adjacent to any property that the District may acquire within the Coastal Annexation Area could pose significant health hazards to future preserve users. For example,timber harvesting could occur adjacent to future preserves, thereby causing potential hazards from falling trees, limbs and/or debris. Mitigation LU-1a: In areas where trails would pass potentially hazardous adjacent land uses (e.g., timber operations), trail structures such as fences,barriers, and signs shall be used to deter trail users from leaving the trail and encountering unsafe conditions. Temporary trail closures Page 7 shall be employed during intermittent operations, such as agricultural spraying,that would jeopardize the safety of an otherwise safe trail. Adoption and Finding: This measure establishes a performance standard for future actions. It has been incorporated in the adopted Service Plan and will be applied on a case-by case basis prior to opening trails or other areas to public access and by ongoing project oversight thereafter. The measure allows the public to be reasonably removed from specific hazards on adjoining land uses. Mitigation LU-lb: The following measures will be included in every future Use and Management Plan for parcels within the Coastal Annexation Area: 1. In areas where trail routes are immediately adjacent to private property, fencing shall be employed as necessary to deter users from leaving the trail. Specific fence, gate,and crossing designs will be determined in consultations with adjacent affected property owner(s)at the Use and Management Plan stage. 2. All new trail s/facilities will be sited away from the edges of new preserves. 3. All new trails/facilities will be designed to preserve existing vegetation within new preserves and at the property lines so that preserve users will not be able to view land uses in adjacent properties. 4. Trail uses will be consolidated where safe within the same trail way,depending on the steepness, available right-of-way, safety,user frequencies,and other conditions. A type of use on a trail may be prohibited for safety or environmental reasons, such as erosion and water quality. Where a trail is restricted to a particular type of user, the trail shall be clearly designated as such and shall be equipped with use signs and appropriate barriers to discourage unauthorized use. 5. Trails shall be sited a minimum distance of 300 feet from occupied dwellings unless site specific circumstances make this infeasible. Where a 300-foot setback is not feasible, a minimum distance of 50 feet shall be enforced and potential noise and privacy impacts must be evaluated for any subsequent District action and shall be reduced by use of berms, fencing, landscaping, and other feasible and compatible means, if necessary. Adoption and Finding: This measure establishes a performance standard for future actions. it has been incorporated in the adopted Service Plan and will be applied on a case-by case basis in trail design and siting prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan,prior to opening trails or other areas to public access and by ongoing project oversight thereafter. The measure establishes sufficient guidelines for public access to minimize visitor impact on adjoining land uses and maintain MROSD as a"good neighbor". Taken together, mitigation measures LU-I a and LU-I b and the remaining policies in the Final Service Plan will avoid conflicts with existing land uses on adjacent properties and will avoid significant health hazards to future preserve users from uses adjoining District lands. Impact LIJ-2: Permanent Policy 2 from the Draft Service Plan contains provisions for only the Coastal Area and does not include the Skyline Area. Page 8 Mitigation LU-2: Permanent Policy 2 in the Draft Service Plan shall be modified to state: "Within the Coastal Annexation Area, Coastal ZeneT the District will not initiate any activities that would require a General Plan amendment or zoning change." Adoption and Finding: This measure has been adopted in the Final Service Plan. The measure limits the size, scope and character of future facilities to those which are already accommodated by County and City of Half Moon Bay General Plans and zoning. The changes make these environmentally protective policies apply to the entire annexation area. This will ensure that the project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan or policy. AGRICULTURE Impact AGR-1: The Coastal Annexation Area contains Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Some parcels acquired by the District would likely contain lands with one or more of these designations. Although Service Plan policies would discourage siting staging areas or a ranger office/maintenance facility on Farmland in agricultural use,they would not prohibit it, thereby creating some risk of conversion. District trails and habitat preservation programs will involve relatively small amounts of land and will not convert a substantial amount of Farmland in agricultural use to non-agricultural use. Mitigation is appropriate, however, to minimize any potential conversion. Mitigation AGR-la: No new buildings or staging areas shall be located on prime agricultural lands or on Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance as shown on Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. To implement this Mitigation Measure, the Draft Service Plan should be revised to provide that the ranger office/maintenance facility and the staging areas may not be located on prime agricultural lands or on Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance as shown on the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Adoption and Finding: This measure is incorporated in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis when designing and siting facilities prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan. The measure will prevent cover, conversion, or loss of the listed categories of farmland to District facilities. Mitigation AGR-1b: Trails and habitat preservation areas shall either be located to avoid prime agricultural lands and Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance as shown on Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or traverse such lands in a manner that does not result in interference with agricultural activities or substantially reduce the agricultural potential of those lands. Owners and operators of agricultural lands shall be consulted to identify appropriate routes on those lands. The agricultural activities and the agricultural potential of traversed lands shall be protected and buffered from trail user impacts by means of distance,physical barriers(i.e., sturdy fences),or other non-disruptive methods. Adoption and Finding: This measure is incorporated in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis when designing and siting Trails and habitat preservation areas prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan. The measure will minimize impact on the listed categories of farmland and agricultural activities by avoiding them or buffering them from District public access and habitat areas. Page 9 Mitigation AGR-lc: The District shall adopt Draft Service Plan Policy P.I by ordinance. This policy reads as follows: "Within the Coastal Annexation Area,the District shall only acquire lands or interests in lands from willing sellers. The power of eminent domain will not be exercised by the District within the Coastal Annexation Area. This policy is a Basic Policy for the Coastal Annexation Area." Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and will be implemented by subsequent adoption of an ordinance. It responds to public concern over future District actions in the annexation area and emphasizes the District's intent to work cooperatively with annexation area farmers and landowners in meeting its overall objectives. The measure means that the District would not acquire farmland unless it was offered for sale, at which point it would also be subject to other measures to minimize impact on agriculture. Mitigation AGR-1d: Amend the Draft Service Plan to include the following: The term"prime agricultural land"as used in this Plan means: a) All land which qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Land Use Capability Classification, as well as all Class III lands capable of growing artichokes or Brussels sprouts. b) All land which qualifies for rating 80-100 in the Storie Index Rating. c) Land which supports livestock for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. d) Land planted with fruit or nut bearing trees, vines,bushes, or crops which have a non-bearing period of less than five years and which normally return during the commercial bearing period, on an annual basis, from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than $200 per acre. e) Land which has returned from the production of an unprocessed agricultural plant product an annual value that is not less than $200 per acre within three of the five previous years. The$200 per acre amount in subsections d)and e) shall be adjusted regularly for inflation, using 1965 as the base year,according to a recognized consumer price index. The term"prime agricultural land"as used in this Plan shall also include Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Adoption and Finding: This measure is incorporated in the Final Service Plan. The definition will help the District apply the other measures to minimize impact on agriculture and will ensure compatibility between the terms used in the Service Plan and the San Mateo County Local Coastal Program. Mitigation measures AGR-I a through I d together with other policies included in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project does not directly convert substantial farmland to non- agricultural use. Impact AGR-2: Subsequent to annexation,the District would likely acquire some parcels subject to Williamson Act contracts. Under the Williamson Act,recreational and open space uses are allowable uses on lands subject to contract. District acquisition of Williamson Act lands for such uses would thus not conflict with the contract or related agricultural preserve designation. Page 10 Mitigation AGR-1: See Mitigation LU-1 Adoption and Finding: This measure will be accomplished by Board approval of the Final Service Plan. The measure limits the size, scope and character of future facilities to those which are already accommodated by County and City of Half Moon Bay General Plans and zoning and consistent with the intent of agricultural preserve designation. This will ensure that the project does not conflict with a Williamson Act contract or existing agricultural zoning. Impact AGR-3: Notwithstanding the foregoing policies that are a part of the project, future public recreation at new preserves within the Coastal Annexation Area may conflict with existing agricultural and timber uses on and adjacent to District lands if trails and other recreation areas are not designed and managed in a manner that avoids such conflicts whenever feasible. Mitigation AGR-3a: Guideline 3.2 in the Draft Service Plan should be modified to state: "Improvements or public uses located upon open space lands other than agriculture...shall be located away from existing prime agricultural lands and Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance as shown on Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency_tewafd afeas eentaining ne . . — . ultur-al lands,tffiless 506h leeatie would Rot pr-efnete the plamed, or-der-ly,effieient use of an afea.To the eMent feasible, all All trails and other public facilities should be located so as not to fragment agricultural operations unless no feasible alternative is available. While trails that bisect grazing lands would not be likely to fragment grazing operations, trails that bisect cultivated crops could adversely affect the vitality of agricultural operations and should be avoided%,here feasible. If trails must traverse cultivated lands thffi they shall be permitted only if adequate buffers, signs, and other measures necessary to ensure that trail use does not interfere with the agricultural operations shall be are implemented." Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. It establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis in designing trails and other facilities prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan,prior to opening trails or other areas to public access and by ongoing project oversight thereafter. The measure will minimize the impact of public access on agriculture and farmlands on lands the District may acquire or manage. Mitigation AGR-3b: The District shall provide private property signs where appropriate and provide trail users information regarding private property rights to minimize public/private use conflicts and trespassing. The District shall clearly sign trails adjacent to active agriculture and provide trail users with information regarding property rights to minimize trespassing and conflicts with agricultural users. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis. The District will install private property signs immediately after acquisition and install other informative signs prior to opening trails for public use. The signs will help manage public access and minimize trespassing and conflicts with agricultural users. Mitigation AGR-3c: Trails shall either be located to avoid prime agricultural lands and Unique Farmlands or Farmlands of Statewide Importance as shown on the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or traverse such lands in a manner that Page 11 does not result in interference with agricultural activities or substantially reduce the agricultural potential of those lands. Operators of active agricultural activities on lands owned by or under easement to the District shall be consulted to identify appropriate routes on lands they cultivate. Owners and operators of agricultural lands adjacent to District lands used for non-agricultural purposes shall be consulted to identify routes that will avoid adverse effects on agricultural operations.The agricultural activities and the agricultural potential of traversed lands shall be protected and buffered from trail user impacts by means of distance,physical barriers(i.e., sturdy fences), or other non-disruptive methods. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis in designing trails prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan,prior to opening trails to public access and by ongoing project oversight thereafter. The measure helps carry out the policy established by Measure AGR-3a. It will minimize the impact of public access on agriculture and farmlands on lands the District may acquire or manage by isolating or buffering agricultural activities from the public use areas. Mitigation AGR-3d: The District lands or easements upon which trails are sited shall provide width sufficient for management and/or buffer space from adjacent uses so as not to preclude the viability of those uses.Buffers established to separate recreation and other open space uses from agricultural operations shall be designed and managed in accordance with the following standards: a) Buffers shall be designed in relation to the nature of the of the adjoining land use,potential land uses and proposed public access; b) Buffers shall be designed in relation to the topography and other physical characteristics of the buffer area; c) Buffers shall be designed with consideration of biological, soil, and other site conditions in order to limit the potential spread of non-native invasive species or pathogens onto agricultural lands; d) Buffers shall be of sufficient width to allow agricultural use of adjoining agricultural lands including application of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals on all lands needing treatment taking into account the likelihood and extent of potential pesticide drift;. e) All lands used for buffers should be on land or interests in land owned by the District; adjoining landowners shall not be required to provide land for buffers. f) The District shall be responsible for the management and maintenance of all lands used as buffers. g) If a specific buffer fails to resolve conflicts between a recreational use and adjacent agricultural uses the recreational use shall be moved to a different location. All buffers shall be developed in consultation with the owners and operators of adjoining agricultural lands. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. It establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis in designing trails prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan,prior to opening trails to public access and by ongoing project oversight thereafter. The performance standard for buffers is intended to minimize the impact on agriculture, farmlands, and adjacent land owners from District public access. The buffers are intended to isolate public access sufficiently so that Page 12 normal agricultural operations can be conducted and so that agriculture will not be impaired by increased public presence. Mitigation AGR-3e: Where pesticides are used, including pesticides for control of noxious weeds, they must be handled, applied, and disposed of in such a manner that they do not adversely affect adjacent agriculture, including organic agriculture. Pesticide use shall be guided by label restrictions and any advisories published by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation(CDPR)or the County Agricultural Commission. These chemicals shall only be applied by a person who is properly trained in their application. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. It establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis in operations, immediately upon acquisition and during ongoing project oversight thereafter. The measure reflects the requirement of State law to prevent pesticide impacts on adjoining lands. Mitigation AGR-3f: The District shall conduct its land management practices such that they do not have an adverse significant impact on the physical and economic integrity of timberland preserves on or contiguous to properties owned or managed by the District and so that the safety of visitors to District preserves is not compromised by timber harvesting(e.g., establishing appropriate buffers on District lands). Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. It establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis in designing trails and other facilities prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan,upon acquisition, prior to opening trails to public access and by ongoing project oversight thereafter. The measure constrains District management and public access to minimize impact on the physical and economic integrity of timberland. This can be accomplished by a variety of methods used by the District in planning and operating public access facilities, including the type, location, and seasonal availability of access and establishing buffer lands with no public access. The measure is intended to isolate public access sufficiently so that normal timberland operations can be conducted. Mitigation AGR-3g: When acquiring lands in agricultural use,the acquisition shall be subject to continued use by the owner or operator until such time as it is sold or leased pursuant to the use and management plan adopted for the property. All agricultural land which is not needed for recreation or for the protection and vital functioning of a sensitive habitat will be permanently protected for agriculture and,whenever legally feasible,the District will offer for sale or lease the maximum amount of agricultural land to active farm operators on terms compatible with the recreational and habitat use. Lands that do not have significant recreation or sensitive habitat values and which can clearly support productive agricultural operations will generally be offered for sale while other agricultural lands will generally be offered for lease. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis so that the District will include continuation of agricultural use in Preliminary Use and Management Plan, evaluate agricultural and recreational use prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan, and offer for sale or lease accordingly. The measure directs the District to facilitate the continuation of agriculture and give the District several mechanisms to do that. Mitigation Measure AGR-3h: Revise Draft Service Plan Guideline G.6.3 as follows: Page 13 GUIDELINE G.6.3 Inherent in the preservation of open space resources in the Coastal Annexation Area is the protection of: rare, threatened and endangered plant and animal species; ecological systems; agricultural resources,water quality; visual resources; unique biological resources, including heritage and significant trees; and the unique cultural resources in the Coastal Annexation Area,including historic, archaeological and paleontological resources. Therefore,prior to making any lands available to low-intensity public recreational access,the District shall prepare and adopt a use and management plan, which,includes site-specific resource management and public access components for any lands acquired by the District or managed through contract for other public or private non-profit property owners. All lands acquired by the District within the Coastal Annexation Area will be inventoried to identify and prioritize resource management issues. Where there are critical issues, such as the presence of non-native invasive species which threaten the habitat of endangered species or the economic viability of an adjacent agricultural operation,resource management plans will be prepared for these areas even if they remain closed to the public. The use and management plan shall include an agricultural production plan for District- owned agricultural lands or District lands adjacent to agricultural lands. For district-owned lands, the plan shall describe the crop and/or livestock potential for the pr9pem together with the management actions required to protect existing agricultural production(e.g.,growing seasons,water requirements,pesticide,manure, and waste management)and the agricultural potential of the land. The plan shall consider the following factors: a) Availability of labor, including farm labor housing; b) Availability of farm support services and goods; c) Necessary capital improvements(e.g. water storage, fencing, land leveling) d) Farm pperations, including erosion control, the season(s)and times of pesticide or herbicide usage,manure and waste management; e) Water use and availability; f) Access to transportation and markets, and g) Prompting agricultural production on District-owned land. In the case of District lands adjacent to agricultural production,the agricultural production plan shall develop site-specific measures to prevent activities on District lands from interfering with adjacent agricultural production. The development of use and management plans will include consultation with the current owner or operator of any agricultural operations on the land,adjoining landowners,the San Mateo County Environmental Services Agency in addition to other inelude opportunities for public involvement. Adoption and Finding: The Final Service Plan includes the revisions recommended by this measure. It requires explicit consideration in future Use and Management plans of these key factors to maintaining and encouraging viable agriculture on District owned and managed land. Mitigation Measure AGR-3i: Amend Draft Service Plan Guideline G.2 as follows: Prior to making any lands available to public access for low-intensity recreation in the Coastal Annexation Area,the District shall have personnel and equipment available to manage public Page 14 access such that: there would be no significant negative impact on existing services; and adequate stewardship to protect natural and agricultural resources will be provided. Adoption and Finding: The Final Service Plan includes the revisions recommended by this measure. The measure will help implement other measures requiring protection and buffering of land from public use impact. It requires the District to have the capacity protect agricultural resources prior to opening land to public access. Mitigation Measure AGR-3j: Amend the Draft Service Plan to include the following policy: The District shall actively work with lessees of District lands and with the owners of land in which the District has an agricultural easement interest to: a. Facilitate the provision of farm worker housing on District-owned lands by providing technical assistance in obtaining permits for such housing from the County of San Mateo. b. Seek grant funding for the continuation or establishment of viable agriculture through the California Farmland Conservancy Program and other agriculture grant programs. c. Provide technical assistance to secure water rights for the continuation or establishment of viable agriculture consistent with protection of sensitive habitats. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. It requires the District to work with other agencies to maintain and encourage viable agriculture on District owned and managed land. Mitigation Measure AGR-3k: Amend the Draft Service Plan to include the following policy: The District shall actively pursue opportunities to enter agricultural easements and leases with interested farmers and ranchers. All agricultural easements and agricultural leases in the Coastal Annexation Area shall: a. Be tailored to meet individual farmers and ranchers needs while respecting the unique characteristics of the property; b. Specify uses that are unconditionally permitted pursuant to the easement or lease to provide certainty to the fanner or rancher entering the lease or easement with the District; c. Include terms that allow farmers and ranchers to adapt and expand their operations and farming practices to adjust to changing economic conditions; d. Include terms that ensure farmers or ranchers may provide farm labor housing as defined and approved by San Mateo County; e. Ensure compatibility of resource protection and management, low-intensity public recreation and viable agricultural operations; and f. In the case of leases, be for a sufficient period of time to gain a return on the investment in the agricultural operation. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. It establishes alternatives to acquisition to meet District open space objectives consistent with maintaining and encouraging viable agriculture in the annexation area. Mitigation measures AGR-3a through AGR-3k together with other policies in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project will not result in the indirect conversion of substantial amounts of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. PUBLIC SERVICES & INFRASTRUCTURE Page 15 Impact PSI-1: Annexation and subsequent acquisition of land, absent further land use changes, would not affect traffic safety. Access to preserves eventually acquired after annexation could slightly increase use of winding, steep roads that could become hazardous depending on the amount and type(trucks, cars, motorcycles, etc.)of traffic. Mitigation PSI-la: The District will not permit access in places where the access would create a hazard due to a designfeature such as a sharp curve or dangerous intersection. rP g Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. It establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis during facility design prior to Board approval of a Use and Management Plan,prior to opening areas to public access and by ongoing project oversight thereafter. The measure establishes a sufficient guideline for safe public access and would minimize the incremental traffic hazard from new facilities. Mitigation PSI-lb: A maximum speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be placed on all trails that permit cyclists and other trail users(e.g.,pedestrian,equestrian). Signs shall be located at trail entrances that indicate that a speed limit is in effect. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. It will be a requirement for all trails that permit cyclists. It will be applied prior to opening trails or other areas to public access and by ongoing project oversight thereafter. The speed limit would provide adequate safety. Mitigation measures PSI-la and PSI-lb together with other policies in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project will not result in hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Impact PSI-2:The lack of adequate emergency access would be a significant impact because it may preclude adequate response time by public safety agencies. Mitigation PSI-2: The Implementation Action G.6.E (i) shall be added to the Draft Service Plan, which requires the District to"ensure that each preserve has adequate emergency access land and the paths and roadways of an open space area are documented and maps are distributed to local fire and police stations prior to opening a preserve to the public." Adoption and Finding: This measure is incorporated in the Final Service Plan. This will help the District coordinate with and assist public safety agencies during the facility planning process. This measure will ensure that the project does not result in inadequate emergency access. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact HAZ-1: Acquired lands may contain hazardous materials, such as leaking fuel storage tanks, agricultural chemicals, asbestos, or abandoned oil or gas wells. If such a site is not properly remediated,the public, including students at nearby schools, and the environment could be exposed to hazardous materials. Under certain circumstances, this exposure would be a significant impact. Page 16 Mitigation HAZ-1: The District shall also review local, state, or federal government hazardous sites lists prior to acquiring a property to determine if the area is a hazardous materials site. The following resources and agencies can be consulted: • Federal and state database information • Water Quality Control Board(San Francisco Bay Region) • San Mateo County Health Services Agency If a parcel is found to contain a hazardous materials site, trails, staging areas, or other facilities will not be constructed on the parcel until plans can be developed and implemented to either remediate the hazard or ensure that the public will not have access to hazardous areas. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and establishes a performance standard for future actions. This measure will be a requirement for all lands to be acquired. The combination of remediation and limitation of public access will ensure that the project does not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through exposure to hazardous materials. Impact HAZ-2: When open space areas are opened to the public, users could potentially be exposed to the risk of a wildland fire. There is also the concern that allowing public recreation access to an area carries an increased likelihood of human caused fire and hence increases the risk of wildland fire in the area as a whole. Mitigation HAZ-2a: During preparation of plans for specific facilities,the District shall: a) Review, in conjunction with the local fire protection services, available water resources. In consultation with the County of San Mateo Environmental Services Department and the California Department of Forestry, the District shall determine whether the construction of dry hydrants(as defined in the Final EIR on page 11-32)on specific lands acquired is feasible in order to provide additional remote area water supplies for fire suppression activities. The District shall purchase 1,500 -2,000-gallon maintenance-style water truck. The District- owned water truck shall be available for mutual aid calls during fire suppression activities. b) Select indigenous plant materials and/or seed mixes utilized at staging areas or along trails for their low maintenance and drought and fire resistant characteristics to minimize additional fuel available to wildland fires to the extent feasible. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis in designing facilities prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan and prior to opening facilities to public access. The combination of hydrants,water supply trucks and fire resistant plantings will minimize the public safety hazard from wildland fires. Mitigation HAZ-2b: Where compatible with other trail characteristics,planners shall locate trail alignments and access points to allow trails to also serve as emergency access routes for patrol or emergency medical transport. Where feasible for more remote areas, emergency helicopter landing sites shall be provided. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis in designing facilities prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan and prior to.opening facilities to public access. This measure will be applied wherever feasible; it will provide a range of Page 17 emergency access options that will adequately serve the public during emergencies that arise on District lands. Mitigation HAZ-2c: The District shall coordinate with appropriate agencies, such as the County and the California Department of Forestry to formalize mutual aid agreements. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. Mutual aid agreements will add to the resources available to handle emergencies and wildfires. This measure will strengthen the other measures the District will employ to address these conditions. Mitigation HAZ-2d: In addition to continuing its current fuel management practices,as new lands are acquired,the District shall consult with the San Mateo County Fire Department and the California Department of Forestry in developing site-specific fuel modification and management programs for specific lands acquired, as part of its Use and Management planning process. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and establishes a performance standard for future actions. It will be applied on a case-by case basis in designing facilities prior to Board approval of the Use and Management Plan and prior to opening trails to public access. It will improve coordination between District public safety staff and other public safety agencies and better direct efforts at reducing wildland fire risk from District lands. Mitigation HAZ-2e: The District shall limit trail use to low-intensity hiking,bird watching, bicycling, equestrian use, environmental education and other similar low hazard uses, and prohibit smoking, camping,picnic areas,fireworks and off-road vehicle use. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and establishes a performance standard for future actions. The measure is enforceable by District staff and will be effective in reducing wildland fire hazard on District lands. Mitigation HAZ-2f: The District shall develop and maintain staging areas and trail heads to incorporate: a. Fenced parking areas paved with gravel or asphalt in a narrow configuration to discourage irresponsible vehicle use. b. Entrance and road shoulders designed to discourage parking during closure and to facilitate emergency access. c. Gates that are at least 12 feet wide constructed of heavy materials with a protected locking system for District and fire access. d. 10-foot radiuses paved with gravel around trailheads. e. Signage that describes prohibited uses and warns against fire hazards. f. Low ignition fuels, such as grasses, will be planted adjacent to trail heads and staging areas, and will be mowed annually as soon as 30 per cent of the light ground fuel is cured. g. Close trail access points on all predicted high fire response level days(Burn Index of 41, or higher) and post such closures on the District website. h. Periodic patrols by District staff. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan and establishes specific performance standards for park facilities and future actions. The measure is readily enforceable by District staff and will be effective in reducing wildland fire hazard on District lands. Page 18 Mitigation measures HAZ-2a through HAZ-2f together with other policies in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project does not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Impact HAZ-3: District acquisition or management of land alone would not increase public exposure to other significant health or safety hazards. However, use of future District facilities, including trails, could adversely affect trail users. Mitigation HAZ-3a: The District shall routinely monitor trails and provide regular maintenance to avoid public exposure to hazardous conditions. Trails or other facilities shall be closed for construction or repair, or when another hazardous condition exists(e.g. landslide during flooding or extremely wet weather)that renders trail use especially hazardous, or where adjacent land uses may present unsafe conditions that could affect open space users. Where use limitations or closures are in place, the area shall be clearly designated and shall be equipped with use signs and appropriate barriers to discourage unauthorized use. Missing or damaged signs, gates, fences, and barriers shall be shall be repaired or replaced as soon as possible. Closure notices shall include the reason(s) for the closure, an estimate of how long the facility will be closed, and a telephone number to call for further information. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards for trails and other park facilities for elimination of hazardous conditions. The measure will be employed on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. The measure is readily enforceable by District staff and will be effective in minimizing public exposure to hazardous conditions. Mitigation HAZ-3b: District preserves maps for the public shall be kept up-to-date to the extent feasible. Trail maps shall also provide trail use rules, emergency information,trail accessibility, other pertinent safety information and shall be available at all staging areas. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards. This measure increases public awareness and will increase the effectiveness of the other mitigation measures aimed at protecting park resources and the public from wildland fires,hazardous conditions and allowing the most effective possible response to emergencies. Mitigation measures Haz-3a and Haz-3b taken together with other policies in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project does not expose people to any other significant health or safety hazards. AIR QUALITY Impact AIR-1: Any future project within the Coastal Annexation Area could produce significant localized air emissions, both during project construction and operation. These projects could generate fugitive dust, including PM 10. Mitigation: AIR-1: The District shall ensure that the following measures are included in all future construction contracts to control fugitive dust emissions: Page 19 • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times,of shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials and/or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas for construction sites; • Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep streets daily(preferably with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; • Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; • Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to any exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand,etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; • Suspend excavation and grading activity whenever the wind is so high that it results in visible dust plumes despite control efforts. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards to be applied prior to bid and prior to start of construction; ongoing project oversight thereafter. This measure is a list of best management practices(BMPs)that were developed by Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)to control fugitive dust emissions. The BAAQMD regulations find that implementation of this list of BMPs is effective in controlling fugitive dust emissions to below a threshold of significance. This will ensure that the project does not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. AESTHETICS Impact AES-1: Limited improvement of open space areas for recreational use after the proposed annexation project is approved could include trails,parking areas,portable sanitary facilities, fencing, signs, and access roads. The District may also develop a field office and maintenance facilities. These developments could create a significant effect on scenic vistas. Mitigation AES-la: Trail alignments and their associated facilities shall be sited and designed to be in harmony with surrounding natural and cultural settings and to retain natural appearances and values. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards and will be applied on a case-by case basis in trail design and siting prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan, prior to opening trails or other areas to public access. The District is fully capable of implementing this measure successfully by having the facilities sited or designed by professionals with adequate expertise in the aesthetic aspects of park facilities design, and by soliciting public input as needed,before the facilities are built. Page 20 Mitigation AES-lb: Trail alignments across the face of open hillsides and near the top of ridgelines shall be sited to avoid creating new,permanent,noticeably visible lines on the existing landscape when viewed from points looking up at or perpendicular to the trail. Conditions to be considered when siting trails include,but are not limited to,avoiding excessive cuts in slopes that could not be effectively revegetated, and presence of native soil to support revegetation. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards and will be applied on a case-by case basis in trail design and siting prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan. The District normally considers local geologic and soils conditions. Such measures have proven effective in the past and would be successful in the Coastal Annexation Area. Mitigation AES-le: Screening berms, perimeter planting, and parking area trees that provide a canopy shall be used at major staging areas to visually buffer views into the staging area from sensitive view points. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards and will be applied on a case-by case basis in facilities design prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan.The measure can readily be incorporated into the design of the subject facilities by park personnel or consulting planners retained by the District. Mitigation AES-Id: All structures proposed that are located in scenic corridors shall be screened using native landscaping with plants indigenous to the localized area. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards and will be applied on a case-by case basis in facilities design prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan. The measure can readily be incorporated into the design of the subject facilities by park personnel or District contractors and enforced by the District prior to completion of construction Mitigation AES-le: Any utilities constructed within a State scenic corridor for District facilities shall be underground. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards and will be applied on a case-by case basis in facilities design prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan. The measure can readily be incorporated into the design of the subject facilities by park personnel or consulting planners hired by the District. Mitigation measures AES-I a though A-ES-I e taken together with other policies in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project does not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources. Impact AES-2: The field office or maintenance facilities may require lighting for security or safety. Lights from these facilities could affect nighttime views in the area. Mitigation AES-2: Any new lighting as part of the proposed project will have light shields and other devices to ensure that no new light or glare will impact sensitive receptors. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards and will be applied on a case-by case basis in facilities Page 21 design prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan. The measure can readily be incorporated into the design of the subject facilities by park personnel or consulting planners hired by the District. This will ensure that the project does not create a new source of light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. HYDROLOGY Impact HYD-1: The Santa Cruz Mountains are known for intense rainfall with large volume flows through creeks and drainage. The annexation area is windward of incoming storms and would receive intense rainfall capable of eroding and destabilizing project area trails. No effluent waste would be discharged due to the proposed annexation project. Future toilet facilities would be self-contained at preserves, or connected to existing sewer systems,as in the case of the District developing a field office and maintenance facilities in the Coastal Annexation Area. Overall, the project should be beneficial due to protection of watersheds and associated water quality. Mitigation HYD-1 a: Trails shall be sited to minimize potential water pollution and stream bank erosion. Equestrian trails shall not be sited parallel to "blue line"streams (as mapped on USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps) and major drainages(determined during the preparation of individual trail design) within 150 feet of the streambank in such watersheds. Where equestrian trails must cross-streams or major drainages in water supply watersheds,the trail shall be sited perpendicular to the stream(to the extent allowed by topography and vegetation)through the 300- foot buffer zone(150 feet on each side). Equestrian trails shall not be located within 150 feet of the high water line of a drinking water reservoir. These measures may be modified on a case-by- case basis upon the advice of a qualified biologist or water quality specialist and the concurrence of the applicable water agency. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards to protect water quality and will be applied on a case- by case basis in facilities design prior to Board approval of Use and Management Plan. The measure can readily be incorporated into the design of the subject facilities by park personnel or consulting planners hired by the District,and checked for compliance in detail. Mitigation HYD-lb: Storm water quality Best Management Practices(BMPs)as listed in this section shall be implemented to reduce potential water quality impacts. BMPs include: 1. Flow of runoff from drainage structures will be directed to vegetated areas,away from creeks and drainages as is practical. 2. Conduct any trail maintenance work during low flow periods. 3. Use erosion and sediment control measures to minimize water quality impacts and ensure no sediment at heavily traveled trails flows into creeks.These measures include: • Silt Fences • Straw Bale Barriers • Brush or Rock Filters • Storm Drain Inlet Protection • Sediment Traps • Sediment Basins • Erosion Control Blankets and Mats Page 22 • The District shall prevent erosion on steep slopes by using erosion control material according to manufacturer's specifications. 4. If soil is to be stockpiled for any reason at creeksides, no run-off will be allowed to flow back to the creek. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes specific performance standards to protect water quality and will be applied in construction specifications. This measure"is a detailed list of best management practices endorsed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)to protect water quality. The measure can readily be incorporated into the design of the trails and other park facilities and monitored during construction for compliance by park supervisory staff. Mitigation HYD-1c: When acquiring new property, the District shall carefully evaluate existing roads and trails before adopting a Preliminary Use and Management Plan and opening them to the public to ensure that their design is compatible with resource protection and recreational uses. In some cases,the District may close and restore poorly designed roads and trails to restore the land to its natural conditions. Where roads exist in area of geologic sensitivity (areas prone to landslides or earth movement), the District may conduct a roads assessment to identify corrective actions necessary to reduce sediment input into streams. Trail surfaces appropriate to intended use shall be selected so as to minimize runoff and erosion problems. Trail designs shall conform to the County Surface Runoff Management Plan, County Excavating, Grading, Filling, and Clearing Regulations Ordinance,and the County Topsoil Ordinance,as defined in this chapter. Surface water shall be diverted from trails by out sloping the trail tread 3% where feasible. Where necessary, shallow ditches or water bars shall be used to divert water on running slopes greater than 5%. Other trail drainage techniques may include rolling dips,culverts, or ditches on sides of trails. Erosion control plans shall comply with erosion control policies in the County General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure provides a program of actions to assure that erosion and sedimentation from existing roads and trails will be abated and that new roads and trials will not cause similar problems. The measure contains performance standards and also incorporates a number of other adopted ordinances which establish performance standards to prevent erosion and sedimentation. It will be applied during trail surfaces selection and design prior to construction with ongoing project oversight thereafter. Mitigation HYD-1d: No large-scale grading shall be used for trail construction. The degree of cut allowed on a slope depends on the soil type,hardness, and surrounding natural resources. Ultimate cuts shall be contoured to blend with the natural slope. Steep areas shall be handled by limited terracing to avoid large-scale grading. Surface soil disturbance shall be kept to a minimum to reduce erosion and maintenance problems. Only those rocks, stumps, and roots that interfere with safe passage shall be removed. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure creates performance standards that can readily be incorporated into for trail design and construction. These design constraints can also readily be monitored by park personnel or District supervisory staff in reviewing grading plans or details prior to bid and construction and grading practices during construction. Page 23 Mitigation measures HYD-I a and HYD-lb taken together with other policies in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impact HYD-2: The annexation project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. Mitigation HYD-2: Culverts shall be designed so that they do not limit the ability of debris to pass. Structures over watercourses shall be carefully placed to minimize disturbance and should be located 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation or 2 feet above the Flood Hazard Flood Insurance Rate Map flood elevation. Maintenance of culverts and drainage structures shall be performed as needed to ensure proper functioning. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure creates performance standards that can readily be incorporated into for trail design and construction. These design constraints can also readily be monitored by park personnel or District supervisory staff in reviewing construction plans or details prior to bid and construction and grading practices during construction. Staff can inspect drainage structures routinely. This measure will ensure that the project does not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a matter which would result in flooding on-or off-site or place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. BIOLOGY Impact BIO-1: Constructing improvements and introducing recreational uses into areas that are currently closed to public use could adversely affect sensitive species and or/natural communities. Mitigation 1110-1a: Biological resource assessments shall be conducted during preparation of Use and Management Plans. Assessments shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and will include surveys for sensitive habitats and special-status species in the appropriate seasons. These assessments will include recommendations to align potential trails to avoid impacts to sensitive habitats, special-status species, and heritage and significant trees. If any trail alignment may affect such resources,the District will consult with the appropriate agencies(e.g., CDFG, USFWS, NMFS)to ensure that impacts will be avoided or mitigation is adequate. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure applies to all Use and Management Plans and assures that sensitive species and habitats will be considered before such Plans are finalized. The measure ensures that the sensitive species and habitats will be adequately protected. Mitigation BIO-lb: The District shall protect sensitive habitat areas and other areas where special-status species may be adversely affected when planning trails and other facilities.To the maximum extent feasible, trail alignments and other improvements shall avoid impacts to sensitive habitats, including habitats for special-status plants and animals. All improvements shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a qualified biologist to identify impact avoidance measures or mitigation measures for biotic impacts. Consideration shall be given to: Page 24 • Relocating trails or other improvements • Periodic closures • Revegetation prescriptions • Buffer plantings • Discrete barrier fencing that accommodates wildlife passage • Other appropriate measures Removal of native vegetation shall be avoided as much as possible. The appropriate resource agencies shall be contacted regarding any trail alignments or other improvements that may impact sensitive habitats,special-status species, or their habitat. Plant replacement shall be native to the area and suitable for the site conditions. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure provides for evaluation of sensitive habitat and special status species on a case-by-case basis whenever a new trail or other facility is being planned. The measure provides a list of specific actions to effectively minimize the impacts of the trails and facilities on the resources. Mitigation BIO-1c: In special-status species habitat areas, trail use levels shall be limited as appropriate to ensure protection of resources. Techniques for limiting use may include,but are not limited to: • Physical access controls • Seasonal or intermittent closures Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure provides specific actions to effectively minimize the impacts of the trail use on sensitive resources. Mitigation B10-1d: Existing access routes shall be used wherever suitable to minimize impacts of new construction in special-status species habitats. Realignments will be implemented where necessary to avoid adverse impacts on resources. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure provides a specific action to effectively minimize the impacts of new trail or road construction on sensitive resources. Mitigation B10-1e: Trail design shall include barriers to control trail use and prevent environmental damage. Barriers may include fences, vegetation, stiles, and/or fallen trees or branches. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure provides a list of specific types of barriers that effectively minimize the impacts of new trail construction on sensitive resources. Mitigation B10-1f: A particular trail or other facility may need to be closed during seasonal periods critical to special-status species,where overuse threatens resource values,or for other reasons to protect biological resources. Where a trail or surrounding habitat warrants special notice limiting trail use,the trail shall be clearly designated and should be equipped with use signs and appropriate barriers to discourage unauthorized use. Missing or damaged signs, gates, fences, and barriers shall be shall be repaired or replaced as soon as possible. Closure notices Page 25 shall include the reason(s) for the closure, an estimate of how long the facility will be closed, and a telephone number to call for further information. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes performance standards to be implemented on a case-by-case basis,as necessary. The measure provides a list of actions that will ensure that seasonal trail closures are enforced to protect sensitive resources. Mitigation BIO-1g: When parallel to a stream or riparian zone,trails shall generally be set back from the top of bank or from the outside edge of the riparian zone, whichever is greater,except where topographic,resource management, or other constraints or management objectives make such a setback not feasible or undesirable. Riparian setbacks may be adjusted on a case-by-case basis based upon advice of a qualified biologist and with the concurrence of reviewing agencies, where applicable. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes performance standards to be implemented on a case-by-case basis. The involvement of a qualified biologist and reviewing agencies in additional to District staff will ensure that riparian setbacks will be established in each case to adequately protect the riparian resources and the stream. Mitigation BIO-1h: Trail crossings of streams and drainages shall be designed to minimize disturbance through the use of bridges, fords,or culverts, whichever is least environmentally damaging. Bridges and culverts shall be designed so that they visually and functionally blend with the environment and do not substantially interfere with the movement of native fish. Sufficient depth and velocity of water through the culvert shall exist in fish-bearing streams for passage of native fish and other native aquatic species during high and low flow conditions. All trail stream crossings shall be restricted at fish-bearing streams during critical times,such as during spawning, unless bridges and culverts are provided. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes performance standards to be implemented on a case-by-case basis for trail design and usage. The design of the structures by engineers with the appropriate expertise in consultation with aquatic resource specialists(either District staff or consultants) will ensure that such structures are optimally designed to protect aquatic resources. Restriction of trail access is enforceable by District personnel. Mitigation BIO-Ii: Trails and other improvements shall avoid wetlands and other jurisdictional waters, including seasonal wetlands, seeps, springs, and farm ponds, wherever possible. A wetlands biologist will conduct reconnaissance-level surveys of all improvements in areas with potential wetlands. Any improvements adjacent to wetland areas will be constructed so that fills avoid wetland impacts and minimum setbacks are allowed. Where feasible, setbacks from wetlands and other jurisdictional waters shall be a minimum of 50 feet for trails and 100 feet for staging areas and other improvements. A formal wetland delineation will be required for any improvements that may directly impact wetlands. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes performance standards to be implemented on a case-by-case basis for trail design. The involvement of wetlands biologists certified in wetland delineation to consult with District staff or other consulting engineers involved in trail design will ensure that impacts to wetlands are minimized. Page 26 Mitigation B10-1j: Revegetation and/or enhancement shall be undertaken where any sensitive habitat or special-status species habitat will be disturbed or destroyed by facility construction. Revegetation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrently with the development. The design of an appropriate revegetation program shall fully compensate for the lost habitat,with no net loss of habitat functions and values. Riparian and wetland habitat impacts will typically be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio for high quality habitat areas and at lower ratios where lower habitat quality justifies a lower ratio. A lower ratio may also be justified if habitat mitigation is implemented and verified as successful prior to the occurrence of impacts. Mitigation shall be based on in-kind replacement of impacted habitat with habitat of equal or better biotic value. The revegetation program shall be designed by a qualified biologist or ecologist and submitted to the appropriate regulatory or trustee agency for approval. At a minimum, the revegetation program shall include a description of project impacts, mitigation calculations,the mitigation site, revegetation techniques, maintenance measures,a long-term monitoring program, and contingency measures. Native plant materials suited to the site will be utilized in all mitigation work. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes performance standards to be implemented on a case-by-case basis for facility construction. Habitat mitigation ratios and a revegetation program developed and implemented by qualified biologists with District staff oversight will ensure that the ratios are met and the revegetation program meets success criteria(e.g. percent cover, proportion of native species, percent plant survival etc.). Mitigation BIO-1k: Periodic monitoring of known sensitive habitats adjacent to trails or other facilities shall be conducted to determine if unacceptable soil compaction or other adverse impacts are occurring. If monitoring reveals that undesirable soil compaction or impact to a sensitive habitat is occurring,barriers or other appropriate measures(such as trail rerouting)shall be employed as needed to discourage off-trail use. Brush or other aesthetically acceptable barriers can be used to cover illegal trails,abandoned trails, or shortcuts to discourage use until natural vegetation returns. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes a program with performance standards to monitor and alleviate soil compaction and other adverse impacts to sensitive habitat adjacent to trails. The list of actions should prevent an accelerating soil compaction problem and assure that environmental damage, when it occurs, is reversible. Mitigation BIO-11: Should sensitive habitat be impacted such that it necessitates permanently closing a trail or staging area, a management program to rehabilitate the area will be developed. Such a program shall include discing and replanting or other techniques appropriate to the habitat type to return the site to a natural condition and sufficiently blocking the trail with barriers to effectively prohibit use. Management shall include monitoring the site to ensure that it returns to a natural condition without the intrusion of invasive exotic plants. Management shall also include design elements, maintenance, and monitoring to ensure that erosion is minimized. Construction and maintenance of trails will require the trimming and/or removal of vegetation along the trail route and staging areas. Page 27 Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes a program of actions including replanting and monitoring to assure rehabilitation of trails or staging areas that must be permanently closed. Mitigation BIO-1m: Existing native vegetation shall only be removed as necessary to accommodate the trail clearing width. The minimum horizontal clearing width from physical obstructions varies based on the type of trail but should be no less than two feet from the outer limits of the trail tread and shall be determined on a case by case basis to protect special natural features. Maximum vertical distance from overhanging branches shall be 12 feet on trails open to equestrian or bicycle use. Maximum vertical distance from overhanging branches shall be eight feet on hiking trails. Clearing shall be determined on a case-by-case basis to protect special natural features. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes a program of actions and performance standards, including replanting and monitoring to assure rehabilitation of trails or staging areas that must be permanently closed. Mitigation BIO-1n: Good pruning practices should be followed when vegetation growth must be cleared. Ground cover plants and low shrubs should not be cleared beyond the original construction stand. The construction stand shall be defined as the trail tread width plus 1-2 feet from each side of the edge of the trail tread. Noxious plants(e.g.,yellow star-thistle) shall be controlled along trails and the edges of staging areas in a timely manner. Potential adverse impacts on biological resources would also be mitigated by Hyd-I through Hyd-2. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes performance standards for pruning, clearing and noxious plant control that will optimize protection of native vegetation in public use areas. Mitigation measures BIO-I a through B10-I n together with other policies in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any: (1)species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,either directly or through habitat modifications; (2)riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in in local or regional plans,policies, or by the California Department of Fish and Game, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; or(3) federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Impact BIO-2: The construction of new fences on lands acquired or managed by the District could restrict wildlife movement within open space areas. Mitigation BIO-2: The District shall minimize fragmentation of interior habitat,reduce barriers to wildlife movement within preserves, identify and protect established wildlife crossings to allow movement across existing roads,remove unnecessary fences and barbed wire from preserves,and seek to reduce barriers to wildlife movement on a more regional basis. The construction of new fences constructed on District owned or managed lands shall not restrict wildlife movement. Fence rails shall be designed with openings large enough for native mammals to pass through. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. The measure establishes performance standards in the Use and Management Plan for construction and/or removal of fencing to minimize barriers to wildlife movement through District lands. This Page 28 measure will ensure that the project will not have a substantial adverse effect on thewildlife movement. Impact BIO-3: Construction of District improvements on open space lands could result in the removal or trimming of heritage and/or significant trees in compliance with of the San Mateo County Ordinance. Mitigation B10-3: See Mitigation AGR-3 (h) Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. Mitigation AGR-3 (h)establishes Guideline G.6.3, which requires,among other things, a site inventory for"rare, threatened and endangered plant and animal species; ecological systems; ... unique biological resources, including heritage and significant trees; ... in the Coastal Annexation Area." This measure will ensure that the project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CUL-1: Specific lands to be acquired by the District have not been identified,but lands acquired may contain historical resources. Due to public safety concerns,historical structures may need to be removed. At a minimum,treatment of a building and/or structure to be affected should provide for mitigation options and procedures for both the building to be affected by the project and any adjacent buildings with the potential to be affected by either direct or indirect impacts. Mitigation Measures CUL-la and lb will mitigate all impacts to historic structures to less than significant levels. Mitigation CUL-la: The protocol for determining if structures are of historic value is as follows: 1. The property and building types will be identified and evaluated by a qualified cultural consultant; 2. The cultural consultant will determine if the structures in question are currently included in a local register of historic resources, on the California Register of Historic Resources or on the National Register of Historic Places; 3. If it is determined that the structures in question are not currently included in a local register of historic resources, on the California Register of Historic Resources or on the National Register of Historic Places,a DPR 523 form issued by the California Department of Parks and Recreation(DPR) will be completed by the cultural consultant and the structural and building data sent to a qualified architectural historian; 4. If it is determined that the structures in question are currently on the California Register of Historic Resources or if the building has been determined to be of historic value,there are two options that would mitigate any impact to the historic values: a)Retain and rehabilitate the building according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings(U.S. Department of Interior 1990). New construction near this building should be consistent with its historic character; or b) Move the building to a different location on its current parcel or to a different parcel appropriate to its historic character. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure defines a program with specific actions (either retention and rehabilitation or relocation)of Page 29 structures of historic significance that may be impacted by District use of their lands. This program will effectively mitigate any impacts to structures of historic significance. Mitigation CUL-1b: Short-Term/Construction activities may impact nearby historic properties. These impacts may include dust accumulation on building facades,and increased noise and vibration from construction equipment. Construction period impacts could be mitigated to a less- than-significant level by implementing the following mitigation measures: 1. Project specifications should require the contractor(s)and any subcontractors to conform to the County's noise control requirements. 2. Project specifications should shall require the general contractor and any subcontractors to control dust and exhaust emissions of particulate through water sprinkling during demolition and excavation activities; covering of stockpiles of soil, sand and other such materials; covering trucks hauling debris, soil, sand and other such materials; street sweeping of the streets surrounding excavation and construction sites; equipment maintenance to reduce emissions; and,prohibitions on idling engines when not in use. 3. Cleaning of the adjacent historic buildings may be necessary after construction activities to prevent long-term damage to the building fabric. The need for cleaning shall be determined by a qualified Historic Architect, shall follow the standards set by the Secretary of the Interior, and shall be completed in consultation with the Historic Architect. 4. A structural engineer should inspect the buildings prior to construction to determine if the noise and vibration anticipated during construction will affect the buildings framework and fabric. The report, with any recommendations and mitigation measures, should be reviewed by a qualified Historic Architect. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure defines a program with specific actions to reduce the impacts of dust and noise from construction on adjacent historic buildings. Taken together,these actions will effectively prevent damage to the historic buildings. Mitigation measures CUL-I a and CUL-2b together with other policies in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Impact CUL-2: Removal or other substantial changes to not yet identified archaeological or paleontological resources may be significant. Mitigation CLTL-2: Application of the Standard Protocol for Unexpected Discovery of Archaeological and Paleontological Cultural Materials will be applied. See DER,page W-J-12 for a complete description of this Plan. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure references a Plan and protocol that are approved by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) for dealing with the discovery of potentially significant resources during site preparation. This measure will ensure that the project does not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource or directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Page 30 Impact CUL-3: Ground excavation or other ground disturbance during development of improvements, such as trails,could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Mitigation CUL-3: Application of the Native American Burial Plan (NABP) will be applied. See DEIR,page IV-J-13-14 for a complete description of this Plan. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure references a Plan and protocol that are approved by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) for dealing with the discovery of human remains during trail construction.This measure will ensure that the project does not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. GEOLOGY Impact GEO-1: Future District facilities such as a field office or maintenance building could be constructed in an area subject to geologic hazards such as seismic shaking or liquefaction. When open space areas are opened to the public, users could potentially be exposed to geologic hazards such as unstable slopes in landslide areas. Mitigation GEO-la: Surveys shall be conducted as part of trail route site planning to identify the occurrence of any potentially hazardous geologic conditions such as unstable slopes in landslide areas. Such areas shall be avoided or necessary construction design measures shall be incorporated into the trail design to assure that: • Users will not be exposed to the identified hazard • Trails would not contribute to increasing the degree or extent of instability • Drainage from the trail would be routed away from the instability In no event shall a trail be routed across an instability that is actively supplying sediment directly into a channel within a watershed known to support anadromous fish species,unless the instability is stabilized. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure defines a program of actions that will ensure that trails will not be routed through geologically hazardous areas or will be designed to avoid being damaged by the hazards. The involvement of engineering geologists with adequate expertise in consultation to District staff will ensure that trails are safely designed and sedimentation of anadromous fish streams will not occur. Mitigation GEO-lb: The District shall routinely monitor trails and provide regular maintenance to avoid public exposure to hazardous conditions. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes a requirement for routine monitoring by District staff to prevent public exposure to hazardous conditions. This measure will be implemented on a case-by-case basis wherever potentially hazardous conditions are expected. Mitigation GEO-1c: Where structures are proposed,a geotechnical evaluation shall be conducted to identify engineering methods to reduce the potential for structural failure due to Page 31 geological hazards. All buildings shall be designed in a manner that reflects the geologic hazards on the site, and shall be consistent with local and Uniform Building Codes. Adoption and Finding: This measure is included in the Final Service Plan. This measure establishes the requirement for review of possible geologic hazards by a qualified professional engineer,and design consistent with the Uniform Building Codes wherever new structures are proposed. This measure should effectively reduce any hazard of structural failures to less-than- significant. Mitigation measure GEO-I a through GEO-I c together with other policies in the Final Service Plan will ensure that the project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effect involving geologic or seismic disturbances. c. Impacts Found to be Less than Significant Numerous potential impacts were found to be less than significant. This determination was made by considering the direct,indirect and cumulative effect of implementing the proposed the San Mateo Coastal Area Annexation and evaluating it according to the significance criteria published in the EIR. The EIR's determination that impacts were less than significant was due to either(1) the project having no reasonable potential to create the impact or(2) that aspects of the project as proposed would avoid any potential impact. This is documented in the EIR. IV. Alternatives to the Proposed Project As discussed in Section III of the Findings, mitigation measures will reduce all of the Project's environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Not only will Project impacts be mitigated, but the Project will also result in a number of environmental benefits. Because the proposed Project will have no significant impacts, CEQA does not require formal consideration of alternatives. Because the Board has carefully considered each of the alternatives presented in the EIR,however, its findings concerning those alternatives are set forth below. D. No Project This alternative considers the effects of the District's taking no action on the Project as well as the effects of actions that could be taken by alternative service providers in the absence of annexation by the District. This alternative is rejected because it does not meet the Project's objectives and would not result in additional environmental benefits in comparison to the proposed Project. Under the No Action Alternative,the District would not annex the Coastal Area or fulfill any of the provisions of the proposed Service Plan. This alternative would avoid potential impacts associated with visitor facilities and visitor presence,as well as impacts associated with acquisition and management such as potential conflicts with agricultural uses. However, since these impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of the existing Final Service Plan,environmental benefits from the No Action alternative are not appreciable. In addition, the Project's many environmental benefits would not be realized under the No Action Alternative. The Project will provide many benefits to a variety of environmental resources including but not limited to,open space,biology, public recreation, aesthetics, and cultural resources. After land or easements are acquired, the proposed Service Plan requires the District follow management policies that ensure proper care of the land, that provide public access Page 32 appropriate to the nature of the land, and that are consistent with ecological values and public safety. In addition, the District will protect and restore the natural diversity and integrity of the land's resources for their value to the environment, and the public, and provide for the use of the preserves consistent with resource protection. Where necessary, land will be managed for agricultural or biological resource protection without public access. In other cases, land will be improved to facilitate low-intensity public recreation. Land acquired by the District would also benefit from a regular on-site District presence,ensuring a quick response to fires and other emergencies. In the absence of District action, public agencies and non-profit land trusts could continue their planned activities in the area. Planned activities by other service providers, however, appear to be minimal. The State and County do not have any major expansion plans within the Coastal Annexation Area. The federal government,through the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, would play a small role through most of the Coastal Area due to its strict criteria for land acquisition. Since alternative service providers are expected to play only a minor role in land acquisition in the Coastal Area, under the No Project alternative,opportunities to preserve open space in the Coastal Area would be lost. This lost opportunity could result in significant environmental impacts, as open space and agricultural land not acquired for preservation could potentially be subject to development and its associated environmental impacts. To the extent that land acquisition and management would occur by alternative service providers, the environmental impacts associated with this acquisition and management are unknown. While the District has adopted a Final Service Plan to mitigate all significant environmental impacts associated with the Project,there is no assurance that alternative service providers would adopt similar mitigation measures. This alternative would not achieve or would only partially achieve many of the Project's objectives. (1)With respect to the objective of protecting watershed integrity and water quality, this alternative would allow such actions only to the extent that other public agencies or private organizations devote resources toward that aim. While other public agencies share this objective with the District, these agencies have also indicated that they lack the funds to acquire or manage additional lands. There are no private organizations operating within the Coastal Annexation Area with a mission of owning and managing lands for this objective over the long term. Moreover,there is no public review process applicable to private organizations engaged in land management activities. Thus, while some watershed protection could occur under this alternative, it would not be to the same extent as under the proposed project. (2)With respect to protecting sensitive resources such as habitats for special-status species, like watershed integrity, achievement of this objective would be limited by the finite resources of alternative service providers. (3)With respect to providing key links to existing District and other public open space lands, like watershed integrity, achievement of this objective would be limited by the finite resources of alternative service providers. In addition, while the District's long term planning process considers linkage between existing District land, other public agencies and private organizations may not prioritize linkage with District land when evaluating potential land to acquire or manage. Page 33 (4)With respect to maintaining long-term opportunities for economically viable agriculture, like watershed integrity,achievement of this objective would be limited by the finite resources of alternative service providers. In addition,while some private organizations share the District's mission of encouraging the viable agricultural use of land resources, some public agencies do not. Thus,under this alternative, achievement of this objective is unlikely. (5)With respect to providing visitor-serving facilities for low-intensity recreation, like watershed integrity,achievement of this objective would be limited by the finite resources of alternative service providers. Achievement of this objective would also be compromised because,unlike the District,private land-trusts usually do not provide public access and low intensity recreation. Although public agencies often offer recreational opportunities,because acquisitions in the Coastal Area will be on a greatly reduced scale under this alternative, fulfillment of this objective will be similarly reduced. (6)With respect to supporting development of an integrated regional trail system coordinated with San Mateo County Trails Plan, like watershed integrity, achievement of this objective would be limited by the finite resources of alternative service providers. While the integration of a regional trail system is a fundamental consideration in the District's planning process,other entities may not prioritize this objective. Moreover, acquisitions by private land-trusts usually do not provide public access and low intensity recreation, further limiting the achievement of this objective. (7)With respect to providing opportunities for scientific research,resource conservation demonstration projects, outdoor environmental education programs,and interpretive programs, like watershed integrity, achievement of this objective would be limited by the finite resources of alternative service providers. As other public agencies have indicated that they lack the funds to acquire or manage additional lands,budgetary constraints would likely also reduce opportunities at providing these sorts of programs. Achievement of this objective would be further limited as private land- trusts generally do not provide these types of services on the lands they acquire. E. Alternative Geographic Annexation Areas The Geographic Annexation Areas Alternative considers annexation over a smaller geographic area. Four different geographic areas are considered under this alternative. 1. Northern Watersheds Only The Northern Watersheds Only Alternative contemplates annexation only from the southern boundary of the City of Pacifica south to the Pescadero Watershed and from the District's current boundary and LCP boundary west to the Pacific Ocean, illustrated in Map 17 of the DEIR. This alternative is rejected because it limits the fulfillment of the Project's purpose and would not result in additional environmental benefits in comparison to the proposed Project. Eliminating the Southern and Skyline geographic area from the proposed annexation avoids impacts from visitor facilities and visitor presence. Impacts from trail construction and use, including potential conflicts with agricultural uses and potential hydrological and biological Page 34 impacts would also be avoided in these areas. However,because mitigation measures detailed in the Service Plan mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level, this alternative does not result in an appreciable environmental benefit to the area which is not annexed. The Southern and Skyline geographic area contains agriculturally and biologically significant areas. By eliminating this area from District annexation, it would not receive the potential benefits of the proposed open space preservation program, more fully described in the No Project Alternative. Because a portion of the Coastal Area would not be annexed, this alternative would only partially achieve many of the Project's objectives. (1)With respect to the objective of protecting watershed integrity and water quality, this alternative would limit such actions in the area excluded from annexation,reducing the achievement of this objective. Thus, achievement of this objective would be on a substantially reduced scale than that of the Project. (2) With respect to protecting sensitive resources such as habitats for special-status species, this alternative would limit such actions in the area excluded from annexation,reducing the achievement of this objective.The Southern and Skyline geographic areas are rich in biological resources and would not benefit from the open space protection potentially afforded through District annexation. (3) With respect to providing key links to existing District and other public open space lands,this alternative would limit such actions in the area excluded from annexation, reducing the achievement of this objective. (4)With respect to maintaining long-term opportunities for economically viable agriculture,this alternative would limit such actions in the area excluded from annexation,reducing the achievement of this objective. The Southern and Skyline geographic areas are rich in agricultural resources and would not benefit from the open space protection potentially afforded through District annexation. (5)With respect to providing visitor-serving facilities for low-intensity recreation, this alternative would limit such actions in the area excluded from annexation,reducing the achievement of this objective. (6)With respect to supporting development of an integrated regional trail system coordinated with San Mateo County Trails Plan, this alternative would limit such actions in the area excluded from annexation, reducing the achievement of this objective. (7)With respect to providing opportunities for scientific research,resource conservation demonstration projects,outdoor environmental education programs, and interpretive programs, this alternative would limit such actions in the area excluded from annexation,reducing the achievement of this objective. 2. Annex Skyline Upper Watersheds Only Under this alternative, the annexation area would be roughly equivalent to the Skyline Planning Area of the County of San Mateo General Plan, illustrated in Map 17 of the DEIR. This area is Page 35 approximately one third of the area proposed by the Project. This alternative is rejected because it limits the fulfillment of the Project objectives and would not result in additional environmental benefits in comparison to the proposed Project. As with the Northern Watershed Alternative, reducing the annexation area would remove both the Project's potential environmental impacts and benefits from the excluded area. Because potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level through adopted mitigation measures,the environmental benefit from this alternative is not appreciable. Rather than result in any environmental benefit, as with the Northern Watersheds Alternative, the overall environmental benefit of the Project, discussed in the No Project Alternative,would be reduced. The effect of the alternative on the Project's objectives is the same as described in the Northern Watersheds Alternative,except as applied to the area outside the Skyline Upper Watersheds area. Because the Skyline Upper Watersheds area contains only a small amount of agricultural and grazing lands, very little agricultural land would be preserved under this alternative, limiting the achievement of the Project's objective to protect viable agriculture. Similarly,because significant biological resources are located in other parts of the Coastal Area,this alternative would limit the fulfillment of the Project objective to protect sensitive biological resources. 3. Skyline Upper and Northern Watersheds This alternative would annex the Skyline Upper and Northern Watersheds, as illustrated in Map 17 of the DEIR. This alternative is rejected because it limits the fulfillment of the Project's purpose and would not result in additional environmental benefits in comparison to the proposed Project. Although a different region would be excluded from annexation,the environmental impacts and benefits of this alternative are the same as those discussed in the Northern Watersheds Alternative. As discussed in the Northern Watersheds Alternative, because a significant portion of the Coastal Area would not be annexed,Project objectives under this alternative would only be met at a reduced scale. 4. Skyline Upper and Southern Watersheds This alternative contemplates annexation of the Skyline Upper area, discussed above, and the Southern Watersheds, a coastal portion of the coastside from Pescadero to the LCP boundary, illustrated in Map 17 of the DEIR. This alternative is rejected because it limits the fulfillment of the Project's purpose and would not result in additional environmental benefits in comparison to the proposed Project. Although a different region would be excluded from annexation,the environmental impacts and benefits of this alternative are the same as those discussed in the Northern Watersheds Alternative. As discussed in the Northern Watersheds Alternative,because a significant portion of the Coastal Area would not be annexed, Project objectives under this alternative would be met at a reduced scale. F. Other Alternatives Page 36 1. District Annexation on a Parcel by Parcel Basis Under this alternative, the District would purchase a parcel as it became available and may apply to LAFCo to annex the parcel when the District determines it is appropriate. This alternative is rejected because it would not adequately meet the Project's objectives and would not result in additional environmental benefits in comparison to the proposed Project. Acquisition of parcels for open space protection without annexation would frustrate the District's planning process, making the District less able to plan an efficient and manageable system of open space preserves and trails, and less able to coordinate with other open space providers. The District is unable to annex non-contiguous parcels,which will further impair its ability to accomplish the Project's objectives. Public benefit would be reduced because it would be more difficult to balance acquisition with cooperative management. Impairment of the District's ability to function in the Coastal Annexation Area would result in the acquisition and management of fewer parcels. As discussed in the No Project Alternative, while the acquisition of fewer parcels would reduce the Project's impacts,these impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level under the Final Service Plan. Because annexation on a parcel-by-parcel basis will limit the District's ability to plan and manage land,this alternative would only partially achieve many of the Project's objectives. (1)With respect to the objective of protecting watershed integrity and water quality,this alternative would not allow the District to efficiently plan for watershed integrity. Effective watershed protection requires long term planning and coordination with other open space providers. Under parcel-by-parcel annexation, the District's ability to plan and coordinate would be compromised, frustrating the fulfillment of this objective. The inefficiencies associated with parcel-by-parcel acquisition would also make it harder to balance the investment of public funds between outright acquisition and cooperative management for maximum public benefit,reducing the amount of land that could be annexed. With less open space protection resulting from a piecemeal acquisition process, the watershed protection that would occur under this alternative would not be to the same extent as under the proposed Project. (2)For the reasons set forth in the watershed protection objective, this alternative would not protect sensitive resources such as habitats for special-status species to the same extent as under the proposed Project. (3)For the reasons set forth in the watershed protection objective,this alternative would not provide key links to existing District and other public open space lands to the same extent as under the proposed Project. (4)For the reasons set forth in the watershed protection objective,this alternative would not maintain long-term opportunities for economically viable agriculture to the same extent as under the proposed Project. (5) For the reasons set forth in the watershed protection objective, this alternative would not provide visitor-serving facilities for low-intensity recreation to the same extent as under the proposed Project. Page 37 (6)For the reasons set forth in the watershed protection objective, this alternative would not support development of an integrated regional trail system coordinated with San Mateo County Trails Plan to the same extent as under the proposed Project. (7)For the reasons set forth in the watershed protection objective,this alternative would not provide opportunities for scientific research,resource conservation demonstration projects, outdoor environmental education programs, and interpretive programs to the same extent as under the proposed Project. 2. Extending District Sphere of Influence Only Under this alternative, the District's Sphere of Influence would be extended to the Coastal Annexation Area,allowing for open space planning in the area. However,any annexation of acquired parcels would still have to be approved by LAFCo on a parcel-by-parcel basis. For the same reasons discussed in the Annexation on a Parcel By Parcel Basis Alternative,this alternative is rejected because it limits the fulfillment of the Project objectives and would not result in additional environmental benefits in comparison to the proposed Project. 3. Purchasing Conservation and Agricultural Easements Under this alternative, the District would only purchase conservation and agricultural easements. There would be no land acquisition or management of properties owned by other entities. This alternative is rejected because it limits the fulfillment of the Project objectives and would not result in additional environmental benefits in comparison to the proposed Project. Under conservation easement acquisition, land is still owned by the current landowner. The District would not have use of the property for public access. Because there would be fewer recreational opportunities, the potential impacts associated with providing visitor facilities and the resulting visitor presence in the Coastal Area would be avoided. However,because mitigation measures reduce these impacts to a less than significant level,the environmental benefit from this alternative is not appreciable. As visitor access is limited under easement acquisition,this alternative is unlikely meet Project objectives related to recreational use. These objectives, discussed more fully in the Parcel-By- Parcel alternative,include: (1)providing key links to existing District and other public open space lands; (2)providing visitor-serving facilities for low-intensity recreation; and(3) supporting development of an integrated regional trail system coordinated with San Mateo County Trails Plan. The alternative's limitations on public access also restrict the ability of the District to provide opportunities for scientific research,resource conservation demonstration projects, outdoor environmental education programs,and interpretive programs. 4. Management of Open Space Lands Only Under this alternative, the District would only manage lands through contract with other property owners, such as the Peninsula Open Space Trust, and not acquire land or purchase conservation easements. This alternative is rejected because it would not adequately meet the Project's objectives and would not result in additional environmental benefits in comparison to the proposed Project. Page 38 As discussed in the No Project Alternative, land acquisition, and corresponding opportunities to protect valuable scenic and biological resources, would be greatly curtailed without participation by the District. Because the District would not purchase properties or conservation easements under this alternative,protection of these resources would be significantly limited. Such a result would allow only for the marginal achievement of Project objectives and reduce the environmental benefits of the Project. V. Other Findings A. Incorporation by Reference The FEIR is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation,this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project. B. Recirculation Not Required No new or substantial changes to the DEIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The FEIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes,clarifications or additions to the DEIR. The minor changes, clarifications, and additions to the DEIR do not identify any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts. Therefore,recirculation of the EIR is not required. C. Record of Proceedings Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Board of Directors bases its findings and decisions contained and referenced herein. Documents related to the Project are located in the Office of the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos,California. VI. Conclusion Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the District has determined that changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the Project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant effects on the environment identified in the EIR and that all potential significant effects on the environmental due to the approval of the Project have been eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance. Page 39