Brisbane City Council delays vote on quarry

Publisher: San Francisco Examiner
Reporter: Christine Lias

BRISBANE - A contested City Council decision to convert an existing quarry on San Bruno Mountain into more than 180 residential units has been delayed for another two months.

Council members Monday night failed to act on an environmental impact report for the proposed development at 1 Quarry Road.

Community Development Director Bill Prince said the council had several unanswered questions and will revisit the issue Nov. 14.

"We don't consider it complete," Mayor Sepi Richardson said Tuesday of the environmental report.

The council did, however, receive an earful from concerned residents and environmental groups such as the San Bruno Mountain Watch, which has publicly opposed any development.

Among the many issues raised was the fate of the mission blue butterfly, which is classified as an endangered species and calls San Bruno Mountain its home. Ted Sayre, a geologist with Cotton, Shires & Associates consulting firm, discussed the threat of falling rocks and the potential damage a major earthquake would inflict upon future homes.

Jo Coffey of San Francisco, a member of San Bruno Mountain Watch, cited five land-use policies specified by the Association of Bay Area Governments. She said the proposed housing development will need infrastructure, lacks public transportation and will be too expensive to purchase.

"It will significantly change the character of Brisbane," Coffey told the council.

E-mail: clias@examiner.com

Quarry conversion sparks debate: Critics complain housing plan lacks transit hub

Publisher: San Francisco Examiner
Reporter: Christine Lias

BRISBANE -- The Brisbane City Council will hold the first of what could become many public hearings tonight to discuss converting a quarry into more than 180 residential units and more than 100 acres of open space.

A group of environmentalists called San Bruno Mountain Watch are against it. The Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club is voicing concerns as well.

At issue are plans years in the making to convert land now occupied by the California Rock and Asphalt Inc. and build 129 single-family homes and 54 condominiums, 28 of which will be sold as affordable housing to low-income residents.

The "One Quarry Road Residential Project" would entail the discontinuation of quarry operations and reclamation of land. Along with the housing, it calls for a soccer field, new trail, habitat restoration and a gift of $7.2 million to the city for "community benefits."

"We support the city looking at in-fill development, but it has to be done in the right place," said Melissa Hippard, director of the local Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club. Hippard said she has concerns with the number of residents--and the number of vehicles--such a development would bring to Brisbane.

"You would put a dense population of residents reliant upon their car" without a transit-oriented hub such as a Caltrain station or BART stop, Hippard said.

The grass-roots San Bruno Mountain Watch, which has been vocal in its opposition, has posted a simple message on its Web site. "Massive building in the heart of the mountain? No way! Save it for something much, much better. Let it heal."

The project first surfaced in spring 2001 with a draft environmental impact review and subsequent response, comments and finalization. The Brisbane Planning Commission, after months of discussion, unanimously approved the plans January 27.

The site is currently part of unincorporated San Mateo County and would require annexation and approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7:30 p.m. Monday at the Brisbane Community Center, 250 Visitacion Ave.

It will be broadcast live on cable Channel 27.

CEQA Complaint: Bayshore Condo Project

Publisher: San Bruno Mountain Watch
Reporter: No Byline

PAUL V. CARROLL/121369

Attorney At Law

5 Manor Place

Menlo Park, California 94025

(650) 322-5652



Attorney for Petitioner

SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH



SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO



SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN WATCH,



Petitioner,

v.

CITY OF BRISBANE, CITY OF BRISBANE PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, and Does I through X inclusive;



Respondents.

__________________________________/



CHARLES NG, JUDY NG, BEST DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CO., and DOES XI through XX, inclusive,



Real Parties in Interest.

__________________________________/









No.:



PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE (CCP � 1094.5)

INTRODUCTION

1. On August 1, 2005, the City of Brisbane approved Use Permit UP-1-02, Design Permit DP-1-02, and Use Permit UP-1-03 for a 30-unit residential condominium complex at 3710-3760 Bayshore Boulevard (project), and adopted a negative declaration for the project.

2. Members of the public submitted evidence demonstrating that the project would have a potential significant impact on the environment. Among other things, the evidence showed that the project site was characterized by landsliding, erosion, and seismic instability, and that the project itself could destabilize slopes above it.

3. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the lead agency must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) for a project when there is substantial evidence that the project may have an adverse impact on the environment. The evidence in this case goes well beyond this low threshold. The City violated the law in failing to require an EIR for the project. But that was not all. The City also violated CEQA by deferring the formulation of mitigations until after project approval, by failing to adequately describe the project and its mitigations, by proposing mitigations that are not supported by substantial evidence, and by failing to prepare an adequate mitigation monitoring plan.

4. The Petitioner requests this Court to issue a writ of mandate setting aside the City's approval of the project and its adoption of a negative declaration.



GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5. Petitioner San Bruno Mountain Watch is a non-profit California corporation dedicated to the preservation, protection, and restoration of San Bruno Mountain and its unique resources. Mountain Watch informs and educates the public regarding environmental, cultural, and historic issues relating to San Bruno Mountain. Mountain Watch has 2,100 members. Mountain Watch members are interested in the survival and recovery of wildlife species, including endangered and threatened species, and are interested in protecting their habitat. Mountain Watch acts in the belief that the San Francisco Bay forms an integral part of the broader San Bruno Mountain setting, and advocates for maximal preservation of historic, bayside open space. Members of Mountain Watch, including citizens, taxpayers, property owners, and residents, live, work, travel, and recreate near San Bruno Mountain, and value the natural resources that would be impacted by the proposed project.

6. Respondent City of Brisbane is a city organized under the laws of the State of California.

7. Respondent City of Brisbane Planning And Community Development Department is a department of the City of Brisbane. Respondents will be collectively referred to as the City.

8. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of DOES I through X are unknown to Petitioner, who therefore sues said Respondents by such fictitious names. Petitioner will seek leave to amend this petition when they have been ascertained.

9. Real parties in interest Charles Ng, Judy Ng, and Best Design and Construction Co. are listed in the initial study as the project's sponsors.

10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of DOES XI through XX, are unknown to Petitioner who therefore sues said real parties in interest by such fictitious names. Petitioner will seek leave to amend this petition when they have been ascertained.

11. The project consists of 30 residential condominium units in a two-building complex. The project site of approximately 127, 070 square feet is situated on a very steep northeast facing slope on the flanks of San Bruno Mountain fronting on Bayshore Boulevard. It rises steeply from Bayshore Boulevard at an average slope of 66%. The buildings would be stepped into the hillside, requiring thousands of cubic yards of cut and a series of retaining walls.

12. Proposed site development is constrained by steep to precipitous slopes, landslide hazards and anticipated strong seismic ground shaking.

13. The applicant has hired two geological consulting firms who have prepared a number of reports that conclude that instability of the hillside requires mitigation, including more detailed geologic and geotechnical studies. The final design of necessary slope mitigation measures is to be based on the results of a detailed geotechnical investigation, including exploratory trenching and/or drilling. Establishment of access roads will be necessary for the subsurface exploration program.

14. Based on information, Petitioner believes and therefore alleges that the notice of decision approving the project and its negative declaration was filed on August 4, 2005.

15. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5; California Public Resources Code sections 21167, 21168, and 21168.5.

16. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to the filing of this Petition by raising issues known to it before the City during the review process of the project. Petitioner requested that the City not approve the project, and has performed all conditions precedent to the other causes of action.

17. At all times mentioned herein, the City has been able to deny the approval of the project, and to require an EIR. Despite such ability, and despite Petitioner's demand for denial, the City has failed and continues to fail to perform its duty to deny the approval and require an EIR.

18. If the City is not ordered to withdraw its approval of the project, and real parties in interest are not enjoined from developing the project, the land and environmental values subject to and affected by the project will suffer immediate, irreparable, and permanent damage.

19. If the City is not ordered to withdraw its approval of the project, and if its decision is not stayed pursuant to CCP section 1094.5, subdivision (g), the land and environmental values subject to and affected by the project will suffer immediate, irreparable, and permanent damage.

20. Real parties will not be prejudiced by an injunction, or alternatively issuance of a stay pending judgment because they will have future opportunities for their project if such operations conform to the law.



FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (CEQA Violation)



First Claim for Relief

21. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21100 and CEQA Guidelines 15064, an agency must prepare an environmental impact report whenever there is substantial evidence in the record or it can be fairly argued based on such evidence that a project may have significant impacts on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, � 21100; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, � 15064.)

22. Under CEQA Guidelines 15065, an agency must prepare an EIR if a project's effects are individually limited, but cumulatively significant. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, � 15064.)

23. There is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have significant adverse impacts on the environment in a number of ways, including but not limited to, impacts from landsliding, erosion, seismic events, the proposed geologic and geotechnical investigations, and the implementation of mitigation measures for slope instability impacts.

24. Because the record contains substantial evidence that the project may have significant impacts on the environment, the City should have required preparation of an EIR. The City violated the law and abused its discretion in approving the project and adopting a mitigated negative declaration. (Pub. Res. Code, �� 21082.2, 21100.)

25. Under CEQA, a lead agency may not hide behind a negative declaration's failure to undertake an analysis of a project's potential significant and cumulative impacts. (E.g., Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.) In this case there is substantial evidence that the negative declaration failed to undertake the studies necessary to support its conclusions, relating to a number of issues, including but not limited to, landsliding, erosion, seismic events, and slope instability impacts.



Second Claim for Relief

26. A negative declaration must contain an accurate description of the project. That description must contain any and all mitigation measures included in the project to avoid potentially significant impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, � 15071, subd. (a), (e).)

27. The courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of an accurate and stable project description. (E.g., County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713.)

28. In this case, the description of the project and its mitigations is inadequate under CEQA, because the mitigations for slope instability impacts have not been formulated and are not yet known.

29. The failure to describe the project and its mitigations violated CEQA and constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Pub. Res. Code, � 21168, 21168.5.)



Third Claim for Relief

30. The adequacy of mitigation measures for a project must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. (E.g., Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 422.)

31. In this case, the mitigated negative declaration proposes future studies and investigations to determine whether slope instability impacts can be mitigated, and, if so, what those mitigations will be.

32. This procedure violated CEQA, because the proposed future mitigations are unknown and therefore are not based on substantial evidence. It constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Pub. Res. Code, � 21168, 21168.5.)



Fourth Claim for Relief

33. It is unlawful under CEQA for an agency to defer the formulation of mitigations until after project approval. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; see CEQA Guidelines, � 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).)

34. In this case, the City approved the project and adopted the negative declaration without first formulating mitigations for the unstable slopes above the project.

35. Instead, the City approved the project conditioned on a number of future studies and investigations intended to determine how to mitigate slope instability impacts. This procedure violated CEQA and constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Pub. Res. Code, �� 21168, 21168.5.)



Fifth Claim for Relief

36. When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. (Pub. Res. Code, � 21081.6, subd. (a)(1); CEQA Guidelines, �� 15074, subd. (d), 15097.)

37. In this case, the mitigated negative declaration required numerous mitigation measures as conditions for approval. However, the proposed mitigation monitoring program only addresses two of those mitigations. As such, it is a wholly deficient under CEQA and its adoption constituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion. (Pub. Res. Code, �� 21168, 21168.5.)

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:

1. For Writ of Mandate ordering the City to set aside its approvals of Use Permit UP-1-02, Design Permit DP-1-02, and Use Permit UP-1-03, and its adoption of a negative declaration, and to prepare an EIR for the project as required by CEQA and its regulations.

2. For a permanent injunction enjoining real parties in interest, their agents, employees, representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, from engaging in any physical activity at the project site pursuant to the City's approval of the project until such activity has been lawfully approved under California statutes and regulations.

3. Alternatively, for a stay of the City's decision approving the project pending judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (g).

4. For reasonable attorney's fees under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.

5. For costs of suit.

6. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

Dated: August ___, 2005











PAUL V. CARROLL
Attorney for Petitioner









VERIFICATION

I, Philip Batchelder, declare as follows: I am a member of Petitioner San Bruno Mountain Watch and am authorized to make this verification.

I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, which I am informed and believe are true, and on that basis allege them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on August __, 2005, Brisbane, California.



________________________________

Philip Batchelder

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County of San Mateo. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is: 5 Manor Place, Menlo Park, CA 94025.

On August ___, 2005, I served one true copy of PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE, PETITIONER'S NOTICE REGARDING PREPARATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, and postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Menlo Park, California addressed as follows:



Attorney General, Resources Div.

455 Golden Gate Ave., Ste. 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102



Charles and Judy Ng

Best Design and Construction Co.

100-C Old County Rd.

Brisbane, CA 94005




City of Brisbane

City Hall

50 Park Place

Brisbane, CA 94005

I, Paul V. Carroll, declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August ___, 2005, at Menlo Park, California.



________________________

Pioneer conservation plan falls short: Promised new habitat for butterflies has not materialized

Publisher: Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter
Reporter: Robert McClure

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- Under a skeletal roof, Doug Allshouse putters around flats of viola pedunculata.

(Photo: Environmentalist David Schooley, with San Francisco in the background, has led efforts to fix problems with the habitat protection plan at San Bruno Mountain, home to three rare butterfly species.)

To raise the native plants in a native climate, the retired grocer and other volunteers removed every pane of glass from a donated greenhouse.

Viola is critical to the survival of the callippe silverspot, one of three federally protected butterflies on nearby San Bruno Mountain, site of the nation's first habitat conservation plan.

Things aren't going well. A mysterious dormancy period makes viola tricky to raise.

"I'm waiting for Mother Nature to tip her hand and show me what to do," Allshouse said.

It's important work -- the butterflies need more of the plants in order to thrive. Each spring, male callippes patrol ridgelines looking for love. Afterward, females head downslope to lay eggs -- and the only plant that will do is viola.

The hilltops, with their commanding views of San Francisco and the Pacific Ocean, were given up with great remorse by developers. But the deal they struck with the government allowed houses to rise atop big fields of viola at lower levels.

Declared a "model" conservation plan by Congress when proposed in 1982, San Bruno is in a predicament today that does not inspire confidence in the national program it spawned.


GILBERT W. ARIAS / P-I
Development continues on the north side of San Bruno Mountain.
The plan here has fallen short. Twenty-three years into its 30-year term, not only has it failed to create the amount of butterfly habitat that was promised, but management of protected lands is being done on the cheap.

The plan's managers say it is a success because the butterflies are still around and their numbers appear to be stable. But a 2004 study by UCLA called the methods used to count butterflies for the plan's first 18 years "haphazard" and labeled the results "spurious."

Money has been set aside to manage the mountain's preserved lands, but it is not enough to fight the waves of invasive weeds crowding out native plants favored by the trio of butterflies: the callippe, the San Bruno elfin and the mission blue.

The San Bruno predicament illustrates how habitat plans, which grant decades-long licenses to kill and harm endangered species, can be difficult to maintain because of unanticipated changes -- both biological and financial.

Despite the challenges, the mountain's allure hasn't faded for Allshouse, who is president of Friends of San Bruno Mountain. "The mountain is magical, and if you let it, it gets you hooked," he said. "It's almost like a spiritual entity."

Officially, the job of taking care of the mountain falls to Patrick Kobernus of Thomas Reid Associates, the environmental consulting firm that hatched the habitat plan and is responsible for making it work.


But Kobernus said he is forced to perform "triage" as dozens of invasive weeds take root -- some of them likely introduced by homeowners in developments bearing street names such as Callippe Court and Silverspot Drive.

"There's been a general lack of understanding of how difficult it is to manage invasive weeds," he said. "Once you set aside land, that's one thing -- but managing it, we're learning, is a much different thing."

The biggest problem is a lack of money. Homeowners pay $37 a year to help the butterflies. That generates about $140,000, but that is nowhere near enough to keep weeds in check on a 5-square-mile mountain.

For all its drawbacks, the San Bruno plan is better than many being approved today. About 90 percent of the mountain's butterfly habitat was preserved in the original deal. Many modern habitat conservation deals allow an acre to be developed for every acre saved, an analysis of the plans shows.

Another difference: This plan didn't come with a now-common "no surprises" clause, which promises developers that they will never have to pay any more money or give up any more land -- even if the population of the species in question plummets.

The plan has fallen short of its promise to replace at least a quarter of the butterfly habitat lost to development. The latest progress report lists 46 acres restored for the butterflies, while houses occupy more than 300 acres.

Environmentalists scoff at the restoration done. "They haven't done (a thing) out there," Allshouse said.

Because this plan must be amended -- the callippe butterfly won protection in 1997, and wasn't covered by the original plan -- Kobernus' firm and San Mateo County officials have a chance to fix some of the shortcomings.

More trade-offs, however, may be in the works. A developer who wants to build houses in existing butterfly habitat has proposed boosting the butterfly-protection assessment to $800 for each new house. If allowed, that would triple the total collected under the plan to about $420,000 a year, officials say.

Allshouse and other conservationists are wary. Habitat conservation plans "sound kind of warm and fuzzy," Allshouse said. "What you end up finding out is that (they) don't end up benefiting the endangered species at all. They just allow people to destroy their habitat."

Protecting the Mountain

Publisher: City College of San Francisco, Center for Habitat Restoration
Reporter: Philip Batchelder

San Bruno Mountain - Big Island in a Big City
San Bruno Mountain hides in plain sight between San Francisco
and South San Francisco. As the nation's largest
urban open space, and as the largest remaining portion of
the Franciscan ecosystem, the mountain is large and wild
enough to harbor hundreds of species of flora and fauna,
some of which live nowhere else. Ohlone village sites,
rare native bunchgrass meadows, extraordinary wildflower
displays, and deep canyons with a variety of plant communities,
including oak, bay, and buckeye woodlands; all this
can be found on the mountain in the midst of millions of
people. These treasures have faced numerous threats since Spaniards first drove out the Ohlone and began pasturing
cattle. The privately owned portions still face outright
destruction for development, while the State and
County Park suffers from fire suppression, the absence of
grazing deer and elk, exotic weeds, inadequate funding,
and mismanagement. The mountain's ecosystem, while still
breathtakingly beautiful, is under tremendous strain, and
its advocates are as busy as ever.

Defending the Mountain
The modern movement to protect the mountain began in
the late sixties as landowners proposed ever more ambitious
building schemes. Bette Higgins, David Schooley, and
others began organizing the Committee to Save San Bruno
Mountain, which would later become San Bruno Mountain
Watch. Other early defenders included botanists Elizabeth
McClintock and James Roof as well as countless local citizens
who participated in policy debates, elections, lawsuits,
marches, media activism, and direct action to curb
urban sprawl. The discovery of the rare Mission Blue, San
Bruno Elfin, and San Francisco Silverspot butterflies and
their subsequent listings under the Federal Endangered
Species Act were watershed events that dramatically altered
the course of the mountain's history.
Over the years, there have been recalls of local elected
officials, lawsuits against agencies charged with enforcing
environmental laws, rancorous public meetings, and a
stream of development projects. There have been spectacular
victories, such as the establishment of the State
and County Park, the preservation of Owl and Buckeye
Canyons, and the recent purchase of an ancient Ohlone
shellmound and village site for addition to the park. There
have also been heartbreaking defeats, such as the destruction
of Paradise Valley in South San Francisco and the construction
of Guadalupe Valley Parkway through the heart
of the mountain's wild space. The Parkway effectively destroyed
much of Colma Creek; as a barrier that butterflies are unlikely to cross, the road also severely fragmented the
butterflies' habitat, thus reducing the flow of genes that factors
so importantly in their long term chances of evolution and survival.


Habitat Conservation or Profit Conservation?
Perhaps the longest running battle concerns the so-called Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP), a loophole in the Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA) that allows for limited destruction of
rare species and their habitats in exchange for demonstrably
insufficient efforts to "create" substitute habitats and to
control weeds. David Schooley vehemently opposed the
Plan from the start and, with the rest of Mountain Watch
and with allies in the California Native Plant Society and the
San Mateo County-sponsored Friends of San Bruno Mountain,
is now at the center of a legal and policy battle over the
tenuous future of the HCP.

Had the Plan been developed in accord with the spirit and intent of the
Endangered Species Act: to enable the recovery and ongoing
survival of species facing extinction, San Bruno Mountain and
its rare species would likely be in much better shape today. Instead,
the HCP facilitated development, and 23 years later, Federal, State, and
municipal agencies are trying to untangle a knot of conflicting priorities.
Developers want to build, environmentalists demand sweeping improvements,
regional governments wrestle with the pressures of urban sprawl, and
new weeks threaten to overtake the mountian. Since the HCP's funding
is capped to guarantee builders that they won't ever have to pay more
than originally agreed, the solution being offered to the public is to
allow further destruction in order to get more money to pour into a Plan
that doesn't work.

Why doesn't the HCP work? The idea that a rare or endangered species
can be relocated is scientifically unfounded. Rare species are often rare
because their habitat requirements are specific. The habitat is defined by
a number of factors: soil type, hydrology, wind, fog, temperature, light, slope,
and the array of flora and fauna interacting in the area. Therefore, creating
new habitat for a sensitive species would be very difficult, very expensive,
and still might not work. for many rare species the complexities of feeding,
reproduction, predation, disease and other aspects of its life history are only
poorly understood. Also, the contractor hired to create habitat will need to
do extensive research prior to initiating the project and developing and
performing monitoring. Finally, it seems that new habitat should be developed
and species monitored in the area prior to destroying habitat elsewhere.
These vital steps were not undertaken for the San Bruno Mt. HCP.

If nothing else, the firm that has been retained to carry
out the provisions of the HCP, Thomas Reid Associates
(TRA) has got to go. TRA has had conflicts of interest
from the start. They helped craft the initial Plan, conducted
the official environmental impact review, won bids
to start the work after the Plan was approved, and have
had the contract renewed several times despite a very
poor level of performance. Every year they produce a
status report that cannot be taken seriously because of
the firm's vested interest in making the picture look rosy.
We have had to wait for over 20 years for scientific peer
review of TRA's practices to be conducted. Even though
the two reports that were finally produced focused solely
on TRA's butterfly monitoring, the results are powerful
indictments because so much of the Plan rests on TRA's
purported ability to track the fluctuations in butterfly
populations. The peer reviews concluded that the monitoring
data is largely useless due to poor monitoring design
and implementation. In fact, the first report said that
the ONLY conclusion that one can reasonably draw from
the data is that the species merely exist. To make matters
worse, almost all of the developers around the mountain
have used, in keeping with the protocol of the HCP, TRA's
data to underpin assertions about their projects' biological
impacts. It's time to hire a new environmental consulting
firm that will address the situation objectively and design
monitoring regimes that will be peer-reviewed from the start.

Adopted in 1982, the San Bruno Mountain HCP was the
very first of its kind; it has served as a precedent for over
one thousand other HCPs that are in place or under de-
velopment nationwide. The results of the current legal
struggle could have national significance, especially given
the current wrangling over the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) itself. The ESA has proven to be one of the nation's
most enduring environmental laws, having survived numer-
ous attacks by powerful developers and by mining and
logging interests and their government allies. The US Fish
& Wildlife Service, under political pressure to weaken
species protections while under legal pressure to uphold
resource laws like the Endangered Species Act, is deeply
divided. While many Service staff are earnestly trying to
implement science-based land management, the Bush Ad-
ministration has appointed Matthew Hogan, the former
chief lobbyist for the Safari Club (an extreme trophy hunt-
ing group), to head the agency, and several bills that could
gut the ESA altogether are heading toward votes in con-
gress. Allowing further destruction of severely imperiled
species on San Bruno Mountain would strike a substantial
blow to the Act. Conversely, Mountain Watch supports
all efforts to strengthen the ESA to gain stronger protec-
tions for San Bruno Mountain and for other natural treas-
ures.

Love the Mountain, and Fight for It
Fundamental to San Bruno Mountain Watch's struggles
are a variety of volunteer efforts, educational slideshows,
collaborations with local agencies and officials, guided
hikes, weed pulling parties, and other celebrations of the
mountain's intricate beauty. We attempt to address the
mountain's broad range of conservation needs along with
the public's need for education, recreation, and inspiration.
We're currently focused on:
� Educating people of all ages about their local environ-
ment, and the need to actively appreciate and protect
it. We offer slideshows, guided hikes, and supervised
service learning.
� Stopping further development in the Brisbane Quarry;
which has gouged into the heart of the Mountain for
almost 100 years, destroying vast rare species habitat
along the way.
� Preserving the privately-owned Brisbane Acres, which
comprise the mountain's most intact unprotected
habitat.
� Preventing the issuance of a permit to kill the severely
imperiled San Francisco Silverspot butterfly
under proposed changes to the HCP.
� Raising the level of professional land management by
securing grants.
� Hiring skilled, knowledgeable, and dedicated weeding
crews.
� Upholding Federal and State clean water laws by
suing the Amloc dump in Colma for water pollution
violations.
� Enhancing our substantial historical archives and
expanding activities in our Mountain Learning Center
in Brisbane.
� Organizing volunteer weeding parties.

The mountain is an irreplaceable part of our human habitat,
it must be defended tenaciously; it should also be
enjoyed as the marvelous wild spectacle that it is. Opportunities
abound for people of all ages and interests to
protect and enjoy San Bruno Mountain. Strange and
never-ending as it may seem, weeding the mountain may
be the most popular activity. Besides rekindling what is
for many a long lost, visceral interaction with the land,
it's a fantastic way to learn about plants, land management,
and politics, to promote species diversity, to get
some exercise, to help care for our shared park resources,
and to work joyfully with others. Please join us.

For More Information and To Get Involved:
Contact San Bruno Mountain Watch,
Brisbane, CA 94005. Fax / tel 415-467-6631.
Email: mountainwatch@earthlink.net.
Website: www.mountainwatch.org

***

Philip Batchelder is currently associated with Mathew & George Attorneys at Law. See the following link to learn more about Philip: https://www.caemployeelawyer.com/attorneys/philip-batchelder/

Joe Cannon: The Man, The Myth, The City College Professor

Publisher: City College Center for Habitat Restoration
Reporter: Caroline Christman

I took an hour one Thursday to talk to one of City Col-
lege's newest professors, Joe Cannon. Not only is Mr. Can-
non teaching classes here in ecology and botany, he is also
managing a project on San Bruno Mt. called the Colma
Creek Restoration Project. Joe's botany students have al-
ready visited and worked on this project. Most exciting of
all, anyone can be a part of the restoration of Colma Creek
by volunteering with the Heart of the Mountain group; their
program meets on the second and fourth Saturday of every
month from 10:00am to 12:30pm. Find out more by visiting
www.heartofthemountain.org.

Interview with Joe Cannon
Caroline: When did you start working at City College?
What inspired you to become a professor here?
Joe: I started here in Spring of 2004. I first started working
in habitat restoration at the Presidio, at the time I wanted
to save the environment. It quickly became clear to me that
the problem was people. Habitat restoration was a vehicle -
helping nature and changing people's relationship to nature.
Education is the most direct way to address people's rela-
tionship with nature.

C: The ecology program at City College is small; do you
plan on introducing any new classes? Do you have a vision
for the future of an ecology or environmental science pro-
gram here?

J: Crima (Pogge) and I are going to a conference at De Anza
Community College to learn about creating environmental
studies programs. They have a pretty good program there;
they also have a pretty good program at Merritt College.
It's pretty amazing that City College has no program; this
will hopefully change.

C: You have many years of experience with habitat restoration,
what are some of the most positive events and some
of the most challenging events in which you have taken
part?

J: The most positive event is the change I've seen in people's
lives that is due to volunteering (in habitat restoration
programs); volunteers develop a new relationship with the
environment. People show up for one program, and even-
tually they change careers and invest fully in habitat restora-
tion.
Also, things like the Presidio Native Plant Nursery had a lot
of bureaucratic resistance and many obstacles to program
growth, but some people such as Sharon Farrell and Pete
Holloran and myself had a vision for the program and
persisted, and it is now a large and well-established pro-
gram. There was also a lot of resistance from the public
to any land use change in the Presidio, which was very
challenging; and the National Park Service (NPS) often
resisted active restoration because it was too controver-
sial, too expensive. The NPS also put up a lot of resis-
tance to volunteers. They thought volunteers would dam-
age native plants and endangered species. They didn't
appreciate that volunteers could contribute a lot of ex-
pertise and knowledge. Now volunteers make up most of
the work force in the Presidio!

C: Where did you first begin working on habitat restora-
tion? Who did you work with? Did you have a mentor?
What did you learn from them?

J: I first worked on the Mission Blue Butterfly Project in
the Marin Headlands and on Milagra Ridge. I worked with
Sue Gardner, but she left almost immediately to start the
Site Stewardship Project, which she still runs. I took over
Mission Blue project and worked for 6 months to
finish the initial 3 year project. Site Stewardship now
works at those Mission Blue sites. Actually, it was soon
after this that City College adopted Wolf Back Ridge.
If anyone was a mentor to me it was Sharon Farrell, she
taught me a lot about working with people and the im-
portance of volunteers. She helped me move from a pure
science perspective to involving people in restoration.

C: I've heard rumors that a native plant garden is going to
be started on campus.

J: Our first project is going to be a primitive plant garden in
one of the bays on the East side of the Science Hall. This
has lots of teaching value for botany classes. A native plant
garden is a goal for the future, it may be in the second of
the Science Hall bays or, ideally, on this steep slope on
campus that is not slated for development. Volunteers have
been working there for years and the plan is to get a com-
munity-based botanical garden started there. That way stu-
dents can go out to the primitive garden and the native plant
garden and see the things we're talking about in class.

The Colma Creek Restoration Project
Colma Creek is located on the northern portion of San
Bruno Mt. on San Mateo County and CA State Park land.
This riparian corridor is one of the few remaining relatively
intact on the San Francisco Peninsula, with an area of ma-
ture willow forest along the upper East arm of the Creek.
Riparian areas, along with marshes, are important stop over
points for many birds that migrate along the Pacific Flyway;
they are also home to innumerable plant and animal species
year-round. The Colma Creek area is a favorite spot for
birders and hikers because of the wildlife diversity.

Heart of the Mountain, a volunteer group started by Pete
Holloran of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), has
been working to control non-native invasive plants in this
area for several years. The group has been successful in
involving many people from the neighboring communities in
habitat restoration. Now, with funding from Proposition 40,
more extensive work can be done. The Colma Creek Restoration
Project is being coordinated by Joe Cannon and
sponsored by The Watershed Project, a non-profit organi-
zation, will involve removing blue gum eucalyptus trees
(Eucalyptus globulus) and other non-native plants along the
headwaters of Colma Creek and replacing them with native
plants.

The first phase of the project will be tree removal and re-
moval of large patches of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus dis-
color), English ivy (Hedera helix) and Cape ivy (Delairea odo
rata); this will be performed by San Mateo County Fire
Crews. Volunteers will be involved in removing smaller
patches of non-native plants, following-up on ivy and black-
berry removal, and planting native plants grown at the
Friends of San Bruno Mt. Mission Blue Nursery (a San
Mateo County-sponsored group that does restoration on
San Bruno Mt) or at the Fort Funston Nursery (part of the
Golden Gate Recreational Area). The project goal is to
enhance this riparian area for wildlife and to create an uninterrupted
corridor from the headwaters of Colma Creek
down to Guadalupe Canyon Parkway.

Volunteers
One important aspect of the project, and one of the stated
project priorities, is that it will involve volunteers in weed-
ing, planting, and growing plants in the nurseries, and will
provide educational programs to foster knowledge of native
plants and ecosystem function. Volunteers will not be in-
volved in tree removal, but will be removing Himalayan
blackberry, cotoneaster (Cotoneaster pannosa), Cape ivy,
English ivy, sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), purple velvet
grass (Holcus lanatus), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum),
mustard (Brassica nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sati-
vus), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). Addition-
ally, the Heart of the Mountain volunteer pro-
gram will continue to work on controlling other pioneer
populations of thes targeted invasive species.

Eucalyptus Removal

Why do the eucalyptus need to be removed to restore this
rare and valuable habitat? Eucalyptus trees are growing
along the headwaters of Colma Creek, which disturbs this
riparian ecosystem in several important ways. Eucalyptus
grow quickly and can form dense stands in areas with
enough moisture, such as along a creek or in an area with
fog. They are allelopathic, producing chemicals that can
retard germination of many seeds and inhibiting growth of
other species. Additionally, eucalyptus release oils that
coats the soil making it hydrophobic, or unable to absorb
water. In the shade beneath the eucalyptus you will not find
the native plants that usually grow on the forest floor in
California, rather, other invasive plants such as English ivy,
Cape ivy and Himalayan blackberry dominate this area.
Most native plants cannot tolerate the conditions below the
eucalyptus because of the shade, the oils, and the change in
hydrology.

The change in hydrology is the most important factor in
this restoration project. Eucalyptus achieve great height
very rapidly, they accomplish this by competing successfully
for available moisture. They have both a deep tap root and
a layer of intricate surface roots, this allows them to absorb
water from the soil as it rains or as their leaves collect and
drip fog, and their tap root can tap into the water table,
especially where it is close to the surface along creeks. This
means that much of the water that would be in the soil, in
the creek or in other plants and animals is instead being
used by the eucalyptus. Also, they are large and lose more
water to transpiration than a smaller tree; this is water that
would otherwise flow into the water table or the creek.
Much research has been done on eucalyptus water use and
have shown that eucalyptus reduce water yields in an area
and use more water than most other trees, which in turn
means that less water is able to reach Colma Creek and the
wildlife that depend on the creek.

The Colma Creek Restoration Project will remove about 3
acres of eucalyptus and non-native understory plants from
areas adjacent to Colma Creek. This will be done after
bird-nesting season (March15-Aug 15) to ensure that no
nests are destroyed. Eucalyptus stumps will be cut and
painted with herbicide to keep them from resprouting. Silt
fences and weed-free straw will be used to control erosion
during the first few rainy seasons. These cleared areas will
then be replanted with natives to form several different
plant communities.

Planting Natives
The primary plant community that will be established in the
areas up slope away from the creek channel will be coastal
scrub, with dominant plants such as California sagebrush
(Artemsia californica) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis),
this area will also have patches of grasses such as blue wild
rye (Elymus glaucus) and herbaceous plants such as gum
plant (Grindelia hirsutula) and coyote mint (Monardella vil-
losa). Mature coastal scrub forms dense cover and will dis-
courage reinvasion of the area by non-native invasive plant
species. Rushes (Juncus patens, J. phaeocephalus, J. balticus,
etc.) and sedges ( Carex densa, C. obnuta, C. subbracteata,
etc.) will be planted along the creek with small trees such
as pacific wax myrtle (Myrica californica) and American dog-
wood (Cornus sericea ssp. sericea) and herbaceous plants
such as seep monkeyflower (Mimmulus guttatus) on the
banks. A wet meadow area will be recreated above the
road using, grasses such as California oat grass (Danthonia
californica) and meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum).
Native annual species will be directly seeded on to the restoration
areas.

Where will nurseries get the seeds for propagation? Native
seed has been collected by the dedicated volunteer Leroy
French and by the Heart of the Mountain volunteers. Seeds
are all collected on San Bruno Mt., and from within the
Colma Creek watershed as much as possible. Collecting
seeds in this area ensures that the plants are adapted to
local conditions. To protect resources, no more than 10%
of the seeds from any 1 population or individual plant are
collected in a season. Some plants that spread using root-
like structures called rhizomes can be divided at the base;
most of the plant is left intact in the soil, a small part is re-
moved to the nursery and grows there until it can be
planted during the next rainy season. For plants such as
rushes and sedges this is much easier than collecting seed.
All of the plants need to be planted during the winter and
early spring when it is raining so that they can become es-
tablished before the dry summer months.

The Colma Creek area of San Bruno Mt. is truly beautiful
and teeming with wildlife. Volunteering on this project
would be a great way to learn about native plants and the
wildlife found in a riparian corridor, from salamanders to
migratory birds. To find out more about how to volunteer,
visit: www.heartofthemountaint.org .

Saving a slice of heaven in Brisbane

Publisher: San Francisco Chronicle
Reporter: Geoffrey Coffey

Brisbane Acres, a privately held plot of native grasslands, rises between the town of Brisbane and the state and county park of San Bruno Mountain. A walk here is like viewing a page from the California history book -- steep, hoary stands of melic and fescue athwart canyons of buckeye and oak, punctuated by johnny jump-up, silver lupine and broadleaf stonecrop, the larval food plants of rare and endangered butterflies.

Carved into jigsaw-puzzle pieces by an "unrecorded subdivision" in the 1930s, with titles now held by hundreds of individuals, the Acres live in a state of bondage. Houses already cover 20 of the original 111 parcels (all on the lower slopes), and developers have mapped routes for roads and building throughout the remaining 120 wild acres. Opinions among owners about what the future of the Acres should be diverge radically. Some would like to preserve their land as open space, while others want to build. One owner proposed turning his 1-acre parcel into an Indian casino.

The near-vertical pitch of these slide-prone grades would appear to discourage the average builder -- but the Bay Area real estate market is anything but average. Already, the narrow, private roads on the lower, comparatively gentle slopes "typically do not meet fire-code standards," according to the city of Brisbane. Some of the proposed new streets are merely drawn on paper, others follow the mad path of Virgil Karns, an eccentric landowner who once rode his bulldozer up and down these sheer ridges in his spare time.

Below the water tower, near the intersection of Beatrice and Margaret (two of Virgil's former dozer runs), a footpath splits off from the road. Perhaps an old Indian trail or a corridor for wildlife, it plunges through poison oak and fords a seasonal stream, then climbs into an old-growth forest of gnarled oak, dwarfed madrone, fruiting toyon, ocean spray and blooming Ceanothus. The sounds of the city grow faint beneath the epic silence of these woods as they stood centuries ago.

The Eastwood manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa) stretches its red serpentine branches for the light that pushes through openings in the canopy. This tree-like shrub grows 6 to 8 feet tall from a large basal burl, from which it will readily re-sprout after fire. Specimens so regenerated can live for hundreds of years. But flames have not touched this landscape within memory, and the manzanitas look tired. They crave a good burn.

After another switchback, the path rises into grassland, where the rare and endangered Diablo Helianthella (Helianthella castanea) waves its golden sunflower blossoms and the aromatic hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea) grows in 1,000-square-foot patches. Thick 3-foot clumps of California fescue (Festuca californica) hold the hill, while the silvery clusters of melic grass (Melica californica) dance with the purple owl's clover (Castilleja exserta), goldfields (Lasthenia californica), and many other spring wildflowers. Wherever the trail passes an exposed slab of greywacke, the slate-colored foundation stone of the mountain, look for the broadleaf stonecrop (Sedum spathulifolium), a spreading succulent that clings to cracks in the rock. Each exquisite rosette of slightly reddish green pushes up thumb-sized flower stalks, whose yellow clusters shine against the grey stone. This plant feeds the caterpillars of the Bay Area's federally protected San Bruno elfin butterfly. Home gardeners and commercial landscapers, take note -- it also makes a wonderful accent in any exposed stone landscaping, and a handsome addition to a rock garden.

Noteworthy among the many other standouts this month is the coast larkspur (Delphinium decorum ssp. decorum), a gorgeous dark-blue flower with a nodding 2-foot habit and a prominent spur. The Mendocino Indians prized larkspur for its narcotic properties, but please note this genus contains toxic alkaloids that have killed cattle, so no experimentation is advised.

Glorious in bloom, these lands and their many animal inhabitants lie in limbo.

Heeding calls from citizens who value the wilderness over the subdivision, Brisbane began buying parcels of the Acres in 1997, using money set aside annually for open-space acquisition and with grants from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Coastal Commission.

This program has stewarded 23 parcels (with six more currently in escrow), covering more than 30 acres, into city-owned open space, including one contiguous block of the canyons and grasslands southwest of the water tower and another in the prime butterfly habitat of the upper Bayshore Ridge.

Nonetheless, dangers remain. Some would like to build dream houses here, capitalizing on that million-dollar view of San Francisco. In addition, growing populations of blue gum Eucalyptus, broom, fennel and other weeds escape from residential areas into untrammeled zones to degrade the native diversity and kill off local species. Brisbane's vegetation management plan spends $20,000 annually to combat exotic invasive plants, with the goal of total eradication.

But native plants also invade -- coastal scrub, for example, encroaches upon grassland when not checked by fire. Fred Smith, assistant to the Brisbane city manager, named scrub, along with development and weeds, as the top three threats facing the Acres today.

Fire presents a different problem. A controlled burn two summers ago in Wax Myrtle Canyon jumped its planned 5-acre boundary and spread to 75 acres, ending a stone's throw from residential housing. Judged by the rejuvenated landscape, this project was a tremendous success -- but the risk to human settlements raised some eyebrows.

Such are the paradoxes along the wildland-urban border. Proceed at your own risk and reward.

On San Bruno Mountain

Join Geoffrey Coffey and San Bruno Mountain Watch founder David Schooley on a hiking tour of the Brisbane Acres on Sunday. Tickets are $25, proceeds benefit SBMW. Reservations are required and subject to space limitations. Call (415) 467-6631 for booking and directions. Please note, this is a steep and strenuous trail.

Habitat Restoration Day, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Saturday. Take care of the Acres and join the Brisbane community on Earth Day for a weed-pulling party to root out broom, fennel, cotoneaster and other exotic invasive plants. Free lunch, T-shirts, tools, training and a wildflower walk at noon. Meet at the City Hall parking lot, 50 Park Place, Brisbane. A shuttle departs for the work site every half-hour beginning at 8:30 a.m. Volunteers should wear sunscreen, gloves, long pants, long sleeves, a hat and heavy-duty shoes. The work will go on until 4 p.m.

Writer and landscaper Geoffrey Coffey can be contacted at www.geoffreycoffey.com.

�2005 San Francisco Chronicle

Environmental groups sue California water boards to force compliance with Public Records Act

Publisher: Capitol Reports -- Environmental News Link
Reporter: No Byline

OAKLAND, CA (03/28/05) -- Three environmental group have sued the State Water Resources Control Board and all nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards to force compliance with the California Public Records Act. Riverlaw, As You Sow and the San Bruno Mountain Watch filed the lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court.

The groups claim the state and regional water boards have violated state law by implementing policies contrary to the Public Records Act. Specifically, the groups charge the boards have violated the Public Records Act by 1) preventing inspection of public records at all times during the boards' office hours, 2) burdening requesters with the task of retaining commercial services to obtain copies of the boards' public records, 3) neglecting to make requested public records promptly available, 4) failing to limit charges for copies of public records to the direct costs of duplication, 5) limiting the number of public records that may be reviewed, and 6) limiting the types of public records available for review.

The groups also say the water boards have also not forwarded their policies on access to public records to the California Office of Administrative Law for required review.

"Government transparency is vital to democracy," said Iryna Kwasny, Director of RiverLaw. "The water boards' restrictive policies seriously burden all Californians, including environmental organizations, who wish to monitor the effectiveness of our state's water policies."

RiverLaw is an alliance of the Environmental Law Foundation, Friends of the River and the South Yuba River Citizens League. As You Sow is a non-profit foundation dedicated to the protection of the environment and human health and the improvement of worker and consumer safety, and it promotes environmental education and corporate accountability. More information is available at www.asyousow.org. San Bruno Mountain Watch is a 2100-member nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of San Bruno Mountain and its unique resources.

Lofty plans for former landfill: Developer proposes commercial district for Baylands property

Publisher: San Francisco Chronicle
Reporter: Ulysses Torassa

One of the last large tracts of developable land on the Peninsula could become a major shopping and commercial district under a plan being proposed by the land's owner.

The Brisbane property known as the Baylands includes a former landfill, rail yards and lock factory on 540 acres just west of Highway 101. It is contaminated with toxic chemicals and has sat vacant for years while various proposals, including a golf course and water park, have been floated and discarded.

The owner of the land, Universal Paragon Corp., submitted an application and a $50,000 deposit with the city Friday to start the approval process for a planned 1 million square feet of commercial and retail space on a 330-acre chunk of the property.

Possible uses include shopping centers, offices, auto malls and hotels. The project will not include housing because the site is too contaminated for people to live there. About one-quarter of the land would be set aside for open space.

But cleaning up the property to make it safe enough for even commercial use won't be cheap. The company has already spent $20 million on cleanup efforts and expects to spend another $20 million more, Universal Paragon spokesman Bill Chiang said Wednesday.

Brisbane officials are cautiously optimistic about the proposal, which will be the subject of a lengthy environmental review and several public hearings before it comes up for approval.

"I think there are great potential benefits to mitigating of contamination in the Baylands,'' said Mayor Michael Barnes, adding that more usable parkland and open space wouldn't hurt, either.

Still, he said, there are worries that big-box retailers and chain stores may conflict with the character of the small town. The City Council has formed a committee to look into those issues.

Chiang said the project would be a boon to Brisbane and the surrounding area by cleaning up a health hazard and eyesore and creating jobs and open space. And, he said, the property -- which was created by filling in part of the bay -- would be partly restored to wetlands.

City Manager Clay Holstine said the city plans to hire an outside expert at the landowner's expense to make sure cleanup efforts are adequate. Brisbane will also require Universal Paragon to pay for additional staffers in the planning department to handle the project.

The plan will be presented to the City Council on Monday, and Holstine said the panel expects to hold its first public hearing on the proposal in January. Copies of the 193-page application will also be available to the public on CD-ROM.

"There are going to be multiple opportunities for residents of Brisbane to participate,'' Holstine said.

E-mail Ulysses Torassa at utorassa@sfchronicle.com.

South City condo plan offers jobs: Planners review third phase of Terrabay proposal

Publisher: San Francisco Examiner
Reporter: Mary Albert

SO. SAN FRANCISCO -- The City Council and Planning Commission got their first peek Wednesday at developers' proposed plan for a massive mixed-use complex known as "Terrabay Phase III" or the "North Peninsula Plaza."

Surprised by the substantial differences between this plan and the one initially proposed years ago by Myers Development Company, many council members and planning commissioners agreed that current plans bear a lot of potential for new jobs and additional city revenue.

Even so, they had many questions. After scrutinizing the three-dimensional model of the proposed mixed-use development, which boasts two massive high-rises -- one primarily for offices and the other for residential units -- parking, a child care center, performing arts center, valley trail, retail shops and a movie theater all linked by a "main street," council members and commissioners peppered the developers with questions.

Mayor Karyl Matsumoto asked the developers if they had secured commitments from potential retailers, while Vice Mayor Ray Green inquired about the previously discovered Indian shell mound.

Kazuko Morgan of Cushman & Wakefield responded that Borders, Barnes and Nobles, Williams Sonoma and restaurants such as Pasta Pomodoro have all expressed "strong interest" in the project.

Jack Myers, CEO of Myers Development, took on the latter question, explaining that the land, on which historic shell mounds were found, has been turned over to San Mateo County for protection and public use.

Myers also agreed to extend the soundwall promised to residents living near the Terrabay Phase II project after several residents complained that it is still not complete.

Antonio Rodriguez, for example, explained through a translator that the soundwall does not provide adequate protection.

He and others, such as teenagers Rebecca Camillo and Jessarela Orozco, also asked Myers to consider building a park for children who live in nearby Terrabay II.

Myers agreed to consider building one.

Building what he and architect Norman Garden of RTKL Associates described as a "classic and lasting" plaza, with landscaping and "a genuine sense of neighborhood," should begin by mid-2005.

Crews whack weeds on San Bruno Mtn.: Invasive gorse a fire hazard to nearby homes

Publisher: San Francisco Examiner
Reporter: Mary Albert

BRISBANE -- For Brisbane's Carolyn Parker, it is a relief to hear that work crews are taking a different approach this year to eradicating some of the highly flammable "gorse" weeds on San Bruno Mountain.

Parker's home in the Altamar on the Ridge estate development sat precariously close to a controlled burn that went out of control in July 2003.

Flames licked so close to her home that "I didn't know if I was going to have a house or not," said Parker, who evacuated her three pets when she started to smell smoke.

Now she is delighted to hear that work crews are tackling the invasive species near a residential area of Daly City with heavy-duty weed whackers and "brontosaurus" trucks.

"I think it is fabulous," said Parker.

Paid for with about $325,000 in Proposition 12 bond funds, crews launched a four-year project Oct. 4 and are about halfway done with their goal for the year, said Jen Zarnoch of May & Associates, Inc., which was hired by the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation to hack 31 acres of prickly weeds located on parklands above Daly City's Carter Street.

Their goal was to eradicate the area's mature gorse, seedlings and re-sprouts by 2006, and then re-vegetate the land with native species such as willow, elderberry and dogwood.

The crews will also begin restoring a small wetlands zone next summer, Zarnoch said.

In groups of about four, contractors from May & Associates have been hacking away at the weeds that not only pose a fire danger to the homes nearby, but are also strangling native plants that house the mountain's endangered Mission blue, Callippe silverspot and elfin butterflies.

Then, because the species of weed is so hearty and can grow back within months, crews are attacking the stumps with powerful herbicides.

"This is nasty stuff," said Sam Herzberg of the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation.

Friends of San Bruno Mountain's Doug Allshouse echoed Herzberg's comments, explaining that gorse is nicknamed "greasewood" because of the number of volatile oils within it.

In years past, California's Department of Forestry has conducted controlled burns to combat the species. One was scheduled for July in a different part of San Bruno Mountain near Juncus Ravine, but was postponed due to weather conditions.

San Bruno land set aside: Site was once used as Native American burial grounds

Publisher: San Francisco Examiner
Reporter: Mary Albert

The Bay Area's oldest bones can rest easy now that San Mateo County has acquired almost 26 acres of archeologically and environmentally valuable land.

On Thursday, the county purchased the open space because it is home to Native American burial grounds dating back to 3,200 B.C. as well as several federally recognized endangered species, according to national conservationist organization The Trust for Public Land, which coordinated the effort.

The acquisition ends years of efforts by environmental, political and preservation groups to save the eastern side of San Bruno Mountain, located between U.S. Highway 101 and San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, from commercial development by San Francisco-based Myers Development Company.

Now, the land where endangered Mission Blue and Callippe Silverspot butterflies flutter and Slipskin Ohlone peoples lived continuously for 5,000 years will be protected by San Bruno Mountain State and County Park.

"This is a great achievement for the county," said Mark Church, president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. "It is a huge step forward to protect the habitat of San Bruno Mountain."

Also, he said, the acquisition sets a "good precedent" for ongoing efforts to expand open space because it is the first time a comprehensive conservation plan has been implemented anywhere in the United States.

Original plans called for building three hotels and an office tower, according to The Trust.

But groups like San Bruno Mountain Watch had resisted development as early as the 1960s, said Executive Director David Schooley. In 1999, they took their objections to Myers' plans to court.

"This has been 30 years of effort to protect this area," said Schooley. "This is the final move."

Purchasing the property -- valued at $1,285,000 -- would not have been possible without funds from several sources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed about $860,000 of federal dollars through "section six" funding, said Assistant Field Supervisor Al Donner.

In addition, the San Francisco Foundation and Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council each contributed $50,000, and the Caltrans Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Fund chipped in $325,000, according to The Trust.

Staff Writer Justin Nyberg contributed to this report.

San Bruno Mountain and three other San Mateo Co. parks to re-open soon!

Publisher: Friends of Edgewood Park
Reporter: Bill Korbulz

At the September 28th final hearing for San Mateo County's 04-05 budget, the Supervisors approved unanimously a motion to add $187,489 to the Parks Department's budget in order to enable them to keep all parks open 7 days/week through June 30, 2005. In making the motion, Supervisor Jerry Hill spoke eloquently of the reasons for keeping parks open, including supporting the work of the Parks Foundation in raising money for an Interpretive Center at Edgewood, supporting the volunteer efforts at all of the parks, preventing vandalism, maintaining standard operating levels, and, importantly, committing to SMC Parks as a County priority. A couple of events came together to facilitate this outcome. First, the County's General Fund is $29M larger than expected and than it was last July at the last budget hearings, due to reduced takeaways from the State and to County operating surpluses from last year. Second, the Supervisors responded to the 100+ letters and emails they received urging them to reopen parks. Each of you who wrote or emailed or otherwise supported this issue should be proud of your participation in this decision-making process. I'm sure the Supervisors would appreciate a thank-you letter for their action." Please go to the County's website for contact information. Thank you. .

Parks to open again in middle of the week: As budget look better, board bows to public

Publisher: San Francisco Chronicle
Reporter: Ulysses Torassa

Four San Mateo County parks will soon be open during the middle of the week again after the Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to restore $186,500 in park funding that had been cut from the budget.

This summer, the county closed the Edgewood, Junipero Serra, San Bruno Mountain and San Pedro Valley parks on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays as a cost-savings move. At the time, supervisors expected a $56 million shortfall in the county budget, but that estimate has shrunk to about $27 million, according to Supervisor Jerry Hill, who sponsored the measure to restore the park funding from reserves.

The weekday closures prompted a grassroots campaign by citizens and parks groups, who said the parks were treasured destinations for the community.

"It's appropriate and important for us to bring back the quality of life we enjoy and our citizens expect," Hill said. "In many cases, it's a silent majority that use the parks, enjoy the parks and support the parks, and you don't hear from them until you take the parks away or try to limit their use. Then they speak very loud and clear, and we've heard that for the last few months."

The closures also led to more vandalism and to problems for schools and other groups that use the parks, Hill said. The parks even lost out on landscaping maintenance work donated by people in the community who could not get inside during the week.

Activists who rallied to restore the funding said they were gratified by the supervisors' vote, which was unanimous.

"We're really thrilled," said Ellen Schuette, executive director of Friends of Huddart and Wunderlich Parks, both in Woodside.

Those two parks were not among those that were closed during the week, but her group participated in the effort to get the funding restored. "To me, it means the supervisors understand the parks are truly a treasure," Schuette said.

Ed Pike of San Francisco, a former Peninsula resident and avid parks user, was a major force in drawing people and groups together to fight for more funding. The next step, he said, is to find a long-term solution for funding parks, instead of relying just on the annual county budget.

Hill agreed, saying the county was working with the local cities to develop a stable funding source. That might turn out to be a separate park agency, similar to the East Bay Regional Parks District, that relies on its own tax levies to operate and maintain their sites.

Also Tuesday, supervisors voted to restore funds for an anti-gang and street crime task force for the Sheriff's Department.

Although the county still faces a budget shortfall, it has about $120 million in reserves, Hill said. That's because county officials socked away money during the dot-com boom, knowing tougher times would inevitably return.

"We have prudent and excellent management," Hill said. "We didn't do what the state did. We saved the money just for that rainy day."

E-mail Ulysses Torassa at utorassa@sfchronicle.com.

San Bruno Mountain land acquired for park

Publisher: San Mateo County Times
Reporter: No Byline

San Mateo County and the Trust for Public Land have purchased 25 acres on the eastern side of San Bruno Mountain and donated the land to the San Bruno Mountain County and State Park.

The land includes a 5,000-year-old Ohlone Indian shell mound as well as wetlands and habitat for two federally listed endangered butterflies, the Mission Blue and the Callippe Silverspot.

The funds came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caltrans, the San Francisco Foundation and the Pajaro Valley Ohlone Indian Council. The land previously belonged to Myers Development, which had planned to build on it before a settlement was reached with the Indian tribe and San Bruno Mountain Watch.

Butterfly paradise lost?

Publisher: San Mateo County Times
Reporter: Emily Francher

SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN -- In 1983, local officials adopted a plan to save the fragile habitat of the endangered butterflies on San Bruno Mountain.

Two decades later, the butterflies are just as threatened as ever -- a fact not lost on officials who are in the middle of crafting an update, or amendment, aimed at strengthening the habitat conservation plan.

"If you have limited money, fighting nature is not easy," said Mike Wilson, a trustee who oversees the conservation plan for the mountain, along with other city and county representatives.

There's a growing consensus that the shortage of funds, conflicting science, and evolution of the mountain from grasslands to coastal scrub are taking a toll on the butterflies' habitat.

Everyone seems to agree on the problems, but no one seems to have a solution.

Home to several endangered butterfly species, San Bruno Mountain was the first place in the United States to adopt a habitat conservation plan (HCP), in the wake of the federal Endangered Species Act. The plan allows for developers to build on the mountain in exchange for preserving an equal amount of land as open space.

Successful at saving the majority of the mountain's 3,600 acres as open space, the plan nevertheless has failed to significantly preserve the grasslands where the butterflies' host plants thrive.

"What we're trying to do may be impossible," County Manager John Maltbie, a trustee of the mountain. "After the HCP expires, it could be you'll see a natural evolution of the mountain and an extinction of the species."

The HCP will expire in about a decade, but in the meantime, all agree it's underfunded, with about $120,000 a year from homeowners and developers in the area. That money goes to weed out invasive plants, replant native species, monitor the butterfly population and other efforts.

More money could come from grants, a special assessment on the ballot or from an endowment from a developer. Brisbane City Manager Clay Holstine said he expects Brookfield Homes to approach the City Council in the next two months with a plan to build fewer than 168 homes on the mountain, as well as provide some money for an endowment -- perhaps a few million dollars.

"I think the next five years will be critical," said Holstine. "We've go to put more resources into preserving the habitat."

One idea to solve the constant money crisis is to transfer the mountain to the federal government, perhaps the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, but some say budget constraints may make that idea unrealistic.

Meanwhile, the environmental review of a major amendment to the HCP will begin next week. The amendment itself must be finished by next July. As part of the revision, the endangered Callippe Silverspot and the threatened Bay Checkerspot butterflies would be added to the plan, which already includes the Mission Blue and San Bruno Elfin. The revision would also incorporate a few endangered plant species and look at butterfly-counting techniques, grazing and controlled burns, and weed-control plans.

As part of the process, a public meeting on the environmental review of the amendment will be held July 29 from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m at 475 Mission Blue Drive, and from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at 250 Visitacion Ave.

Staff writer Emily Fancher can be reached at (650) 348-4340 or efancher@sanmateocountytimes.com .

County park users upset by three-day-per-week closures

Publisher: San Mateo County Times
Reporter: Emily Francher

SAN BRUNO -- Under a bright blue sky, Otaviano Junior stood beneath a stand of eucalyptus trees in Junipero Serra County Park on Monday, having just finished his daily wanderings in the woods here.

Junior comes to this 108-acre park every day, but starting today he'll face a locked gate at the entrance if he tries to stroll in for a daily shot of fresh air and Bay views.

"I come here to pray, to walk, to read," said Junior, who lives in San Bruno. "I like the place."

Junipero Serra and three other County parks -- San Pedro Valley in Pacifica, Edgewood in Redwood City and San Bruno Mountain near Daly City -- will be closed on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays for an indefinite period, casualties of the County's shrinking parks budget.

"People are calling us and are really upset about it," said Philip Batchelder of San Bruno Mountain Watch.

San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Division targeted these four parks because they're lesser-used, but that's no consolation to those shut out of their stomping grounds. The department estimates that the closures will affect just 5 percent of visitors -- roughly 100,000 people a year.

The closures will save money in staff time spent opening the gates and cleaning bathrooms and will enable the department to keep open more heavily used parks.

The department had its budget cut 42 percent over the past three years, leaving it with $7 million to manage 16 parks spread over 15,000 acres, said Superintendent Gary Lockman. That's not nearly enough money, park advocates say. That's why they're working on creating a Countywide parks district that would fund ongoing maintenance and operations, if approved by the voters.

Lockman said the department appreciates calls from volunteers who have offered to help out, but that rangers are needed to keep these areas safe and sanitary.

"We're going to ask people to respect the closure signs," Park Ranger and volunteer coordinator Nick Ramirez said, adding that visitors will be asked to leave on affected days. "If people are repeat offenders, they could be subject to a citation."

But some are concerned that people won't respect the signs.

Bruce Grosjean, who likes to walk daily in San Bruno Mountain County Park, said he's worried that people will walk their dogs, which is forbidden, when the park is closed.

Batchelder is fearful that with fewer eyes watching, more bicyclists, motorcycles and illegal dumping will hit the mountain.

Bill Korbholz, a board member of the Friends of Edgewood Park, said his organization supports the County's decision but is saddened by it. He encourages residents to let the County know how the closures affect them.

Julia Bott of the San Mateo County Parks Foundation, which raises money to help fund the parks, said many people want to know what they can do to help the parks crisis.

"Everybody's heartbroken by it," said Bott. "People are interested in ways to address the problem."

Chris Hunter of the Pacifica Tribune contributed to this article.

Staff writer Emily Fancher covers Daly City, South San Francisco, Colma and Brisbane. She can be reached at (650) 348-4340 or efancher@sanmateocountytimes.com .

Power line route raises concerns for health

Publisher: San Francisco Chronicle
Reporter: Ryan Kim

Twenty-seven miles long and brimming with energy, PG&E's proposed transmission line is poised to power San Francisco and the Peninsula for years.

Or, if you believe some concerned residents and local officials who have protested the proposal, it's a coiled snake that poses a serious health threat.

On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission will vote on an alignment for Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s $207 million Jefferson-Martin Transmission project. The line will travel north from the Jefferson Substation west of Redwood City to the Martin Substation.

The controversial 230,000-volt line, a combination of underground and overhead wires, will create a link between substations in Brisbane and Redwood City, adding electrical capacity.

PG&E is touting the project as a way to meet rising demand and to provide a hedge against blackouts.

"As time goes on in all communities in the United States, demand for electricity continues to grow," said PG&E spokesman Paul Moreno. "The growth sometimes slows or increases, but we have to build infrastructure to meet that. "

On Thursday, the PUC will select an alignment from two proposals that are nearly identical -- except that one explores the possibility of a detour over San Bruno Mountain, away from several Daly City schools.

The project, six years in the making, has raised questions about the danger the line might pose to residents. Critics are concerned by the electromagnetic fields (EMFs) created by the lines, part of an evolving area of scientific research that has yet to reach consensus on the potential health threats to humans.

According to a 2002 scientific review by the California Department of Health Services, which surveyed published studies, these fields might cause increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's disease and miscarriage. However, scientists said there is still no conclusive link tying EMFs to these diseases.

PG&E officials have pointed out the lack of a causal relationship, but residents said there is enough evidence to warrant caution.

"There are a lot of people here who are very concerned about EMFs," said Katie Carlin, an organizer with the 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens. "This issue is not going away. New studies are being released, and scientists are redoing their old studies and finding not only associations but (eventually) causations."

Carlin's organization represents several hundred households along Skyline Boulevard in Burlingame, Hillsborough and unincorporated San Mateo County, where the line is scheduled to travel underground near homes.

The citizens group has proposed running the line a mile to the west -- through the San Francisco Peninsula Watershed -- and although its plan is not being considered by the PUC, residents have continued to lobby individual commission members.

On nearby Trousdale Drive in Burlingame, residents also protested an early draft of the plan that had the line running along their busy road. On June 9, however, a PUC administrative law judge noted the potential EMF threat to Trousdale residents and ruled out that alignment.

But residents there said the issue still needs to be dealt with along the entire length of the project. Dennis Zell, co-chair of Concerned Residents of Burlingame, who fought the Trousdale alignment, said the commission should also heed administrative law judge Charlotte TerKeurst's suggestion to update its EMF studies, its maximum exposure standards for EMF in residential areas and its mitigation measures.

"We feel like we dodged a bullet," Zell said. "But the broader question is: When is the PUC going to recognize the danger EMF poses to children and pregnant women, and when are they going to change their rules?"

PG&E's Moreno said the people are exposed to EMFs from television sets, computers, lights and other electronic equipment. He said PG&E also will be spending millions of dollars to minimize the threat of EMFs.

"The fact is we live with EMFs every day," Moreno said. "If these people were really concerned about EMFs, they'd turn off their electricity in their homes and homeschool their kids. It's like complaining about secondhand smoke while puffing on a cigarette."

But critics are still not buying it. Daly City Mayor Sal Torres, for one, said the issue is too uncertain and fraught with hidden dangers to plod ahead blindly. He is pushing for a detour over San Bruno Mountain that will keep the line away from three elementary schools and one middle school.

While PG&E said the wires would not be close enough to register any EMFs at three of the four schools during median electrical loads, Torres said it's too risky.

"There are enough question marks for me," he said. "I can tell you with absolute certainty that running the wires over (San Bruno Mountain) will not be near these children and adults, and that is a heck of a lot better than running them under humans and taking a chance. It's like rolling a dice and hoping that in 20 years we'll have a good roll."

But Torres' plan has angered environmentalists, who say it would do serious damage to endangered animals and plant species.

"We're talking about adding huge towers and significant ground disturbance and, frankly, PG&E has a miserable record of mitigating for damage to habitats," said Philip Batchelder, program director for the San Bruno Mountain Watch.

Baylands site may finally be set for development

Publisher: Baylands site may finally be set for development
Reporter: Emily Fancher

BRISBANE -- At first it seems like a developer's dream: 530 vacant acres in San Mateo County with views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain.

But on closer inspection, there's a good reason no one has yet developed the Baylands in Brisbane: The toxic legacy left by the Southern Pacific railyard and the city's landfill made this site an environmental mess.

But after years of cleanup and preparatory work, the site might soon be ready for development.

The owner, Universal Paragon Corp., is stepping forward with plans for the Baylands, bordered by Highway 101 to the east, Bayshore Boulevard to the west, Sunnydale and Beatty Avenues to the north and the Brisbane Lagoon to the south.

Bill Chiang, a representative of the project, said the company hopes to submit a specific plan to the city by July for the first phase, covering 330 acres. He said plans call for an outdoor commercial retail center and some office space, with about 110 acres of open space. He said the first phase will only cover the closed landfill, not the contaminated railyard areas.

Holstine said the plan will trigger an environmental impact report that could take up to two years to complete, and a groundbreaking might be up to four years off.

Chiang estimated that Universal Paragon has spent $20 million on cleanup over the last 10 years. The toxics on the site include industrial oil and heavy metals in the soil; also, methane gas is emitted from the landfill.

Many Brisbane residents want the tax revenue and local jobs that developing the site could bring, while others are wary of building on contaminated land.

"This is going to be the biggest change in the history of Brisbane," said resident Karen Evans Cunningham. "This is an incredible opportunity for Brisbane, but we need to be careful how we proceed."

Cunningham said she hopes the city does a thorough job of investigating the site so that residents aren't exposed to toxins or to lawsuits. The city has already held several environmental workshops and plans to hold three more in coming months, including one on May 19.

"Universal Paragon is extremely interested in what the community has to say in the community meetings," said Chiang.

Holstine said the city is gearing up to hire the consultants and staff necessary to handle a project of this magnitude, and the developer will reimburse the city for the costs associated with the project.

Ignacio Dayrit, a consultant for the California Center for Land Recycling, said that though many sites are more contaminated than the Baylands, it is one of the largest toxic sites he's worked on.

"This is a unique site in the type of contamination and also in its potential," said Dayrit. "It's a challenge."

Staff writer Emily Fancher covers Brisbane, Daly City, South San Francisco and Colma. She can be reached at (650) 348-4340 or efancher@sanmateocountytimes.com .

Earth lovers weed San Bruno Mountain: Brisbane residents celebrate Earth Day by plucking non-native plants

Publisher: San Mateo County Times
Reporter: David Burger

BRISBANE -- French broom, a plant with yellow foliage, got its name because its branches were once cut and made into brooms.

But hundreds of French broom plants were on the opposite end of a spring cleaning on Saturday, as they were removed from San Bruno Mountain by more than 70 Brisbane residents celebrating Earth Day.

"French broom is an invasive species," said Brisbane Mayor Michael Barnes. "The city needs to manage this land so that the community is protected from fire danger and indigenous species are protected from extinction."

The city held its first San Bruno Mountain Habitat Restoration Day on Saturday to coincide with the 34th anniversary of Earth Day.

In recent years, Brisbane has bought more than 20 acres of undeveloped land on the mountain. The city learned that non-native plants were destroying the ecosystem on the slopes and surrounding valleys of the mountain.

"It's incumbent on us to protect our public lands," said Lisa Pontecorvo, Open Space and Ecology Analyst for Brisbane. "And we also want to promote the concept of community stewardship and give a sense of ownership."

Scout troops, school groups and other residents of the area set their sights primarily on removing French broom, a bushy plant that can grow up to eight feet tall. Because it is spring, the legume plant is easily identified by its small pea-like yellow flowers that bloom along the stem in twos and threes between April and June.

"French broom is the official flower of Brisbane, because it's everywhere, unfortunately," said Doug Allshouse, President of Friends of San Bruno Mountain. "Ecologically, the mountain is in a lot of trouble."

Allshouse said that rare native plants like Diablo Rockrose and Franciscan Wallflowers and three endangered butterfly species depend on a mountain free of invasive species.

French broom was originally planted to hold down a ledge of dirt that was created to protect Brisbane from quarry dust. Grazing cows kept the broom from overgrowth, but now that the cows are gone, the broom has been allowed to grow unimpeded, said Brisbane resident Dennis Busse.

Busse said Brisbane is different now, with an active city leadership that has turned the town that was once founded on a landfill into an attractive Bayside community.

He did have one request, though: "Bring back the cows."

Actually, Mayor Barnes noted, goats have been imported onto parts of the mountain to eat the invasive species. But he said the city needs to be proactive while the pilot program is still being tested.

"Proactive" would describe 12-year-old Brisbane resident Brian Alexander Miles, who began weeding the mountain at 8:30 a.m. and planned on staying until the end of the event at 4 p.m. With dirt on his knees and sweat on his brow, he used a small version of the weed wrench to remove roots while avoiding the poison oak that also has infested the mountain.

They've told me, this is our back yard, and we're glad to get to know it better, she said.>

Reach staff writer David Burger at (650) 348-4329 or dburger@sanmateocountytimes.com .