From The Independent April 1st 2003

Never-ending battle for control of San Bruno Mountain

Lawsuit agreement seen as a compromise and a threat
BY MICHAEL FLAHERTY
Independent Newspapers

BRISBANE - Despite reaching a legal settlement with federal attorneys in January, environmentalists fear that the landmark plan designed to preserve San Bruno Mountain is as endangered as the species it was intended to protect.

The ongoing frustration among environmentalists, coupled with efforts by state and local officials to amend the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan, reveals that the two sides remain opposed after nearly 20 years of negotiations.

San Mateo County Senior Planner Sam Herzberg, one of the habitat administrators, says that while changes are needed, the plan is working.

"At one point, all of San Bruno Mountain was proposed for development. The HCP has curtailed a lot of development," said Herzberg.

But Philip Batchelder of the environmental organization San Bruno Mountain Watch says the plan is "grossly under-funded" and failing. And to make matters worse, he alleges that the plan's administrators are hoping to add another butterfly to its endangered species list.

Adding the callippe silverspot butterfly to the conservation plan would allow developers to kill the endangered species as long as they provide habitat for it to survive elsewhere on the mountain.

In the fall, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a grant that would allow the county and its environmental consultants $100,000 to amend the plan. Changes to the plan would include not only adding the silverspot but would create something more "comprehen- sive," according to Herzberg.

Batchelder, however, believes that the amendment would be a death sentence for the silverspot.

"This species is barely hanging on. It can't afford to be compromised. We're fundamentally opposed to adding another species to what we consider to be a failing plan," he said.

Environmentalists such as Batchelder fear that the amendment would open the door for Brookfield Developers to add more homes to the mountain's northeast ridge. The developer is currently prohibited from expanding because parcels along this ridge are habitat for the federally endangered silverspot. The only way for the housing project to expand would be adding the butterfly to the Habitat Conservation Plan.

"The plan sounds nice," said David Schooley, a member of San Bruno Mountain Watch. "But what it means is that a developer can kill that habitat as long as they are planning to recreate that habitat. Exactly what does that mean?"

Herzberg argues that environ- mentalists want the .Habitat Conservation Plan to be black and white. But this was never the intent of the agreement.

"The Habitat is nothing if not gray. It's a compromise," he said. The compromise was the first of its kind internationally, according to Herzberg. Since the conservation plan was crafted in 1986, more than 300 similar plans have followed,

"Has the plan done everything that environmentalists want? You know what, most of the mountain is open space Herzberg said.

The mission blue butterfly was the original endangered species listed on the conservation plan, which allowed developers to build on its habitat. But when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife proposed adding the silverspot to the plan, San Bruno Mountain Watch sued. The organization filed its lawsuit on July 11, 2000, charging the federal agency with deliberately jeopardizing an endangered species

After a lengthy legal battle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife settled earlier this year. The agency agreed to pay San Bruno Mountain Watch $130,000, which the organization says will go towards paying legal fees.

In addition to the payment, Fish and Wildlife agreed to conduct formal biological studies pertaining to endangered plant and animal species on the mountain. The agency also agreed to investigate the effec- tiveness of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan and the adequacy of its funding.

While the settlement was a victory for San Bruno Mountain Watch, the organization continues to cast doubt on Fish and Wildlife following through with its promise. Meanwhile, the mountain's stewards will wait and see if the amendment goes through.

"We've settled, but we're not feeling too settled," said Batchelder. "We were willing to settle with the service, but we still have to see if they can put together a good plan."

Local environmental group mulls open space district
BY WILLIAM W. CHIANG
Independent Newspapers

BRISBANE - The seemingly perpetual fight among environmentalists, property owners and developers over open space is about to get uglier, more complex and more expensive. In addition, the battle lines could expand well beyond Brisbane on the east side of San Bruno Mountain and spread to include South San Francisco, Colma and even Daly City.

The time has come for "creative, proactive solutions," said Philip Batchelder, project coordinator with San Bruno Mountain Watch, which for three decades has struggled against burgeoning urban encroachment onto the mountain.

"We all have to work together," he said. "And to that end we're looking at the possibility of forming an open space district, an independent governmental entity with an elected board of directors. Its primary role would be preserving as much as possible of the remaining privately held open space on the mountain."

And because the mountain borders on multiple cities, he said, such a ballot measure would likely involve neighboring communities.

The idea of an open space district on San Bruno Mountain, he explained, is based on recent City Council passage of adjustments to Brisbane's zoning regulations governing development in Brisbane Acres.

Councilmembers approved earlier this year a program granting property owners the right to transfer development rights to another landowner. The receiving property can receive up to three such transfers, establishing a development density of four homes per every 20,000 square feet.

Brisbane Acres' previous limit was one house per 20,000 square feet.The original land would remain as open space. Any financial considerations would be a private transaction between property owners.

Carole Nelson, Brisbane's director of community development, said currently no one has applied to take advantage of the new program. Approximately 20 parcels of the 138 acre Brisbane Acres are developed, she said, with some 50 residential units in 32 buildings.

"What the city was trying to do was to encourage people who own property with very strong open space and environmental values to transfer density to another property that was less (environmentally) sensitive," she said. "For most properties (higher up on the mountain) there are no roads, no sewer, no water and no electricity. Infrastructure is very expensive to bring in."

In addition, she said, there are the "environmental constraints, the endangered species, the slopes are very steep, with canyons and water courses."

Batchelder said his group holds nothing against density transfer, which he described as a "well-regarded planning technique," ecologically sound in terms of grouping development to protect open space. He also commended City Hall's preservation efforts, such as its purchase of some 19 parcels in Brisbane Acres for preservation.

"But we don't want to start with the premise of housing development in Brisbane Acres." he said. "We're looking at open-space preservation first."

To be successful in creating an open space district for all of San Bruno Mountain, Batchelder will likely have to persuade voters to pass some sort of property tax to provide the district with operating funds as well as money to pay for land. Approval would require a two thirds majority by voters within the proposed district's boundaries.

As a comparison, the Mid peninsula Regional Open Space District, first formed in November 1972 on a 65 percent ballot landslide in Santa Clara County, became the only such district in San Mateo County in 1976 when south county residents voted to join. It now covers northwest Santa Clara County, southern San Mateo County and a small piece of Santa Cruz County.

Residential and commercial property owners in San Carlos down to Los Gatos pay 1.7 cents per $100 of assessed value, said spokesperson Kristi Webb. The district collected nearly $17.2 million for fiscal 2001-02. and boasts more than 48,300 protected acres.

Batchelder conceded it would be a next-to-impossible project to achieve something similar for northern San Mateo County.

"Some believe this is total pie in the sky." he admitted. "But ultimately we would want to have a lot of mixed jurisdiction. The crux is that in the greater context, it's incumbent upon those interested in protecting open space to come up with long term solutions."

Contact William W. Chiang at 652-6739 or wchiang@smindepen- cfent.com