HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 25-1983RESOLUTION NO. 25-83
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
STATE OF CALI FORNIA
RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTING AND CLARIFYING
FINDINGS IN RESOLUTION NOS 139-82 and 140-82 REGARDING
ADOPTION OF THE SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN AREA HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN AND REVIEWING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1982 the City Council adopted Resolution No's
139-82 and 140-82 adopting the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan
("HCP") and reviewing the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Assessment prepared on the HCP pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to supplement its findings set forth in
Resolutions 139-82 and 140-82 in order to more fully and completely set forth
the rationale underlying its actions in adopting the HCP and authorizing the
implementation of the HCP and in order to insure compliance with CEQA and the
State CEQA Guidelines ("Guidelines");
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco as follows:
1. The City Council does herby adopt and approve the Findings and
Statement of Facts in support of Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B";
2. Resolutions 139-82 and 140-82 are hereby supplemented to include within
it this Resolution including the Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding
Considerations attached hereto.
3. The findings contained in the Findings and Statement of Facts in
Support of Findings ("Statement of Facts") with respect to significant effects
identified in the Final EIR together with each fact in support of the findings
is true and is based upon substantial evidence in the record, including the
Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
4. The facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are
true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the
Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
5. The Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of
the project and there are no known potential environmental effects not addressed
in the Final EIR.
6. All significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement
of Facts.
RESOLUTION NO. 25-83
7. Although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental
effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects
that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided, have been avoided or mitigated by the
imposition of conditions on the project and the imposition of mitigation
measures as set forth in the Statement of Facts attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
8. Certain potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not
incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible, based upon specific
economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of
Facts, the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Final EIR.
9. The unavoidable significant effects of the project, as identified in
the Statement of Facts, that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance
have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of conditions
on the project and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its deci-
sion on the project, the Council has given greater weight to the adverse
environmental impacts. The Council finds that the remaining unavoidable signi-
ficant effects are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits
of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
10. The Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project
that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, even when these
alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more
costly. Further, the Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incor-
porate alternatives in the preparation of the EIR and all reasonable alter-
natives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate
decisions on the project.
11. The City Council does hereby direct the Director of Community
Development to file a Notice of Determination based on the initial Findings in
connection therewith and the Environmental Impact Report that it has received,
adopted and filed, the Findings made by the Board of Supervisors in connection
therewith and this Resolution of the City Council.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a re.qular
meeting held on the 16th day of February , 1983, by the
fol 1 owing vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Ronald G. Acosta, Emanuele N. Damonte, Gus
Nicolopulos; and Xoberta Cerri 'leglia
NOES: Councilmember Mark N. Addiego
ABSENT: None
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN HABI'~Ai
CONSERVATION PLAN AND SECTION lO(a) PERMIT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR)
BACKGROUND
ADOPTED February 16,
, 1983
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA
Guidleines ("Guidelines") promulgated pursuant thereto provides for the adoption
of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The proposed adoption and implementation of the San Bruno Mountain Area
Habitat Conservation Plan may have significant or certain substantial adverse
impacts on the environment, as discussed above in the Statement of Facts. Thus,
pursuant to the requirements of Section 15089 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City
of South San Francisco has balanced the benefits of the proposed action against
the unavoidable environmental impacts associated with a range of alternatives
identified in the Final EIR and as set forth above, and makes the following sta-
tement of overriding considerations in support of its action.
1. The San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") sets
forth a program to preserve and enhance habitat for an endangered species, the
Mission Blue butterfly and other identified species, including the Callippe
Silverspot butterfly (hereinafter "Species of Concern") and the San Bruno
Mountain Area Ecological Community.
2. The primary purpose of the HCP is to provide for the indefinite per-
petuation of the Mission Blue butterfly and to provide for the protection and
enhancement of the San Bruno Mountain Area Ecological Community including all of
the Species of Concern, while simultaneously providing private landowners with a
permanent resolution of the endangered species and habitat issues they face in
order to obtain approval for development projects.
3. The HCP comprehensively addresses all threats to the endangered spe-
cies, including biological threats as well as threats from human activity. It
is based upon a biological study performed by an independent expert under
contract to the County and sets forth a program which will guide habitat conser-
vation strategies within the area. These principles include (1) preservation of
existing ecological values; (2) preservation of grassland; {3) on-going biolo-
gical studies; and (4) a resolution of scientific and management uncertainties.
4. Adoption of the HCP and allowance of its attendant development is
likely to alleviate the significant risk that both Mission Blue and Callippe
Silverspot butterfly species will become extinct on San Bruno Mountain within 5
to 20 decades. The HCP provides that certain mitigation measures be adopted,
including the conveyance of privately owned property to the County and the
retention of such habitat in public ownership in perpetuity.
5. Under the HCP, the owners of 88% of the total habitat area of the
Mission Blue will dedicate 75% of the Mission Blue's habitat to permanent,
undisturbed open space under the HCP. The owners of 89% of the Callippe
Silverspot habitat will dedicate 82% of the habitat to permanent open space.
6. The HCP will allow both public and private projects on San Bruno
Mountain to be planned so as to minimize the effect on endangered species and
the other biological resources of the Mountain. It provides ongoing planning
assistance, including' design review, phasing, reclamation of land disturbed
during development, and the creation of buffer zones for each development area
adjacent to conserved habitat.
7. The planned development will provide a mix of housing opportunities for
various income levels and will significantly add to the stock of available
housing within the City. In addition to housing units, the HCP provides for the
development of office and commercial space, visitor serving facilities, and
additional recreational and community facilities.
8. Adoption of the HCP will facilitate business and employment oppor-
tunities in the area as a number of new jobs will be created by the entry of new
businesses attracted to the area by proposed development of office and com-
merical space.
9. Development allowed by the HCP will provide the permanent funding
source to protect the existing grassland areas from both invasions of brush and
exotic species and from destruction by off-road vehicles and vandalism. It will
also provide the funding for conservation activities such as restoration of low
grade habitat areas.
10. Approximately $50,000 per year will be obtained through interim funding
paid by land owners within the area for preliminary habitat restoration activi-
ties, native plant seeding and species population monitoring and other habitat
enhancing and monitoring activities. It is anticipated that the amount of per-
manent annual funding will ultimately be in excess of $60,000. In contrast,
the annual public cost to the City for compliance with the HCP is estimated to
be minimal, approximately $1,000-3,000 per year.
11. The HCP allows for the conveyance of private lands to public ownership
for conservation and to provide perpetual funding for enhancement activities.
If the public were to acquire this land, it would require approximately $120
million dollars for the purchase of the habitat area in addition to the $60,000
annually required to fund the enhancement program. The allocation of this
amount of public monies for this purpose would produce a corresponding reduction
in funding for other public programs, and therefore conservation on San Bruno
Mountain would occur at the expense of conservation elsewhere.
12. The HCP will provide a publicly managed biological reserve for the
study of San Bruno Mountain ecology and will hep publicize the great variety of
educational and scientific research opportunities available on the Mountain.
EXHIBIT B
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
Significant Environmental Effects
Of The Proposed Project, Findings
With Respect to Said Effects, And
Statement of Facts In Support )hereof
1. Background. The City of South San Francisco ("City") has reviewed and
considered a joint environmental impact report ("EIR"), environmental assessment
("EA") on the adoption and implementation of the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat
Conservation Plan and the issuance of the proposed Endangered Species Act
Section lO(a) Permit. The EIR considered the proposed project and a range of
alternatives. Alternatives to the proposed project were identified and eva-
luated in the EIR. These alternatives can generally be categorized as follows:
Alternative l' No Project/No Action --Delay
Under Alternative 1, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), the
County of San Mateo and the City would take no action to either limit the
current threat to identified endangered species within the San Bruno
Mountain Area or to resolve the current conflict over use of private land
within the area. Planning status of public and private land within the
Area would remain as it existed prior to the initiation of the Habitat
Conservation Plan process.
Alternative 2: Modified Development With A Habitat Conservation Plan.
Under Alternative 2, a Habitat Conservation Plan would be developed and
implemented through a Section 10 (a) Permit but based on a different pat-
tern of development than is proposed in the project. Alternative 2 inclu-
des a cl ass of al ternati ve development options i ncl udi ng sharply
curtailing development projects within the area in order to substantially
reduce the short-term impact on endangered species and reducing the ground
coverage of development projects either through fewer dwellings or higher
densities.
Alternative 3: Alternate Development Without A Habitat Conservation Plan.
Under Alternative 3, development would be permitted on those portions of
San Bruno Mountain not containing endangered species or their habitat.
Alternative 3 also assumes that a HCP would not be prepared or implemented.
Alternative 4: Change Endangered Classification. Under Alternative 4, the
"endanagered" si~atus of the Mission Blue butterfly would be changed to
"threatened" pursuant to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The
change in classification would provide the Secretary of the Interior with
the authority to modify the taking prohibition contained within Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act in order to permit the taking of Mission Blue
butterflies under certain circumstances.
Alternative 5- Public Acquisition. Under Alternative 5, private land pro-
viding habitat within the Area would be purchased by public agencies and
preserved for habitat purposes.
EXHIBIT "B"
2. Paragraph 3 below identifies significant environmental effects ide-
tified in the Final EIR and makes one or more of the following findings with
respect to each effect as required by CEQA and California Administrative Code,
Title 14, Section 15088 (a)'
(1) That specific changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environ-
mental effects identified in the Final EIR.
(2) That such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the
finding. Such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should
be adopted by such other agency.
(3) That specific enconomic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in
the Final EIR.
3. The following sets forth all significant effects of the project iden-
tified in the Final EIR, and with respect to each effect makes one or more of
the findings set forth in paragraph 2 hereinabove, states facts in support of
such findings, and as appropriate refers to the Statement of Overriding
Considerations which is attached hereto.
BIOLOGY
Significant Effect
The project will have the following significant effect:
(a) 368 acres of open space including 300 acres of grassland habitat will
be permanently lost to development;
(b) There will be a temporary disturbance of approximately 100 acres of
open space, including grassland and other habitat;
(c) Grading and paving of grassland and other habitat will destroy or
displace all plants and wildlife located within such habitat;
(d) Plants and small ground-dwelling animals such as rodents and lizards
will be destroyed in areas subject to development activities;
(e) An undetermined number of Mission Blue butterflies, an endangered spe-
cies, will be incidentally taken as a result of grading and other develop-
ment activities. Approximately 13% of the present habitat of the Mission
Blue butterfly will be permanently lost to development activities;
(f) An undetermined number of Callippe Silverspot butterflies, a species
of concern, will be incidentally taken as a result of grading and other
development activities. Approximately 7% of the habitat of the Callippe
Silverspot butterfly will be permanently lost as a result of development
activities;
EXHIBIT "B"
(g) An undetermined number of San Bruno el fin butterflies and San
Francisco garter snakes, both of which are listed as endangered, may be
subject to incidental takings; and
(h) The habitat of other species of concern, including unique or rare
plants and several rare or endangered species, may be destroyed in the
course of development activities.
Finding
The Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described in paragraph 2
above and as required by the Guidelines, Section 15088(a) with respect to all of
the above identified significant effects.
Facts in Suport of Finding (1)
The project incorporates the following mitigation measures:
(a) A permanent funding program which will provide on-going funding for
habitat management and enhancement activities. Funding is to be provided
through direct interim funding payments from landowners and developers and
through permanent assessments on development units within the area;
(b) A permanent institutional structure to insure uniform protection and
conservation of the area's habitat despite the fact that the habitat is
currently subject to the jurisdiction of several local and State agencies.
The County will act as the HCP Operator to perform much of the habitat con-
servation and maintenance and will contract with outside experts when
necessary;
(c) The County of San Mateo ("County") will grant to the California
Deparatment of Fish and Game and the USFWS an easement to enter the
Conserved Habitat to enforce the terms of the Section lO(a) Permit. The
County is required to restrict the Conserved Habitat by deed or other
recorded document so that the land will be used only for habitat purposes
and for other uses consistent with the use as habitat;
(d) The California Deparatment of Parks and Recreation is required to
grant to the County, the Department of Fish and Game and the USFWS an ease-
ment to enter the Conserved Habitat to enforce the terms of the Section
lO(a) Permit. The Deparatment of Parks and Recreation is also required to
restrict Conserved Habitat owned by it by deed or other document so that
the land will be used only for habitat purposes and for other uses con-
sistent with the use as habitat;
(e) The taking of San Bruno elfin butterflies and San Francisco garter sna-
kes is prohibited within areas mapped as habitat for these species. Prior
to any development within a mapped habitat area, the landowner is required
to engage a qualifiled biologist to conduct a survey to determine whether
the proposed development will result in the taking of any San Bruno elfin
butterflies;
EXHIBIT "B"
(f) Buffer areas will be established for each Development Area adjacent to
Conserved Habitat;
(g) The use of pesticides within each Development Area is restricted
without the prior written approval of the County and the prior written
notice to the USFWS;
(h) Prior to the initial project approval of any development project
within the Area, copies of all application materials concerning compliance
with the HCP are required to be sent by the local agency to the USFWS, the
Deparatment of Fish and Game and the County. The City is required to
impose on each development project applicant the conditions required by the
Section lO(a) Permit and is required to make and render findings that the
project applicant complies with the terms of the Section lO(a) Permit;
(i) All Conserved Habitat is to be managed in accordance with the HCP
including the biological program described in the HCP;
(j) Pursuant to the HCP, 75% of the habitat of the Mission Blue butterfly
will be dedicated to permanent undisturbed open space. 82% of the habitat
of the Callippe Silverspot butterfly will be dedicated to permanent
undisturbed open space;
(k) 100 acres that will be temporarily disturbed by grading activities
will be required to be reclaimed as habitat;
(1) 800 acres of private land will be dedicated to the public and pre-
served as habitat; and
(m) Grading in certain Development Areas will be phased to reduce the
number of insects lost in any one given year.
Facts in Support of Finding (3)
The following Statement of Facts is made in support of finding (3) above
regarding all of the significant effects identified above. Under Alternative 1,
the private land would not be dedicated as Conserved Habitat and funds would not
be provided by the private sector for habitat management and enhancement activi-
ties. The Mission Blue butterfly is likely to become extinct in the absence of
the habitat enhancement activities described in the HCP. Alternative 2 would
increase costs to the landowners and homeowners as a result of a reduction in
dwelling units or would increase visual impacts (assuming higher densities
within Development Areas). A lesser number of dwelling units may not generate
the income necessary to adequately fund HCP activities. Alternative 3 could not
be implemented without a significant land exchange between the State of
California and private landowners. Even assuming a land exchange could be
arranged, Alternative 3 would not provide the enhancement benefits of the HCP.
In addition, under Alternative 3, the Saddle area would likely be the focus of
development, which could have an impact on several rare plants and possibly the
San Francisco garter snake. Implementation of Alternative 3 would interfere
with planned operation of the County park on State owned land. In addition.
EXHIBIT "B"
Alternative 3 would entail significant traffic and visual impacts. Alternative
4 could alleviate the impact of the taking prohibition of the Endangered Species
Act, but would not provide the habitat enhancement benefits associated with the
HCP. Alternative 5 would require public acquisition of approximately 1,200
acres at an estimated cost of $120 million in addition to $60,000 annually for
public funding of the habitat enhancement management program. Funds of this
magnitude have not been identified and are unlikely to be made available by
State or Federal agencies.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, as
enumerated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, provide additional
facts in support of finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable significant effect
is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations giving greater weight to the remaining
unavoidable significant effect.
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND HYDROLOGY
Significant Effect
The project will have the following significant effect:
(a) Surface runoff from rainfall will be increased in areas subject to
development;
(b) Degradation of water quality in receiving waters;
(c) Change in moisture content of soils and possible soil saturation
during heavy runoff peri ods;
(d) Change in moisture content of soils and possible soil saturation
during heavy runoff periods;
(e) Possible gullying and erosion as a result of improper grading on steep
sl opes;
(f) Possible landslides as a result of development on unstable geological
deposits;
(g) Increase in sedimentation as a result of implementation of HCP enhan-
cement techniques;
(h) Possible disturbance of the surface of San Bruno Mountain and an
increase in siltation as a result of improper gorse removal and eucalyptus
thinning;
(i) Possible gullying or soil erosion as a result of early rains following
seeding and revegetation of areas; and
(j) Change in the physical makeup of soils as a result of rock spreading.
EXHIBIT "B"
Finding
This Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described in paragraph 2
above and as required by the Guidelines, Section 15088(a) with respect to the
above identified significant effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
Grading and other development activities which may induce erosion will be
subject to oversight by the HCP Operator. All habitat management and enhan-
cement activities will be performed under the supervision of a qualifiled scien-
tist and under the supervision of a technical advisory committee.
Facts in Support of Finding (3)
The following Statement of Facts is made in support of finding (3) above
regarding all of the significant effects identified above. Under Alternative 1,
the private land would not be dedicated as Conserved Habitat and funds would not
be provided by the private sector for habitat management and enhancement activi-
ties. The Mission Blue butterfly is likely to become extinct in the absence of
the habitat enhancement activities described in the HCP. Alternative 2 would
increase costs to the landowners and homeowners as a result of a reduction in
dwelling units or would increase visual impacts (assuming higher densities
within Development Areas). A lesser number of dwelling units may not generate
the income necessary to adequately fund HCP activities. Alternative 3 could not
be implemented without a significant land exchange between the State of
California and private landowners. Even assuming a land exchange could be
arranged, Alternative 3 would not provide the enhancement benefits of the HCP.
In addition, under Alternative 3, the Saddle area would likely be the focus of
development, which could have an impact on several rare plants and possibly the
San Francisco garter snake. Implementation of Alternative 3 would interfere
with planned operation of the County park on State owned land. In addition,
Alternative 3 would entail significant traffic and visual impacts. Alternative
4 could alleviate the impact of the taking prohibition of the Endangered Species
Act, but would not provide the habitat enhancement benefits associated with the
HCP. Alternative 5 would require public acquisition of approximately 1,200
acres at an estimated cost of $120 million in addition to $60,000 annually for
public funding of the habitat enhancement management program. Funds of this
magnitude have not bee identified and are unlikely to be made available by State
or Federal agencies.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, as
enumerated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, provide additional
facts in support of finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable significant effect
is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations giving greater weight to the remaining
unavoidable significant effect.
EXHIBIT "B"
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
Significant Effect
The project will have the following significant effects:
(a) Vegetation removal and permitted development will affect the micro-
climate conditions within the area by changing wind patterns, sunlight
intensity and patterns of shadow; and
(b) Controlled burning of brush and exotic species may have an impact on
local or regional air quality.
Finding
This Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described in paragraph 2
above and as required by the Guidelines, Section 15088(a) with respect to the
above identified significant effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
In order to provide for the enhancement of grassland habitat species and
other species of concern and to reduce existing threats to the Mission Blue and
Callippe Silverspot butterflies, it will be necessary to control brush, gorse
and eucalyptus wihtin the area. Control of brush and gorse in order to limit
their spread on the Mountain and enhance the habitat of the species of concern
may necessitate controlled burning activities.
Facts in Support of Finding (3)
The following Statement of Facts is made in support of finding (3) above
regarding all of the significant effects identified above. Under Alternative 1,
the private land would not be dedicated as Conserved Habitat and funds would not
be provided by the private sector for habitat management and enhancement activi-
ties. The Mission Blue butterfly is likely to become extinct in the absence of
the habitat enhancement activities described in the HCP. Alternative 2 would
increase costs to the landowners and homeowners as a result of a reduction in
dwelling units or would increase visual impacts (assuming higher densities
within Development Areas). A lesser number of dwelling units may not generate
the income necessary to adequately fund HCP. activities. Alternative 2 would
also entail effects on micro-climates and local or regional air quality.
Alternative 3 could not be implemented without a significant land exchange her-
ween the State of California and private landowners. Even assuming a land
exchange could be arranged, Alternative 3 would not provide the enhancement
benefits of the HCP. In addition, under Alternative 3, the Saddle area would
likely be the focus of development, which could have an impact on several rare
plants and possibly the San Francisco garter snake. Implementation of
Alternative 3 would interfere with planned operation of the County park on State
owned land. In addition, Alternative 3 would entail significant traffic and
visual impacts. Alternative 4 could alleviate the impact of the taking prohi-
bition of the Endangered Species Act, but would not provide the habitat enhan-
EXHIBIT "B"
cement benefits associated with the HCP. Alternative 5 would require public
acquisition of approximately 1,200 acres at an estimated cost of $120 million in
addition to $60,000 annually for public funding of the habitat enhancement mana-
gement program. Funds of this magnitude have not been identified and are unli-
kely to be made available by State or Federal agencies.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, as
enumerated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, provide additional
facts in support of finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable significant effect
is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations giving greater weight to the remaining
unavoidable significant effect.
AESTHETICS
Significant Effect
The project will have the following significant effects:
(a) The area's visual setting will be altered as a result of development
on the Northeast Ridge, the upper elevations of Reservoir Hill and the slo-
pes Northeast of Guadalupe Canyon Parkway. The open space nature of these
areas will be permanently altered due to development activities; and
(b) Colorful but exotic species such as gorse will be eliminated as part
of the habitat management and enhancement activities and will be replaced
by grasses and native wildflowers. Chaining, scraping and raking activi-
ties will leave temporary scars which will be eliminated within a few weeks
as seeding takes effect. Controlled burned areas will leave areas charred
until seeded plants begin to grow.
Finding
This Council hereby makes findings (1) and (3) as described in paragraph 2
above and as required by the Guidelines, Section 15088(a) with respect to the
above identified significant effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
Areas subject to brush and exotic species management will be reseeded with
native plants and grasses.
Facts in Support of Finding (3)
The following statement of facts is made in support of finding (3) above
regarding all of the significant effects identified above.
The succession of grassland habitat within the San Bruno Mountain Area to
brush and other non-grassland habitat will require active habitat management
activities to control the spread of brush and other exotic species and protect
and enhance the habitat of endangered species and other species of concern.
EXHIBIT "B"
Under Alternative 1, the private land would not be dedicated as Conserved
Habitat and funds would not be provided by the private sector for habitat mana-
gement and enhancement activities. The Mission Blue butterfly is likely to
become extinct in the absence of the habitat enhancement activities described in
the HCP. Alternative 2 would increase costs to the landowners and homeowners as
a result of a reduction in dwelling units or would increase visual impacts
(assuming higher densities within Development Areas). A lesser number of
dwelling units may not generate the income necessary to adequately fund HCP
activities. Alternative 3 could not be implemented without a significant land
exchange between the State of California and private landowners. Even assuming
a land exchange could be arranged, Alternative 3 would not provide the enhan-
cement benefits of the HCP. In addition, under Alternative 3, the Saddle area
would likely be the focus of development, which could have an impact on several
rare plants and possibly the San Francisco garter snake. Implementation of
Alternative 3 would interfere with planned operation of the County park on State
owned land. In addition, Alternative 3 would entail significant traffic and
visual impacts. Alternative 4 could alleviate the impact of the taking prohobi-
tion of the Endangered Species Act, but would not provide the habitat enhan-
cement benefits associated with the HCP. Alternative 5 would require public
acquisition of approximately 1,200 acres at an estimated cost of $120 million in
addition to $60,000 annually for public funding of the habitat enhancement mana-
gement program. Funds of this magnitude have not been identified and are unli-
kely to be made available by State or Federal agencies.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, as
enumerated in the Statement Of Overriding Considerations, provide additional
facts in support of finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable significant effect
is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations giving greater weight to the remaining
unavoidable significant effect.
INDIRECT IMPACTS OF ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT
Significant Effect
The project will have the following significant effects:
(a) The adoption and implementation of the HCP will facilitate the appro-
val of a number of individual development projects within the San Bruno
Mountain Area. These projects will entail locally significant environmen-
tal effects including the following:
(1) Reduction in open space;
(2) Reduction in fish and wildlife habitat;
(3) Interruption of natural patterns of surface dainage;
(4) Increase in energy use;
(5) Impacts on aesthetic resources;
EXHIBIT "B"
(6) Local increases in noise;
(7) Increases in traffic and impacts on air Quality; and
(8) Expansion of community services.
Finding
This Council hereby makes findings (1), (2) and (3) as described in
paragraph 2 above and as required by the Guidelines, Section 15088(a) with
respect to the above identified significant effects.
Facts in Support of Finding (1)
The facts recited above in support of finding (1) with respect to BIOLOGY
are hereby incorporated herein by reference.
Facts in Support of Finding (2)
The indirect impacts of the project have been or will be discussed in
separate EIRs on the general plan amendment and the individual development pro-
jects. The adoption of other mitigation measures with regard to the individual
development projects has been or will be addressed in the course of the approval
process for such projects. (For example, see Terrabay Development EIR, August
1982, prepared by EIP Corporation.)
Development of individual project areas is necessary to insure implemen-
tation of the HCP, including dedication of private land to Conserved Habitat,
contribution by private landowners to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat
Conservation Trust Fund, and establishment of a permanent institutional struc-
ture to provide for habitat management and enhancement activities.
The succession of grassland habitat within the San Bruno Mountain Area to
brush conditions will require active habitat management activities to control
the spread of bursh and other exotic species.
Under Alternative 1, the private land would not be dedicated as Conserved
Habitat and funds would not be provided by the private sector for habitat mana-
gement and enhancement activities. The Mission Blue butterfly is likely to
become extinct in the absence of the habitat enhancement activities described in
the HCP. Alternative 2 would increase costs to the landowners and homeowners as
a result of a reduction in dwelling units or would increase visual impacts
(assuming higher densities within Development Area). A lesser number of
dwelling units may not generate the income necessary to adequately fund HCP
activities. Alternative 3 could not be implemented without a significant land
exchange between the State of California and private landowners. Even assuming
a land exchange could be arranged, Alternative 3 would not provide the enhan-
cement benefits of the HCP. In addition, under Alternative 3, the Saddle area
would likely be the focus of development, which could have an impact on several
rare plants and possibly the San Francisco garter snake. Implementation of
Alternative 3 would interfere with planned operation of the County park on State
10
EXHIBIT "B"
owned land. In addition, Alternative 3 would enteail significant traffic and
visual limpacts. Alternative 4 could alleviate the impact of the taking prohi-
bition of the Endangered Species Act, but would not provide the habitat enhan-
cement benefits associated with the HCP. Alternative 5 would require public
acquisition of approximately 1,200 acres at an estimated cost of $120 million in
addition to $60,000 annually for public funding of the habitat enhancement mana-
gement program., Funds of this magnitude have not been identified and are unli-
kely to be made available by State or Federal agencies.
In addition, the overriding economic, social and other considerations, as
enumerated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, provide additional
facts in support of finding (3). Any remaining unavoidable significant effect
is acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth above and in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations giving grater weight to the remaining
unavoidable significant effect.
11