Loading...
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